Pedro Paulo Gaião wrote: | ||||||||||||||
All that you showed me appear to be the result of literary fiction. Is this the case or it really happened?
So we could assume that a land nobleman would usually be richer than a warband warrior? (Maybe it was too obvious, but just noticed it now)
Really? Because I had read a NatGeo's text that explored a very cruel side of what could be called "slavery" in the Viking Age: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/12/15...chaeology/
I do not know if I trully understand what you said: there would be a great battle between voters of opposite parties and whoever won would elect their candidate? It seems a great blood bath for a royal election.
It is an observation that makes sense. But if Jarls were the dukes, there would be something like a Count, like the german "graf"? Or title only came to be imported from around 1300, as you mentioned? By the way, as you seem to dominate the military history of Scandinavia more than the others, you may be able to do much in this discussion, since scandinavia has a very important role in the use and popularization of this type of armor: http://myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=33438&highlight= -------
But the Anglo-Saxons (and probably the Nordic too), didn't had archers between their armies? I suspect that they would be the poorest, armed with a bow, a bunch of arrows and a knife. Warriors like these don't need shield and helmet, as they would do mostly skirmishing.
Thank you, will help me a lot |
The story of Hrolf Krake is a legend about a perfect King and perfect heroes that fight to the death for their perfect King.
As such it is an ideal (like later stories of perfect knights) - the reality is probably that most often retainers only fought until their leader was dead. Then there was nothing more to fight for as neither side fought for anything more than their leader's quest for fame. They were personally bound to him (not his family, not his people or his lands).
National geographic and its "slavery" is not based on any reality we know of: People have generally a totally flawed view on viking society.
Legal text are seemingly clear about thralls in Scandinavia and they are servants and have rights (their own money).
People might object that everyone could kill a thrall - but everyone could kill everyone in viking society. It was legal to conduct a blood feud against the King if you wanted, until feuding families settled it with blood-money.
The difference is just that killing a Thrall will not start a blood feud (but usually a payment of compensation), whereas killing a Free Man will.
The is a clear difference legally between "killing" and "murder" in Scandinavian society.
Killing is manly - something generally positive, but for being qualified as a killing, it has to be done so people know who did the deed. For instance you have to leave your weapon in the body of the guy you killed if you sneaked into his house at night time or hacked him down on a road with no witnesses. Really manly men stood over the corpse and waited for witnesses to arrive, so they could declare their heroic action and tell them them who he is and who the dead man was (then you don't have to leave your weapon behind). As the Havamal say when you leave your house, you never leave your weapons out of arms reach unless by custom, when you enter another mans home where the rule of guest-friendship is sacred.
An attempt on your life can come at any time, anywhere - sleeping is dangerous.
Killing is acceptable, since if everyone knows who did it then the offended family can retain its honour by having blood revenge. If you can't conduct vengeance (because of murder) you are an "unmanly man" (argr/ragr) like something conducting passive homosexuality or doing female magic (seidr). So until the murderer can be found it leaves the offended family dishonoured.
The blood revenge was a matter between two families, but if it escalated a third party could take the matter to the "Ting" so a settlement could be established by force there. Either one party could be forced to pay blood-money or with one family's member getting exiled, which all depended at the voting. The law was "democratic" - each case depended on the voting of the free men assembled. The law is political. So having a lot of (powerful) friends mattered in all law cases. Jarls would off course expect that the Free-Men living in his territory would vote as him (that is making noise by banging their shields).
So going against a Jarl would be nearly hopeless for "lesser"" men; but Jarls had enough power to make blood revenge against Kings in the Viking Age and early middle ages.
On the contrary "murder" was something done in secret, where you didn't know who committed the deed.
That would prevent the offended family from taking revenge and so unable to uphold their honour. This was regarded as the lowest of the low of all acts - it made you into an animal. A person discovered for murder would either be branded a Nidding (a socially non-human everyone could kill) and permanently exiled or in rare cases even executed.
So Thralls have rights (they are humans, but socially humans without kin), Niddings have no right as they are no longer regarded as being human. Given help or shelter to a Nidding would make you a Nidding as well.
So Thralls are not the lowest people on the social ladder - Niddings are (and they have NO rights, so they would be more like what people see as slaves today as people without any legal rights - except Niddings are exiled from society).
Killing Niddings causes no blood-money or blood revenge (dead thralls will result in compensation to the owner).
So being a Free Man was dangerous, so many people actually would voluntarily become Thralls as you were under some kind of protection - the Free-Man you worked under. As a Free Man only you and your family protected you.
If you ended up under a psychopath it was off course very unfortunate, but most sensible people took care of their thralls and animals, since their income and subsistence depended on it.
People that treated their children, wife, thralls and animals badly would become social pariahs in society and if a blood-feud started they could be very sure to lose verdicts if the matter was taken to the Ting.
It was acceptable to kill newborn children if your life depended on it (during drought, starvation) and also old people that could no longer contribute to work on the farm. So during a food crisis you could kill your old senile family members, but it was regarded as something only done as an extreme measure.
A person first became socially a human when the father had put it on his knee and poured water/beer/mead (depending on status) over its head and giving it a name. After being named the baby was now officially a human and part of the family and couldn't be killed.
In Denmark it was apparently legal to be conducting blood revenge against the King until quite far into the middle age, but then finally a King decided it was treason.
I finally found the source (in Danish) - it is first from 1360 AD (under King Valdemar IV Atterdag).
Before this law was enacted you actually could make a lawful rebellion against the King if you thought him "unfair/unlawful" OR conducting a blood-feud against the King and his family/household; but from now on would be regarded as high treason with life and all wealth forfeit.
Source: http://danmarkshistorien.dk/leksikon-og-kilde...bf053798c6
No wonder Denmark had a lot of unrest in the Viking Age and Middle Ages :lol:
Furthermore blood-revenges are NOT personal, but a family feud (though off course it could be personal and emotional, but that was secondary).
If Hans Larsen kills Morten Pedersen in Denmark, then his brother Torben Pedersen can kill Hans Larsen's second cousin Jens on Iceland. Everyone within the two families were fair game in a blood-feud - (but if you kill a wife, she is actually member of a third family and her father, brothers and cousins will then avenge her).
Torben and Jens might have been friends for decades, but as soon Torben hears about the blood-feud his honour dictates that he must do the deed. Then he can sob and cry (in secret) for his dear friend afterwards. Blood-feuds is DUTY to uphold HONOUR, nothing to do with personal feelings.
A feud can happen so the male members of a wife's family fight against her husband's family. A real viking women (this is probably only truly tough high status women) would then ideally kill her own male children (as they are part of her husbands family) to take revenge as honour dictates.
From reading the Icelandic sagas we learn that men are often quick to friendship and often quite docile seeking settlement to fast. It is up to the women to insult the men for being lazy cowards to drive the vengeance on and make sure honour is upheld.
Honour is everything and the higher up in society the more aggressive you have to be to defend that honour. Any insult and any rumour (whether you know its true or false) have to be met decisively as you by inaction prove the accusation or rumour true! Jarls and Kings are bursting with honour that they have to guard constantly to not lose face and bring shame over the family name (a family that often claims to be descended from supernatural beings).
If you don't have the stomach for that, be a thrall as then you socially/legally don't have honour or family and thus legally can't take vengeance.
Warband warriors would have lavish gifts from his leader that would be a substantial monetary value (but selling these items would likely be very dishonorable and offensive to the giver); but the "plan" was likely ideally to receive land when you have helped your leader to get territorial gains (conquest or election at a Ting).
A landed Herremand would own lots of land and be much richer as he has income from his vast land-holdings.
At the Ting you had a sacred peace (the place was ritually demarcated), so during the Ting meet it was illegal to attack another with your weapons and if you did you would became a Nidding. But you could insult a person and thus cause a ritual duel to be conducted at the Ting. You had apparently "professional duelists" on Iceland at least, that went to Ting meetings just to provoke duels as if a person insulted didn't call for duel he would be dishonoured and marked as an unmanly man! Yeah being a Free Man is dangerous, if people smells weakness you are toast. Every time you go to Ting, you could be unlucky having a professional duelist insulting you, so you better have a reputation of being an excellent fighter. These guys could be hired by one farmer to take another out at the Ting (sneaky!).
Off course after the Ting meeting had ended the power game could start if one leader and his backers didn't accept the Ting's verdict. Then the leader had to prove he was the strongest and best man after all, so they could maybe get backing at another Ting's meeting (yet only if you succeeded in killing the former winner).
Archers in Scandinavian armies are still a bit clouded in mystery. Did they have real "archer units", or did you have individual archers moving around the battlefield as they saw fit themselves? I still think the second version as harassers, skirmishers would be the most common.
All noblemen hunted, so they were all proficient with bows. Also apparently every Scandinavian King, Jarl or Herremand with respect for himself (at least in Norway) would have a Sami huntsmen/archer as one of his retainers. He would almost always just be call "Finn" (meaning Sami).
So the legend of the naval Battle of Svolder in 999/1000 AD the Norwegian King Olaf Tryggvason was facing a combined force of Danes under King Canute the Great, Swedes under King Olof Skötkonung and the people from Trøndelag under the Jarl of Lade, Eric Haakonsson.
The Norwegian King had a nobleman in his close retinue on his flagship named Einar Thambarskelfir, who was famous for shooting a very high-powered longbow.
But during the battle the Jarl of Lade' men storms the Norwegian flagship, but bowshot after bowshot takes out the attackers.
His bow was finally taken out by the one of the Jarl of Lade's men called Finn who made a spectacular precision shot (probably a Sami expert archer).
Famously the Norwegian King asked what that sound was, when the bowstring of Thambarskelfir's heavy bow burst and the reply was "it was the sound of your Kingdom breaking".
OK this is legend, but it shows both Noble archers in the Kings retinue on the flagship and an expert individual Sami archer in the retinue of the Jarl of Lade. So archers can't be seen as poor warriors. Archers could be of any standing.
We have a rune stone from Århus, Denmark that probably is erected as a result of this battle:
"Gunnulfr and Eygautr/Auðgautr and Áslakr and Hrólfr raised this stone in memory of Fúl, their partner, who died when kings fought". Enough said!
So 4 warband/huscarls (?) members raised a runestone to remember one of their own as he died "when Kings fought" and that is a manly way to leave this world.
About the title Graf (Danish: Greve) is seems to be a medieval loan from Germany and something that is created later as Denmark become more "European" (= German) during the middle ages.
Jarls are clearly translated as Dux all over Scandinavia and it seems "Herremand" gets translated to "Ridder" around 1300 AD in Denmark (some instances to "Squire" as well, so perhaps that is lesser Herremænd? OR boys owning a Herregård since their father died, but not old enough for warfare - it is still unclear to me).
So the Anglo-Saxons would have Earls of the highest status (as they originally came from Denmark/North Germany).
So since Earls are degraded to something like Count (Latin: Comes) it's probably a particular Norman "invention", so to insert Norman's as Dux's around the country and thus degrade the local nobility to a lower standing.
No wonder some Earls in the North tried to rebel after 1066 and convince the Danish King (Svend II Estridsen) to invade and restore their rightful standing; but the Normans cut down the rebellion with incredible brutality, before the Danish King was ready (or willing, since he was paid off) to land and the Danish attack never happened.
The Harrying of the North:
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrying_of_the_North
Apparently the Normans killed 75% of the entire population in the Yorkshire and North Riding areas to effectively prevent further uprisings. [So actually Danes from France killing Danes settled in England and Angles also originally from Denmark/North Germany].
"Frænde er frænde værst" as we say in Danish ("Kinsman is Kinsman worst" is the literal translation).
So Anglo-Saxon-Danish nobles in England became second-rate noble to the Normans.