The Vikings in England: 11th century

While Viking power had been waning in Ireland and the East, in England it had undergone an unexpected revival following the accession in 978 of the weak and indecisive King Ethelred Unraed ('the poorly-counselled'), remembered by posterity as Ethelred the Unready. Piratical raids resumed in 980 and gradually increased in size and severity over the next 30 years, despite the frequent payment of Danegeld in an attempt to buy the raiders off: 10,000 lbs of silver were paid out thus in 991, and 16,000 Ibs in 994, thereafter increasing with each renewed demand to as much as 48,000 Ibs by 1012. Encouraged by the lure of such massive sums of money, Danish Vikings raided England almost every year between 997—1014; and the country's ill-led military establishment weakened and collapsed beneath the systematic onslaught that was masterminded by King Swein Forkbeard, king of Denmark c.984—1014. Eventually, in 1013, the people of Northumbria and East Anglia acknowledged Swein as their sovereign, thereby establishing a line of Viking kings of England which comprised Swein (1013—1014); his son Cnut (1016—1035); and the latter's own sons Harald Harefoot (1035-1040) and Harthacnut (1040-1042). Though this line died out with Harthacnut, its claim to the English throne was later revived by the Norwegian king Harald Sigurdsson, who had inherited it from his nephew Magnus the Good, king of Denmark and Norway 1042-1047.

Harald Sigurdsson, posthumously nicknamed Hardradi ('the Ruthless'), had led a checkered and varied career typical of many Viking chieftains. The son of a petty Norwegian king ruling the Ringerike district, he had fought in support of his half-brother King Olaf Haraldsson (St Olaf) at the Battle of Stiklestad in 1030, where the latter was killed. He thereafter fled east to the court of King Jaroslav of Russia. After staying there for several years, during which time he fought against the Poles, he set off to Constantinople 'with a large following' and was enrolled into the celebrated Varangian Guard. He fought against the Arabs in Anatolia and Sicily under Georgios Maniakes, and under other Byzantine generals in southern Italy and Bulgaria, before being imprisoned in Con­stantinople for apparent misappropriation of Imperial booty taken in the course of these expeditions. He appears to have escaped during a popular rising against the Emperor Michael Calaphates in 1042, and thereafter returned to Scandinavia via Russia. Reaching Denmark, he assisted Svein Ulfsson in his struggle against Harald's nephew, King Magnus, for the succession to the Danish throne; but went over to Magnus in 1045 in exchange for a half-share in the kingdom of Norway, succeeding to the other half on Magnus's death in 1047.

He was 51 years old when, in 1066, Tostig, the exiled earl of Northumbria and brother of King Harold Godwinsson of England, arrived in Norway in search of military support to regain his lost earldom. Hardrada had had designs on the English throne at least since the 1050s, and needed little encouragement from Tostig. King Harald's Saga says that 'the earl and the king talked together often and at length; and finally they came to the decision to invade England that summer'. A massive fleet was assembled in the south of Norway: the saga puts it at 240 ships ('apart from supply-ships and smaller craft'); and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle puts it at 300, carrying 'a great pirate host' that has been estimated by modern authorities as numbering at least 9,000—10,000 men, and possibly as many as 18,000. This fleet was joined off the Orkneys by Earl Tostig with 12 vessels of his own, crewed by his household troops and Flemish pirates; from there the whole allied host sailed down to the Humber estuary, plundering as it went, and then upriver as far as Riccall, about ten miles south of York. Here the Norsemen disembarked to confront the Saxon army that had marched against them from York under the command of Earl Morkere of Northumbria and Earl Edwin of Mercia.

'King Harald went ashore and drew up his army,' says King Harald's Saga. 'One flank reached down to the river and the other stretched inland along the line of a ditch, where there was a deep and broad morass, full of water. The earls led their army slowly down along the river in close formation. King Harald's banner was near the river, where his line was thickest, but the thinnest part was along the line of the ditch, where his least reliable men were placed. When the earls advanced along the ditch the Norsemen there gave way and the English followed with Morkere's banner in the van, thinking that the Norsemen would flee.

'When King Harald saw that the English array was advancing down the ditch and was opposite him, he ordered the attack to be sounded and urged his men forward. Ordering his banner Landwaster to be carried in front of him, he made such a severe onslaught that everything gave way before him; and there was a great loss among the men of the earls, and they soon broke in flight, some fleeing upriver and others downriver, but most fled into the marsh, which became so rilled up with their dead that the Norsemen could pursue them dry-shod.'

So ended the Battle of Fulford, fought on Wednesday 20 September. The longest version of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle contains only a brief mention of this engagement, claiming that after the earls' army had 'made great slaughter' of the Vikings, 'a great number of the English were either slain or drowned and dispersed in flight, and the Norsemen had possession of the place of slaughter'.

York offered no further resistance to the Vikings, but opened negotiations with Harald, agreeing to accept him as king and to hand over hostages. It was in order to accept these hostages that Harald encamped at Stamford Bridge, seven miles east of York, on 24 September, having left as much as a third of his army with the fleet at Riccall under the command of Eystein Orri, 'the noblest of all the lendermen [landed men, i.e. nobles]'. The rest of the army was ill-equipped for what was to follow. King Harald's Saga describes how, because the weather was hot and sunny, 'they left their armour behind and went ashore with only their shields, helmets and spears, and girt with swords. A number also had bows and arrows, and all were very carefree.' It must therefore have come as a terrible shock to see not hostages approaching the next day, but 'a large force coming towards them. They could see a cloud of dust raised as from horses' hooves, and under it the gleam of handsome shields and white coats-of-mail.' It was another Saxon army, this time led by King Harold Godwinsson himself, and including in its ranks the famed English Huscarls, each of whom one of Hardrada's own marshals had described as 'worth any two of the best men in King Harald's army'. The saga would have it that, in one last attempt to save his errant brother, Harold called for a parley and offered Tostig a third of his kingdom if he would only join him. It was Tostig's enquiry as to what compensation Hardrada would then receive for his trouble that prompted the now-famous reply, 'Seven feet of English soil, or as much more as he is taller than other men.'

Snorri Sturlusson's description of the ensuing battle in King Harald's Saga, the only detailed one we have, is suspect on several counts, not least of which is that he appears to have confused aspects of it with the Battle of Hastings. However, it seems likely that when the English army appeared the Norwegians were probably scattered on both sides of the River Derwent, which explains the celebrated incident recorded in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle where 'one Norwegian stood firm against the [advancing] English forces, so that they could not cross the bridge nor clinch victory. An Englishman shot at him with an arrow but to no avail, and another went under the bridge and stabbed him [through a gap in it] under his mail corselet.' This delay, however, had enabled the outnumbered Norsemen to draw up their main body on the further bank, arranging it in a circle bristling with spears and 'with shields overlapping in front and above', against which array the English army now hurled itself. The saga says that Hardrada 'fell into such a battle-fury that he rushed ahead of his men, fighting two-handed so that neither helmets nor mail corselets could withstand him, and all those who stood in his path gave way. It looked then as if the English were on the point of breaking in flight... . But now King Harald was struck in the throat by an arrow, and that was his death-wound. He fell, as did all those who had advanced with him, except for those who retreated with the king's banner.' Earl Tostig then took command, and when the surviving Norsemen were offered quarter by Harold Godwinsson they called back that they would rather die. This, Tostig and most of the remaining Norsemen did.

'At this point', continues the saga, 'Eystein Orri arrived from the ships with all the men he had, who were wearing armour. Eystein got King Harald's banner Landwaster and the fighting began for a third time, even more fiercely than before. The English fell in great numbers and were again on the point of breaking in flight. This stage of the battle was called Orri's Storm. Eystein and his men had run all the way from the ships [where they had received news of the battle from mounted messengers despatched by Hardrada], so fast that they were exhausted and almost unable to fight by the time they arrived; but then they fell into such a battle-fury that they did not even bother to protect themselves with their shields as long as they could still stand. At length they even threw off their mail corselets, and after that it was easy for the English to land blows on them; but others fell and died of exhaustion without so much as a wound on them. Nearly all the leading Norwegians were killed there.

'This happened in the late afternoon. As was to be expected, not everyone reacted in the same way; some fled, and others were lucky enough to escape in various ways. Darkness had fallen before the carnage finally came to an end.' The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle says that the Norsemen were pursued all the way back to their ships at Riccall, and that there were few survivors. These were allowed to sail for home in just 24 ships, leaving the flower of Norwegian manhood stretched dead behind them.

Although occasional raids on England continued to be recorded until as late as 1151, and Scandinavian pirates from the Orkneys and the Western Isles were still active even later, it is readily apparent why 1066 is generally taken to mark the end of the Viking era, and why Harald Hardrada is often dubbed 'the last Viking'. His was the last great enterprise of the Viking age. Night was now falling on the long Viking day that had begun nearly 300 years earlier.

Viking Warfare

Tactics

When fighting amongst themselves, the Vikings' major battles almost invariably took place at sea— witness Hafrs Fjord in 872, Svöldr in 1000 and Nissa in 1062, to cite but three examples. Nevertheless, they made every effort to ensure that a naval action was as much like a land battle as possible, arranging their fleets in lines or wedges; one side—or sometimes both—customarily roped together the largest of their ships gunwale to gunwale to form large, floating platforms. The biggest and best-manned ships usually formed the middle part of the line, with the commander's vessel invariably positioned in the very centre, since he normally had the largest vessel of all. High-sided merchantmen were sometimes positioned on the flanks of the line too. The prows of the longer ships extended out in front of the battle-line and some of them, called bardi, were therefore armoured with iron plates at stem and stern, which bore the brunt of the fighting. Some even had a series of iron spikes called a beard (skegg) round the prow, designed to hole enemy ships venturing close enough to board.

In addition to this floating platform there were usually a number of additional individual ships positioned on the flanks and in the rear, whose tasks were to skirmish with their opposite numbers; to attack the enemy platform if he had one; to put reinforcements aboard their own platform when necessary; and to pursue the enemy in flight. Masts were lowered in battle, and all movement was by oar, so the loss of a ship's oars in collision with another vessel effectively crippled it. Nevertheless, the classical diekplus manoeuvre, which involved shearing off an enemy vessel's oars with the prow of one's own ship, does not seem to have been deliberately employed, and nor was ramming.

The main naval tactic was simply to row against an enemy ship, grapple and board it, and clear it with hand weapons before moving on to another vessel, sometimes cutting the cleared ship loose if it formed the wing of a platform. The platforms were attacked by as many ships as could pull alongside. Boarding was usually preceded by a shower of arrows and, at closer range, javelins, iron-shod stakes and stones, as a result of which each oarsman was often protected by a second man, who deflected missiles with his shield. On the final approach prior to boarding, shields were held overhead 'so closely that no part of their holders was left uncovered'. Some ships carried extra supplies of stones and other missiles. Stones are extensively recorded in accounts of Viking naval battles, and were clearly the favourite form of missile. The largest were dropped from high-sided vessels on to (and even through) the decks of ships which drew alongside to board.

When raiding, the Vikings preferred to beach their ships on a small island or eyot, or in the curve of a river, throwing up a rampart and stockade on any side which could be approached by land. The resultant fortified encampment was usually left with a garrison, since the Vikings took care to protect their lines of communication: failure to do so could result in utter rout and heavy losses. These camps might also be used as a refuge in face of a superior enemy force: they were rarely attacked successfully, the besiegers tending to disperse after a period of inactivity.

In land-battles the Vikings' favoured battle-formation was a shield-wall—a massive phalanx of men several ranks deep (apparently five or more) with the better-armed and armoured men forming the front ranks. On occasion they might form up in two or even more such shield-walls, as they did at the battles of Ashdown and Meretun in 871, and at Corbridge in 918 (where one of the four divisions they formed was held in reserve in a concealed position). There is some debate as to just how close-packed the shield-wall formation actually was. Contemporary literary references indicate that hand-to-hand combat involved a considerable degree of violent movement, and the amount of twisting, dodging and leaping back and forth that this entailed makes it seem improbable that the men's shields overlapped. Nevertheless, a 10th-century hogback tombstone in Gosforth, Cumbria, carries a relief of a shield-wall in which the shields are overlapped up to about half their width (which would give a frontage of only about 18 ins per man) and the 9th-cenfury Oseberg tapestry similarly includes a shield-wall of partially overlapping shields. Snorri Sturlusson too, in his description of the Battle of Stamford Bridge in King Harald's Saga, tells us that the Norsemen there drew up with their shields 'overlapping in front and above'. Interest­ingly, members of a present-day re-enactment organisation, the Norse Film and Pageant Society, who use reproductions of Viking weapons and armour, have made the observation that in close combat any extra elbow-room required for a good swing with an axe or sword was best found by pushing into the enemy formation rather than by standing in line in one's own ranks. This would tend to support the hypothesis that shields were probably initially interlocked, to receive the impact of the first enemy charge, but that thereafter the shield-wall tended to loosen up automatically.

The Vikings' main variation on the simple phalanx was the svynfylking or 'swine-array', a wedge-shaped formation said to have been orig­inated by Odin himself, which testifies to its antiquity. Described in Flateyjarbok as having two men in the first rank, three in the second and five in the third, it could be fielded either singly or in multiples joined at the base, the whole line thus resembling a zig-zag. If Snorri can be trusted, the shield-wall could also be drawn up as a circular formation, since he describes Harald Hardrada's army at Stamford Bridge as arrayed in 'a long and rather thin line, with the wings bent back until they met, thus forming a wide circle of even depth all the way round'. Snorri also says that on this occasion the archers remained in the open centre of the circular shield-wall; normally they drew up to the rear with the other missile-men—spear-throwers, stone-throwers and the like—and fired overhead. Commanders were protected by a separate shield-wall of bodyguards whose job was to deflect missiles.

The Vikings were usually uncomfortable fighting against cavalry, though generally they seem to have succeeded in retiring in good order, and were even capable of rallying and winning the day. The Battle of Saucourt in 881, where they are recorded to have lost as many as 8,000—9,000 men, was their first decisive defeat at the hands of Frankish cavalry (who were the best in Western Europe at that date), and even that was a close-run thing. When their first attack had seemed successful, the Franks had made the tactical error of breaking ranks in order to start looting, upon which a Viking counter-attack nearly broke them. A second charge by the Franks forced the Vikings to withdraw, once again in good order despite their incredibly heavy losses. In the East, too, they are recorded as being at a disadvantage when confronted by cavalry, as in the fighting with the Byzantines around Silistria in 972. A rare instance of Vikings facing feudal cavalry is recorded in Heimskringla, when in 1151 in Northern England, a raiding party defeated mounted knights and supporting infantry by their use of archery.

Despite the fact that they fought mostly on foot the Vikings also occasionally fielded cavalry, as at the Battle of Sulcoit in Ireland in 968; and at the Battle of Montfaucon in France in 888, at which the chronicler Abbo of Fleury implies a large body of Viking cavalry was present, fighting separately from their infantry. More usually, however, they used horses simply as a means of increasing their mobility during their raiding expeditions. They either rounded up horses for this purpose in the vicinity of their encampment, or took those of the defeated enemy after a battle, as is recorded in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle under the years 999 and 1010. No doubt the horses they brought with them to England from France in 885 and 892 had been similarly captured from defeated Frankish armies.

One last feature of Scandinavian warfare still in evidence in the Viking era was the 'hazelled field'. This was a specially chosen battlefield, fenced with hazel branches on all sides, where a battle was fought at a prearranged time and date by mutual agreement of the protagonists. Once challenged to fight in a hazelled field it was apparently a dishonour to refuse, or to ravage your opponent's territory until after the battle had been fought. The English were not unaware of this somewhat archaic tradition, since according to Egil's Saga the Battle of Vinheidr, identified with the Battle of Brunanburh in 937, took place in just such a hazelled field, which had been prepared by King Athelstan in order to delay the Vikings and their assorted Welsh and Scottish allies from pillaging until he had been able to assemble a large enough army to defeat them. The latest reference to such a hazelled field that I am aware of dates to 978, when Earl Hakon Sigurdsson of Norway defeated King Ragnfrid (one of Eric Bloodaxe's sons) in a field marked out with hoslur.

The Jomsvikings

One by-product of the Viking age had been the establishment of independent military brother­hoods or guilds known as Viking-unions or Viking-laws (Vikinge-lag), which comprised bodies of warriors—effectively mercenary 'Free Companies' —living together under their own strict codes of conduct. They did not seek to conquer land on their own behalf, but every summer were prepared to hire themselves out to kings and princes in exchange for pay.

The most famous (and most hotly-debated) such brotherhood was that of the Jomsvikingelag, or Jomsvikings, which, though it does not feature in any surviving contemporary source, was later the subject of its own Icelandic saga. According to later Danish accounts the Jomsvikings were established in Wendland in the late 10th century (probably the 980s) by King Harald Bluetooth of Denmark, banished from his own kingdom by his son Swein Forkbeard. The fortress of Jomsborg, which he reputedly founded, was probably at or near Wollin, Adam of Bremen's Jumne, at the mouth of the Oder. It had an artificial harbour, its entrance guarded by a tower over a stone archway with iron gates, reported in the oldest extant manuscript as being capable of holding three ships—a figure later increased to 300 or 360. One version says that Harald taught the Wends piracy, and Jomsborg itself may in fact have been garrisoned by Wends commanded by Danes; certainly at the Battle of Svöldr one of the 11 Jomsviking ships present was crewed by Wends. Jomsviking Saga, however, would have it that Jomsborg was a purely Viking stronghold established by Swein Forkbeard's foster-father, Peálnatóki. Either way, most accounts seem to agree that the leader of the Jomsvikings in their heyday at the end of the 10th century was Earl Sigvald, son of a petty king named Strut-Harald who had ruled over Scania in Sweden (at this time counted as part of Denmark).

If the saga is to be believed, the rules by which the Jomsvikings lived were extremely strict. Member­ship of their brotherhood was restricted to men of outstanding strength, aged between 18 and 50, who were obliged to live peaceably together and 'to kindle no slander against one another'. They were never to show any sign of fear, 'however hopeless matters looked', and flight in the face of an enemy of equal strength was forbidden. Their commander was to have judgement over blood-feuds, but each Jomsviking was expected to avenge his comrades-in-arms as if they were his own brothers. All booty was to be handed in for equal distribution amongst the guild members. No-one was to be absent for more than three days without permission, no women were to be admitted to the fortress, and neither women nor children were to be taken captive. Anyone breaking these rules was to be ejected from the brotherhood immediately.

'Every summer they went out and made war in different countries, got high renown, and were looked on as the greatest of warriors; hardly any others were thought their equals at this time.' So says the Jomsviking Saga, while King Olaf Tryggvasson's Saga observes that 'at that time it was considered prestigious to have Jomsborg Vikings with an army'. The truth of the matter would appear to be somewhat different, however, since all three of the major campaigns in which the sources claim the brotherhood participated ended in disaster for their employers: Styrbjorn Starki, contending for the throne of Sweden, was beaten by his uncle, Eric the Victorious at Fyrisvold near Uppsala; Swein Forkbeard's attack on Earl Hakon of Norway was disastrously defeated at Hjorun-gavag c.990; and King Olaf Tryggvasson of Norway was defeated and killed by the Swedes and Danes at Svöldr in 1000. All three defeats appear to have resulted from the same cause—that Earl Sigvald had a nasty tendency to cut and run if the prospects began to look dubious! This is probably why King Olaf Tryggvasson's Saga describes him as 'a prudent, ready-minded man'.

King Magnus the Good of Norway destroyed Jomsborg in 1043, 'killing many people, burning and destroying both in the town and in the country all around, and wreaking the greatest havoc'. However, the nucleus of the Jomsvikings guild appears to have disbanded much earlier, probably after Earl Sigvald's death some time before 1010. Remnants of the Jomsvikings are said to have accompanied Earl Sigvald's brothers Heming and Thorkel the Tall to England in 1009, where in time they may have become the nucleus of King Cnut's Tinglith, the royal bodyguard that was to evolve into the celebrated Huscarls.

Date: 2015-12-11; view: 715