There was a substantial element of democracy in the Viking colonisation. The drawing of lots was a device used frequently for decisions on military matters and involved the input of many minor leaders. When choices had to be made which had an affect on the whole populace it was noted that “all public business is arranged rather by the wish of the whole people than the king”. Although “widespread peasant settlement without the political coordination of Viking lords would have had little political importance”, the Scandinavians relied upon the settlers to maintain their presence in the conquered areas. This shows a growing recognition of the worth of the masses and their ability to contribute to the stability of a nation.
Viking leaders relied on men of established authority to rule over areas of their kingdoms while they were occupied elsewhere. These were usually Scandinavian landed men, the descendants of an ancient aristocracy. This tradition, which gave increased power to old dynasties, and Alfred’s insistence of his ancient heritage, both added to the acceptance that old established lineage was an important factor in determining power during this period. It can be seen in later years that ‘blood’ was a vital factor in maintaining the nobility’s prestige and privileges and this period was important in establishing that recognition. The nobility’s significance in politics grew considerably in this period.
Britain was the region most affected by the Viking incursions. The law codes issued by the English Kings recognised the presence of the Danes within English society and indeed gave them considerable political control. In the mid tenth century Edgar proclaimed in his fourth law code that ‘there should be in force amongst the Danes such good laws as they best decide on’. This gave the area of Danelaw a great degree of political freedom. During the tenth century when the Scandinavian kings were ousted, the political activities of the southern kings remained limited due to the appointment to positions of authority men with interests in both the south and north of the country. This was to ensure their acceptance by the northern lords but meant that the southern rulers never had complete control over Scandinavian influence. Hadling notes that the lawcode passed by Æthelred II was “thoroughly Scandinavian in form and content” indicating that the primary writer was not the West Saxon king or his council. This situation appears to be the origin of the cultural separation between north and south England and its relative political independence, which continued throughout most of British history. It also accounts for the power of the northern lords, such as the Duke of York, in later years.
By AD900 the notion of a united England was being hindered by the Viking possession of a number of areas. Alfred, ruler of Wessex, had survived the Viking attacks, partly because of his dynasty’s claims to have ruled the area since it was first settled and partly due to the great military force of the region. Mercia on the other hand was rife with political instability caused by “dynastic change and rivalry” and the Viking’s exploitation of that situation to wage successful campaigns. A rival claimant to the throne, Ceowulf, discussed military aid with the Vikings in order to overthrow the King at the time but was forced to divide his kingdom as the fee for their contribution. Viking rulers then took over the eastern half of Mercia, demonstrating the ease with which they damaged political structure and control in England (albeit at the request of local kings themselves). However the new Viking leader, Æthelred maintained his alliance with Wessex, a situation resulting from the Viking attack and cemented by the marriage of Alfred’s sister to the Viking king.
Vikings adopted the political customs of the conquered countries in that they assumed the kingships of those regions in roughly the same geographical boundaries. The transition from “external looting as invaders to internal looting as kings” allowed them to enter the prevailing political pattern in Europe. This was aided by their intermarriage with indigenous families, often for political reasons, such as the union between Silitric-Hiberno, the Viking king of York to the sister of the King of Wessex in 926. These bonds “secured their position and authority” and ensured that Scandinavian leaders and their children would remain important in politics for years to come.
New Viking rulers attracted the support of followers with continued promises of financial rewards and their rapid and successful conquests of Europe were very threatening to established rulers. Nobles were often tempted by the wealth of the invaders, and Alfred experienced problems in retaining their loyal service. This led to the need for patronage from the kingships to their noble supporters, increasingly important in times of national crisis and noble dissent. The Vikings forced the European kings to make alliances amongst themselves in what might have been the first stages of recognition of Europe as a united group of states. For example, Alfred married his daughter to the count of Flanders and his father had taken a Frankish bride.
The tenth century saw the decline of Viking power, although their invasions did not cease. In England during the late 940s and early 950s political support wavered between King Aedred of Wessex and the Danish rulers in Northumbria, Olaf Silitricsson and Eric Bloodaxe. Eric was expelled in 954 from York, the last Scandinavian King of that territory. However most settlers did not leave with him but stayed and retained their lands. Men of Scandinavian descent subsequently “continued to play a prominent part in local affairs in many parts of eastern and northern England”. However, their time as total rulers was over.
Despite their obvious affects on the political regimes in Europe during the discussed period, an unjustified amount of blame is placed on the Vikings for causing strife for the kingships of European countries. As they were often recruited in the war bands of dissatisfied lords and pretenders to the throne who subsequently harried their kings, the fault for any political change or disruption was said to be theirs. This was particularly the case in Ireland where Vikings made a good income as professional warriors for warring factions and thus became involved in Irish power politics.
By the end of the tenth century the northern European kingdoms had become stronger, primarily as a result of the pressures and threats from the Vikings. These forced the European races to look for greater unity and attempt to strengthen the government of their kingdoms. Aspects of Scandinavian governing styles, such as the importance of noble patronage and the power of the nobility themselves, were introduced. The necessity of military strength for every country and its King was highlighted, as were the advantages of inter-racial alliances. The Scandinavian invasions therefore had introduced and reaffirmed trends and factors that remained significant in European political development for many centuries.
Bibliography
Davies, N., Europe, A History (Oxford, 1996)
Hadley, D.M., Viking and Native: re-thinking identity in the Danelaw, Early Modern Europe, Vol. 11 (2002)
Loyn, H.R., The Vikings in Britain (1977)
Roesdahl, E., The Vikings (1998)
Sawyer, P., Kings and Vikings (1982)
Stafford, P., Unification and Conquest: a political and social history of England in the tenth and eleventh centuries (1989)
N. Davies, Europe, A History (Oxford 1996) p.293.
E. Roesdahl, The Vikings (1998) p.189.
H.R. Loyn, The Vikings in Britain (1977) p.14.
P. Sawyer, Kings and Vikings (1982) p.55.
D.M. Hadley, Viking & Native: Re-thinking identity in the Danelaw (2002) p.48
P. Stafford, Unification and Conquest p.25.
P. Sawyer, Kings and Vikings p.100.
