Viking kings

[Shadowviking]

Well shadowviking, we can all get carried away with moment sometimes, can't we.

I get carried away with Moment frequently, though I usually call him by his nickname "Momo" as Moment in full is a little formal sounding. Once we got carried by a large gorilla. It was quite thrilling.

I'll take the 'classiness' remark as a compliment, so thank you.

Of course. I'm sure I would never stoop to using sarcasm in a post.

snerk

[Damien]

Just wanted to point out that anyone who has actually kept up with historical research over the last 12 years or so would be aware that 'Dark Ages' is largely a misnomer and has been steadily falling out of use in the historian's vernacular. Where we originally believed very little was known about the era (hence 'Dark Ages') we now know that there's quite a bit more information floating around than we ever could have guessed.

Also, there was no democracy in the Medieval or Migration Periods of Europe. And by none, I mean, you know, none. Democracy is not a modern convention, but it -was- extremely uncommon in the world prior to the Modern world (Megablocks, it's not exactly common even now).


In any event -- gorm -- everything about your version of history is inaccurate. It's hard to pick something out specifically to correct, because the entire string of words you've formed there is just not accurate in any way. But to narrow it down to the crux of the point here --- A king is defined as the supreme ruler of a given structure of people. Be it a tribe, clan, kingdom, country, nation -- what have you. By this definition, kings have existed all over Northern Europe since the very first 'Vikings.' Were they called kings? Not ever. None of those countries/regions have EVER utilized modern English as their primary language.

Also, 'viking' was a profession. Not a race of people. They weren't 'Viking people' anymore than 18th century pirates were 'just pirates.' It irks me when people seem to refer to 'Vikings' as if they were one homogeneous people. As if calling someone 'Viking' is the same kind of classification as calling someone 'British' or 'Japanese.'

[gormadoc1]

In the British Isles, The Dark Ages are considered between 410-sack of Rome and 871-King Alfred Comes to the Throne.
I use the term Vikings to describe the raiding groups of Scandanavia before a kingdom was established in Scandanavia, I'm not exactly going to refer to them as a 'Scandanavian raiding culture', Viking is used as an abreviation, you could say, short and snappy with two syllables.
This topic appears to be turning into 'lets all critise Gormadoc for what he's saying', I think I'm putting up a pretty good defence, but remeber the topic is about 'Viking King's', not moi. And Damien, if you hav'nt noticed then I suggest that you understand the concept 'languages evolve', and it is not my doing that modern English is around, besides it's evolving as we speak, I mean America speaks American not pure grammaticaly correct English English .
It does not matter though, I'm shure we will resolve our debate in the end.
Besides there are always debates about whatever has happened in history.

[wobnam]

gormadoc1 "admit[ted] that the Scandanavian countries had Kings from the tenth century onwards" early on in this thread, so Hårfagre (and Heimskringla) became kind of irrelevant after that, I think. The issue is really if there were kings before that.

Some time before the 800s, areas in Norway became more advanced communities/societies. Some of them were structured as tings; "an assembly of people who exercise legislative and judicial force". I assume this is the type of social structure you have read about, gormadoc1, as it can be presented/understood as a type of democracy.

However, there were also kingdoms. One of the most prominent kingdoms in Norway was Vestfold, which grew a lot during the 800s due to pillaging and trade. On the west coast, there were several smaller kingdoms that never became as stable as Vestfold, but they were still kingdoms.

As for "were they called kings?":

understand the concept 'languages evolve'

True, and they are related to each other. The title for these rulers in norse language was "konung", same as modern scandinavian "konge" or "kung", same as english "king". They were called kings.

The Vikings started of as a groups of raiders, they settled and conquered lands in mainland Europe around the 8th century.
When Denmark, Norway and Sweden became kingdoms in the 10th century, it was because the raiding leader's decendents had settled and establihed a community thus creating Kings.

I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say here. Vikings as a "group of raiders" came from well settled areas in Scandinavia, not the other way around.

[gormadoc1]

Christianity was a big help towards the Viking cultures becoming Kingdoms.
I also have a reference from the Miles Kelly Book Of British History that states,

'Vikings passed laws and settled disputes at a public asembly called a 'Thing'. The Isle of Man assembly met at a grassy mound called the 'Tynwald'. This is still the name of the Manx parliament today. It claims to be the World's oldest legislative assembly with an uninterrupted history. Viking assemblies were attended by all free men, but not by women or slaves.'

There is my reference about the fact that some Viking cultures had democracy.

[Heir of Black Falcon]

Just some thoughts-

I think something working against you is what you define as a king itself or how kingship is established. Our concept of a king ruling a massive expanse of land is not necessarily the same as that of out medieval ancestors. Even in our time we have monarchs ruling small little city-sates really. A funny example of this issue is from the movie 13th warrior. The main character of the movie approaches a tent and he asks his friend who the ‘potentate of this group is’. To this his friend answers ‘emperor at the very least’.

Even before the actual ‘Viking era’ there were kings in Scandinavia. At least that is what they were called by their own people and/or neighbors. From Beowulf, if it can be even remotely trusted on hierarchy,leadership in the Germanic groups involved kings. They may have ruled relatively small areas and basically just been glorified chieftains but that is how they were seen by their contemporaries. Their chieftains existed alongside kings so clearly to their mind there was some difference in power and prestige. Clearly the unification of many of the Scandinavian kingdoms into states, some that would remain very similar into modern history, took place late in the early medieval period (I think by 1060) but that is not to say these geographic areas did not look at their rulers and states before this as lesser kings and kingdoms.

Christianity was I think less important in forming the actual kingdoms themselves as it was in unifying them and then slowly bringing the Viking raids to an end. Clearly some Scandinavian kings used the church in their kingdom building; Olaf for example expected that Christianity would make the kingdoms less volatile. Sadly for him it was after his lifetime but ultimately he was not completely incorrect as it became one of the more peaceful places in Europe following this era.

Indeed the Thing was a type of Democracy. It runs along the same lines as the majority of Greek Democracies, only free, landowning males. Being fairly familiar with the Isle of Mann I have some doubts that the Thing developed into the current government as there were several periods of very limited local government but I guess it could be in a very loose sense.

Damien has a point that is very good and one a teacher I had years ago often repeated something similar. The Dark Age was not dark. Having now made medieval history my career I have been fortunate to spend months in classes with some very intelligent researchers and scholars. Martin was a great teacher and really showed how amazing the period following the fall of Rome was. States, art, technology, culture and more were developing into kingdoms that would be the foundations for most European nations. Personally I am prefer studying the Late Medieval Period as I have the language bases I need (That said I did Old English and Latin so I can get around in earlier periods) but I still enjoy researching and teaching earlier periods very much as so much is going on that would forever impact at least the western world.


I will get some books that may be of some interest,

Heir

EDIT_Something that is interesting regarding kings in pre 'viking' Scandinavia is their huge burial mounds. Those at Gamla Uppsala were used for generations as a royal capital with loads of royal burials there as well.

[wobnam]

Very good post, Heir of Black Falcon.

[gormadoc1]

I concur.