Thanks for your reply and your kind words. I'm glad we could chat here and hope to contribute more in the future. I'm of course happy to agree to disagree on the matter of social conventions. This is actually an aspect of my current doctoral research, so perhaps we can revisit in further detail another time (like when the thing is finally done and dusted hahaha). As for Cnut, perhaps amiability is a step too far, but there's actually a fantastic book by Tim Bolton, 'The Empire of Cnut the Great: Conquest and Consolidation of Power in Northern Europe in the Early Eleventh Century' (https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/The_Empire_of_Cnut_the_Great.html?id=CV-1H24C_MwC), which uses some great scholarship to help demonstrate the clever ways that Cnut used things like reconciliation and reciprocity to navigate the political and social intrigue of his time. Unfortunately, being published by Brill, the book is pretty pricey, however it should be pretty easily accessed through any large-ish library. It's a really intriguing read if you're interested. Thanks again for your comments.
Thanks for your feedback. You raise a good point, the sagas are indeed sources from the thirteenth century that do reflect life as it was, yet set in a more distant past. However, anthropologists (such as Kirsten Hastrup), legal scholars (such as William Ian Miller), and historians (such as Sverre Bagge) have continually highlighted the intensely conservative nature of these normative concepts (law, honour, morality, etc.). The picture that arises from contemporary evidence is actually quite clear that these normative forces were vitally important in the Viking Age as well as in the thirteenth century, it's just that they shifted to be viewed through a Christian lens.
A few of the comments below pick up on the fact that it's actually very difficult to have an organised society, especially in a particularly harsh and unforgiving environment) if that society has no concept of or respect for normative forces, and the Viking Age is no exception. The incredible shows of ritualization which are routinely found in Archaeology (consider assembly sites and cult-centre such as UppÄkra and Gamla Uppsala) demonstrate a keen interest in formal displays that cement relationships, not glorify egoist individual action.
That having been said, absolutely, there were some deeply unpleasant people (by both modern and contemporaneous normative understandings) operating in the Viking Age (and the thirteenth century too for that matter, consider Sturlunga saga), and some of them did in fact manage to seize substantial power through some pretty aggressive means. However, in order to maintain their new position, they inevitably had to fall back on social protocols like reconciliation and reciprocity. This is clearly demonstrated in the earliest provincial laws of Norway and Sweden and we see it in contemporary accounts such as the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle in the case of Cnut the Great seizing power in England. When he seizes the throne (by way of invasion) he goes on to promote key members of the Anglo-Saxon elite (even taking Archbishop Wulfstan II of York as one of his closest advisors) and produce some of the most prolific and tolerant legislation in the whole of the Anglo-Saxon legal corpus. Most telling is the fact that his laws actually intentionally reference the older laws of Edgar which were seen as representative of a legal 'golden age' which managed to balance Scandinavian legal traditions and English legal traditions, respecting both as mutually valid. This is also touched on below in Dennis' comment. Aggressive and ambitious pursuits led many people in the Viking Age to all sorts of places, it was indeed a key aspect of the times in which these people lived, but inevitably pragmatism and compromise allowed those achievements to be sustained and that remains as true today as ever. The 'testimony of history' is too often over-simplified and spat out as caricatures of the past when, in reality, people have always been complex with heavily nuanced understandings of how to navigate their times. That's the spirit of the article.
Hey Jonathan,
Thanks for your reply and your kind words. I'm glad we could chat here and hope to contribute more in the future. I'm of course happy to agree to disagree on the matter of social conventions. This is actually an aspect of my current doctoral research, so perhaps we can revisit in further detail another time (like when the thing is finally done and dusted hahaha). As for Cnut, perhaps amiability is a step too far, but there's actually a fantastic book by Tim Bolton, 'The Empire of Cnut the Great: Conquest and Consolidation of Power in Northern Europe in the Early Eleventh Century' (https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/The_Empire_of_Cnut_the_Great.html?id=CV-1H24C_MwC), which uses some great scholarship to help demonstrate the clever ways that Cnut used things like reconciliation and reciprocity to navigate the political and social intrigue of his time. Unfortunately, being published by Brill, the book is pretty pricey, however it should be pretty easily accessed through any large-ish library. It's a really intriguing read if you're interested. Thanks again for your comments.
K.
Hey Jonathan,
Thanks for your feedback. You raise a good point, the sagas are indeed sources from the thirteenth century that do reflect life as it was, yet set in a more distant past. However, anthropologists (such as Kirsten Hastrup), legal scholars (such as William Ian Miller), and historians (such as Sverre Bagge) have continually highlighted the intensely conservative nature of these normative concepts (law, honour, morality, etc.). The picture that arises from contemporary evidence is actually quite clear that these normative forces were vitally important in the Viking Age as well as in the thirteenth century, it's just that they shifted to be viewed through a Christian lens.
A few of the comments below pick up on the fact that it's actually very difficult to have an organised society, especially in a particularly harsh and unforgiving environment) if that society has no concept of or respect for normative forces, and the Viking Age is no exception. The incredible shows of ritualization which are routinely found in Archaeology (consider assembly sites and cult-centre such as UppÄkra and Gamla Uppsala) demonstrate a keen interest in formal displays that cement relationships, not glorify egoist individual action.
That having been said, absolutely, there were some deeply unpleasant people (by both modern and contemporaneous normative understandings) operating in the Viking Age (and the thirteenth century too for that matter, consider Sturlunga saga), and some of them did in fact manage to seize substantial power through some pretty aggressive means. However, in order to maintain their new position, they inevitably had to fall back on social protocols like reconciliation and reciprocity. This is clearly demonstrated in the earliest provincial laws of Norway and Sweden and we see it in contemporary accounts such as the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle in the case of Cnut the Great seizing power in England. When he seizes the throne (by way of invasion) he goes on to promote key members of the Anglo-Saxon elite (even taking Archbishop Wulfstan II of York as one of his closest advisors) and produce some of the most prolific and tolerant legislation in the whole of the Anglo-Saxon legal corpus. Most telling is the fact that his laws actually intentionally reference the older laws of Edgar which were seen as representative of a legal 'golden age' which managed to balance Scandinavian legal traditions and English legal traditions, respecting both as mutually valid. This is also touched on below in Dennis' comment. Aggressive and ambitious pursuits led many people in the Viking Age to all sorts of places, it was indeed a key aspect of the times in which these people lived, but inevitably pragmatism and compromise allowed those achievements to be sustained and that remains as true today as ever. The 'testimony of history' is too often over-simplified and spat out as caricatures of the past when, in reality, people have always been complex with heavily nuanced understandings of how to navigate their times. That's the spirit of the article.
I'm glad you liked it,
Keith