4 ms·

Interesting, but there was a viking invasion from Scandinavia weeks earlier! This was 1066, not 1200+ or something. Christianity was then quite old in Normandy

by berntb 10y ago

Interesting, but there was a viking invasion from Scandinavia weeks earlier! This was 1066, not 1200+ or something. Christianity was then quite old in Normandy and very new in Scandinavia. (Also, the population density was really low, compared to France -- changes must have been slow, hard to control what happened at distant farms.) Most of what I have read say that south of Scandinavia they were beyond a clan society at this time, but you still had it at least in Sweden/Norway (Denmark ought to be more connected, from geography.) Edit: If I'm wrong here, I'd expect a dozen old SCA members or something to show up, with primary sources. :-) Edit 2: I'm not really contradicting, I'm noting that afaik, Norway/Sweden (uncertain about Denmark) was quite a bit behind the rest of Europe in development. Especially 1066. (It was not until the 13th century they tried to get more of feudalism into Sweden, iirc?)

willvarfar 10y ago
(This thread is too old for the SCA to turn up ;) ) The "Viking invasion" that Harold Godwinson defeated just weeks before was by Harald Hardrada, who is often considered by some as the "last true Viking". But Harald Hadrada was Christian. He served in the Varangian Guard of the Holy Roman Empire, and he built an awful lot of churches when he returned to Norway. (He had a very eastern slant on his Christianity, and this made Norway was slightly unorthodox long before the schism.) Harald Hadrada pushed Norway quite far on the path towards feudalism by trying to unite his kingdom and enforce hierarchy among the chieftains. So on the one hand he is a Christian Viking who uses Viking-style raiding to wage war, and on the other he is modernizing. Sweden was at this time basically the area where the Norwegian and Danish kingdoms stopped. It was not nearly so united. But at the time kingdoms were just the areas where kings toured, extracting taxes in promise for protection. In modern terms kings were racketeers! In generally, it wasn't very populous. The harsh weather limited agriculture. This actually meant that plagues didn't really impact Sweden to the same extent that they did other countries as it was too sparse with a pocketed population. Look at Harold Godwinson's name; its oozing norseness! He was actually a descendent from King Canute who united England and Danmark. By this time England was ruled by a mingled Anglo-Saxon-Viking elite who were culturally mingled.
- berntb 10y ago
  Norway had (by necessity) access with boats to most of the population and were limited in land area. Far easier to control. But it was still a thin veneer 1066. :-) See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianization_of_Scandinavia#Norway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianization_of_Scandinavi... As far as I know, it was quite behind the rest of Europe and was on the brink of getting "integrated" culturally the 100-200 years after that? Western Europe wasn't exactly Rome, of course. I should probably read up on European society around the time, before the plague. References welcome. (Ah, it should have been more orthodox influences down in Constantinople.)

by berntb 10y ago

willvarfar 10y ago

(This thread is too old for the SCA to turn up ;) ) The "Viking invasion" that Harold Godwinson defeated just weeks before was by Harald Hardrada, who is often considered by some as the "last true Viking". But Harald Hadrada was Christian. He served in the Varangian Guard of the Holy Roman Empire, and he built an awful lot of churches when he returned to Norway. (He had a very eastern slant on his Christianity, and this made Norway was slightly unorthodox long before the schism.) Harald Hadrada pushed Norway quite far on the path towards feudalism by trying to unite his kingdom and enforce hierarchy among the chieftains. So on the one hand he is a Christian Viking who uses Viking-style raiding to wage war, and on the other he is modernizing. Sweden was at this time basically the area where the Norwegian and Danish kingdoms stopped. It was not nearly so united. But at the time kingdoms were just the areas where kings toured, extracting taxes in promise for protection. In modern terms kings were racketeers! In generally, it wasn't very populous. The harsh weather limited agriculture. This actually meant that plagues didn't really impact Sweden to the same extent that they did other countries as it was too sparse with a pocketed population. Look at Harold Godwinson's name; its oozing norseness! He was actually a descendent from King Canute who united England and Danmark. By this time England was ruled by a mingled Anglo-Saxon-Viking elite who were culturally mingled.

berntb 10y ago
Norway had (by necessity) access with boats to most of the population and were limited in land area. Far easier to control. But it was still a thin veneer 1066. :-) See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianization_of_Scandinavia#Norway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianization_of_Scandinavi... As far as I know, it was quite behind the rest of Europe and was on the brink of getting "integrated" culturally the 100-200 years after that? Western Europe wasn't exactly Rome, of course. I should probably read up on European society around the time, before the plague. References welcome. (Ah, it should have been more orthodox influences down in Constantinople.)