Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

Adam of Bremen's kings of Norway

72 views

Skip to first unread message

Stewart Baldwin

unread,

Mar 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/26/97

While travelling last weekend, I got a chance to look at an English
translation of Adam of Bremen's "History of the Archbishops of
Hamburg-Bremen" [translated by Francis J. Tschan, Columbia University
Press, 1959]. Since this was the first time in several years that I
had seen a copy, I took the opportunity to get some of the data from
Adam on the early Scandinavian kings. Below is an account of the
early kings of Norway as given by Adam, supplemented from the time of
Olaf Tryggvason and later by items from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and
Florence of Worcester, the only other near contemporary accounts of
the early Norwegian kings of which I am aware. The only liberty I
have taken with Adam's account is to read "Harold" instead of
"Hartild" in one place (as discussed below), because I believe that
the context of the chapter demands that interpretation. If you
disagree with the idea that "Hartild" is a scribal slip for "Harald",
then you should blame me, and not Adam.

Of course, the account below based on Adam of Bremen differs
considerably from the information given in the Icelandic sagas. From
the time of Olaf Tryggvason on, the only really serious difference is
the parentage of St. Olaf (d. 1030), but there are very significant
differences in the part prior to Olaf Tryggvason, and I have quoted
Adam's accounts in full for this very early part. (The Latin quotes
come from Migne's Patrologiae, vol. CXLVI, perhaps not the best
version to use, but the only one which is available to me.)

It seems to me that the most common approach to the history of the
early kings of Norway is to accept the later Icelandic and Norwegian
accounts as correct (or essentially correct), and then accuse Adam of
being confused because he gives different information. However, Adam
was writing earlier than the surviving Icelandic and Norwegian
sources, so it seems to me that he ought to at least be given a fair
hearing. Of course, he was prone to exaggeration (such as the
statement that Haakon was descended from a race of giants), and his
chronology is often weak, but I know of no CONTEMPORARY (or near
contemporary) sources which would contradict the outline of the early
kings of Norway as given below, based mainly on Adam's account, with
chronological help from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.

So, here is the challenge which I am throwing out to other members of
the newsgroup. Is there any contemporary (or near contemporary - say
pre-1100) evidence which would undermine the account of Adam of
Bremen's early Norwegian kings, or, if you are inclined in the other
direction, any evidence which would undermine the sagas and support
Adam?

The early Kings of NORWAY (based mainly on Adam of Bremen):

HAAKON, of the stock of Ivar, first king of Norway [according to
Adam], who ruled 35 years (say ca. 945?-ca. 980?) [see note 1]

HARALD [Bluetooth] of Denmark, king of Norway (ca. 980?-ca. 985?)
["Hartild" - see note 1]

TRYGGVE ["Thrucco"], king of Norway (say ca. 985?-ca. 990?), son of
Haakon. He was ruling during the time that Svein of Denmark had been
driven out of his kingdom by Eric of Sweden, but the precise years
cannot be determined from Adam's account. [see note 2]

OLAF, nicknamed "CRACABBEN" (the Olaf Tryggvason of the sagas), d. ca.
1000, first Christian king of Norway [according to Adam, Book 2,
xxxvi(34)], son of Tryggve. He appeared in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle
[ASC] under the year 991 [Ms. A], apparently fighting in the Battle of
Maldon in that year. In 994 [ASC, Mss. C, D, E], Olaf and Svein
attacked London, but Olaf promised never to return to England in
hostility. According to Adam, Book 2, xl(38), Olaf was defeated by
Svein of Denmark, and committed suicide by throwing himself into the
sea.

SVEIN of Denmark, also ruled Norway from the death of Olaf until his
own death in 1014. [Adam, Book 2, xli(39)ff.]

OLAF, d. 1030 [ASC, Mss. C, D, E], king of Norway 1014-1028, son of
Cracabben [according to Adam, Book 2, li(49): "Olaph, filium
Cracaben"]. He accompanied Svein on his conquest of England in 1013
[Adam, Book 2, li(49)], but rebelled and made himself King of Norway
on Svein's death in 1014 [Adam, Book 2, lii(50)]. He was driven out
of his kingdom by Knut of Denmark [Adam. Book 2, lxi(59)], an event
dated by the ASC to the year 1028 [ASC, Mss. C, D, E, F]. He was
killed by his own people in 1030 [ASC, Mss. C, D, E], apparently after
having briefly regained his kingdom [Adam. Book 2, lxi(59)].
[Question: Is there any contemporary verification of the parentage of
Olaf?.]

KNUT of Denmark and England, king of Norway, 1028-1035.
[From this point on, there seems to be no serious disagreement between
the sagas and Adam and the other more contemporary sources. The
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and Florence of Worcester verify the basic saga
accounts that St. Olaf and Harald Hardrada were brothers by the same
mother, and that Harald's father was named Sigurd ("Siward").]

NOTES

Note 1: The otherwise unknown Hartild ("Hartildum") of Adam of Bremen
appears to be a slip of the pen for Harald [Bluetooth] ("Haroldum"),
as nobody else could reasonably be stated to rule both Denmark and
Norway during this period, and the suggested scribal error involves
only a couple of letters ("o" replaced by "ti", presumably due to bad
handwriting). The relevant passage is from Adam of Bremen, Book 2,
xxv(22): "In Norway Haakon was the ruler. When the Norwegians drove
him from the realm because he had acted haughtily, Harold valorously
restored him and made him well-disposed to the worshipers of Christ.
Exceedingly cruel, this Haakon, of the stock of Ivar and descended
from a race of giants, was the first among the Norwegians to seize a
kingship whereas chiefs had ruled before. Now Haakon, after
completing thirty-five years on the throne, died and left as heir to
his scepter Hartild, who at the same time possessed Denmark and
Norway." ("In Norveja Haccon princeps erat, quem, dum Nortmanni
superbius agentem regno depellerent, Haroldus sua virtute restituit et
Christicolis placatum effecit. Haccon iste crudelissimus, ex genere
Inguar et giganteo sanguine descendens, primus inter Nordmannos regnum
arripuit, eum autea ducibus regerentur. Igitur Haccon, triginta
quinque annis in regno exactis, obiit, Hartildum relinquens sceptri
heredem, qui simul Daniam possedit atque Nordmaniam.")

Note 2: The relevant passage from Adam of Bremen, Book 2, xxxiv(32),
runs as follows: "After receiving requital for the enormities he had
perpetrated on the churches of God and the Christians, King Svein,
vanquished and deserted by his own men, as one might expect of one
whom God had abandoned, went, a wanderer and destitute of help, to the
Norwegians over whom Tryggve, the son of Haakon, then ruled. As
Tryggve was a pagan, he was not moved with compassion for the exile."
("Post vindictam ergo scelerum, quae in ecclesias Dei et christianos
commiserat, Suein rex victus et a suis derelictus quippe quem Deus
deseruit, errabundus et inops auxilii venit ad Nortmannos, ubi tunc
filius Hacconis Thrucco regnavit. In quoniam paganus erat, nulla
super exulem misericordia motus est.")

Stewart Baldwin

Anders Berg

unread,

Mar 30, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/30/97

At 23.29 1997-03-26 GMT, Stewart Baldwin wrote:
[snip]

>It seems to me that the most common approach to the history of the
>early kings of Norway is to accept the later Icelandic and Norwegian
>accounts as correct (or essentially correct), and then accuse Adam of
>being confused because he gives different information. However, Adam
>was writing earlier than the surviving Icelandic and Norwegian
>sources, so it seems to me that he ought to at least be given a fair
>hearing. Of course, he was prone to exaggeration (such as the
>statement that Haakon was descended from a race of giants), and his
>chronology is often weak, but I know of no CONTEMPORARY (or near
>contemporary) sources which would contradict the outline of the early
>kings of Norway as given below, based mainly on Adam's account, with
>chronological help from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.

To illustrate how modern historians look at Adam's Norwegian data, I have
added the notes made by Carl Fredrik Hallencreutz, Kurt Johannesson, Tore
Nyberg and Anders Piltz in the 1984 Swedish translation of "The History of
the Archbishops of Hamburg-Bremen":

>So, here is the challenge which I am throwing out to other members of
>the newsgroup. Is there any contemporary (or near contemporary - say
>pre-1100) evidence which would undermine the account of Adam of
>Bremen's early Norwegian kings, or, if you are inclined in the other
>direction, any evidence which would undermine the sagas and support
>Adam?
>
>The early Kings of NORWAY (based mainly on Adam of Bremen):
>
>HAAKON, of the stock of Ivar, first king of Norway [according to
>Adam], who ruled 35 years (say ca. 945?-ca. 980?) [see note 1]

"This 'cruel Haakon' is king Hakon the good (930's - 960's), who opposed
the Danish influence in Norway, represented by Eric Bloodaxe. Eric was
driven from the country and participated in Danish expeditions in England."

>HARALD [Bluetooth] of Denmark, king of Norway (ca. 980?-ca. 985?)
>["Hartild" - see note 1]

"Hartild is probably Eric Bloodaxe's son Harald 'Gray-skin'. It was in a
battle against him that Haakon fell."

>TRYGGVE ["Thrucco"], king of Norway (say ca. 985?-ca. 990?), son of
>Haakon. He was ruling during the time that Svein of Denmark had been
>driven out of his kingdom by Eric of Sweden, but the precise years
>cannot be determined from Adam's account. [see note 2]

"A Tryggve Haakonsson is not known in Norwegian history at this time.
Probably Adam had heard of Olav Tryggvasson (995-1000) and confused his
name. Olav opposed the Danish influence in Norway."

>OLAF, nicknamed "CRACABBEN" (the Olaf Tryggvason of the sagas), d. ca.
>1000, first Christian king of Norway [according to Adam, Book 2,
>xxxvi(34)], son of Tryggve. He appeared in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle
>[ASC] under the year 991 [Ms. A], apparently fighting in the Battle of
>Maldon in that year. In 994 [ASC, Mss. C, D, E], Olaf and Svein
>attacked London, but Olaf promised never to return to England in
>hostility. According to Adam, Book 2, xl(38), Olaf was defeated by
>Svein of Denmark, and committed suicide by throwing himself into the
>sea.
>
>SVEIN of Denmark, also ruled Norway from the death of Olaf until his
>own death in 1014. [Adam, Book 2, xli(39)ff.]
>
>OLAF, d. 1030 [ASC, Mss. C, D, E], king of Norway 1014-1028, son of
>Cracabben [according to Adam, Book 2, li(49): "Olaph, filium
>Cracaben"]. He accompanied Svein on his conquest of England in 1013
>[Adam, Book 2, li(49)], but rebelled and made himself King of Norway
>on Svein's death in 1014 [Adam, Book 2, lii(50)]. He was driven out
>of his kingdom by Knut of Denmark [Adam. Book 2, lxi(59)], an event
>dated by the ASC to the year 1028 [ASC, Mss. C, D, E, F]. He was
>killed by his own people in 1030 [ASC, Mss. C, D, E], apparently after
>having briefly regained his kingdom [Adam. Book 2, lxi(59)].
>[Question: Is there any contemporary verification of the parentage of
>Olaf?.]

"Adam wrongly thinks that Olav Haraldsson is son of Olav Tryggvasson".

[snip]

Why is Adam not trusted regarding these Norwegian kings but held in much
higher respect when he speaks of Denmark? I can think of some reasons:

1. Adam never set out to write a history of the Norwegian kings. The
information is fragmentary and what we learn is all related to the conflict
with Danish interests. Adam's main source is the Danish king Svend
Estridsson, who may have been both unknowledgable and subjective in his
testimony.
2. The traditional sources for Norwegian history (the sagas) are later than
Adam, but the sheer volume and detail of information that they bring makes
it very unlikely that basic information, such as a king named Tryggve
Haakonsson, would not be mentioned in the sagas.
3. The saga litterature was produced in Iceland and Norway, with knowledge
of local tradition, whereas Adam was a foreigner relying on information
from another non-Norwegian (Svend).

To the specific question of St. Olav's paternity, contemporary records are
as always hard to come by in Scandinavia.
Generally speaking, I think (sorry, no reference) text analysis has shown
that the poems woven into Snorri's History of the Norwegian Kings
(Heimskringla) are of an older date than the prose. Poems are likely to
stay unchanged over time. Many of them are attributed to skalds
contemporary with the kings involved.

With this in mind, I checked St. Olav's Saga for any mention of Olav's
father in the poems. In three of them (by the skalds Ottar, Sigvat and
Bjarne) Olav is said to be "Harald's son".

Lastly, the naming tradition at the time makes it unlikely that Olav
Tryggvasson would name a son Olav.

Cheers,

Anders

___________________________________________________________________________
Anders Berg, Stockholm (Sweden)
e-mail: and...@algonet.se
___________________________________________________________________________
Medieval genealogy: http://www.algonet.se/~anderzb/genea/medieval/index.htm
Scanian genealogy: http://www.algonet.se/~anderzb/genea/skane.htm

Stewart Baldwin

unread,

Mar 30, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/30/97

Anders Berg <and...@ALGONET.SE> wrote:

[some snipping]

>To illustrate how modern historians look at Adam's Norwegian data, I have
>added the notes made by Carl Fredrik Hallencreutz, Kurt Johannesson, Tore
>Nyberg and Anders Piltz in the 1984 Swedish translation of "The History of
>the Archbishops of Hamburg-Bremen":

Of course, the comments of the above authors which you quoted are
pretty much the same as one might expect from anyone who is accepting
the saga accounts as the official established history, and must then
explain away anything which does not agree with it.

>Why is Adam not trusted regarding these Norwegian kings but held in much
>higher respect when he speaks of Denmark? I can think of some reasons:

I agree with these reasons, up to a point, but I think that these
arguments can be carried too far. Although I am currently sitting on
the fence as to whether we should give preference to Adam or the sagas
with regard to early Norwegian history, I think that Adam also has
some important points in his favor.

>1. Adam never set out to write a history of the Norwegian kings. The
>information is fragmentary and what we learn is all related to the conflict
>with Danish interests. Adam's main source is the Danish king Svend
>Estridsson, who may have been both unknowledgable and subjective in his
>testimony.

However, all of the most important places where Adam disagrees with
the sagas involve events which occurred within a hundred years of when
Adam was writing, so even though Adam wasn't a comtemporary, he was
pretty close. In addition, the fact that most of Adam's Norwegian
information comes from Norway's direct contacts with Denmark is a
reason to trust the information, for Adam was well-informed about
Danish affairs, and that would presumabley include Danish foreign
relations. Also, the saga account could be just as subjective as the
data which Adam got from his Danish sources. I have always found the
saga story of the intermittent periods when Norway was ruled by Jarls
(rather than Kings) to be somewhat disconcerting, and those periods seem
to correspond roughly to periods of Danish rule in Adam's account. Could
it be that these Jarls are just a way of deemphasizing the occasional
rule of Norway by Danish kings, as represented by Adam? Embarrasing
periods of foreign domination are sometimes written out of the history
books in this way.

>2. The traditional sources for Norwegian history (the sagas) are later than
>Adam, but the sheer volume and detail of information that they bring makes
>it very unlikely that basic information, such as a king named Tryggve
>Haakonsson, would not be mentioned in the sagas.

The volume of detail can be deceptive. What is often found in the
creation of official national histories is that a certain framework is
set up by the earliest group of individuals working on the subject
(sometimes with reliable background information, sometimes not), and
that later authors then regard this framework as authoritative, and
mold their writing to fit the framework. A king who reigned for a
very short time can very easily be overlooked in such a process.

>3. The saga litterature was produced in Iceland and Norway, with knowledge
>of local tradition, whereas Adam was a foreigner relying on information
>from another non-Norwegian (Svend).

However, the basic framework of the hitory of the Norwegian kings
appears to be of Icelandic origin rather than Norwegian. (At least,
the earliest traceable strands of the basic outine come from Icelandic
sources.) The settlement of Iceland occurred during a time when
Norway was not completely united, and it is possible that some of the
rulers mentioned in the early Icelandic sources were only of local
prominence. Later embellishment could have promoted these local
rulers to kings of all Norway, so the disagreement of Adam with the
sagas might not be as great as it appears.

>To the specific question of St. Olav's paternity, contemporary records are
>as always hard to come by in Scandinavia.
>Generally speaking, I think (sorry, no reference) text analysis has shown
>that the poems woven into Snorri's History of the Norwegian Kings
>(Heimskringla) are of an older date than the prose. Poems are likely to
>stay unchanged over time. Many of them are attributed to skalds
>contemporary with the kings involved.

Poems are extremely difficult to use as historical (or genealogical)
sources. In particular, the statement that "Poems are likely to stay
unchanged over time" has been often used with more force than is
justified, and is not entirely true. I would be willing to agree that
it is largely true if you add the qualifying phrase "provided that the
language in which the poem is written has not undergone significant
changes". Since I am not familiar with the extent to which the Old
Norse language changed between ca. 900 and ca. 1150, I will resort to
an analogy from another country. Between the conversion of Ireland to
Christianity in the fifth century and the seventh and eighth centuries
(when the volume of Irish writings becomes really significant), the
Irish language had changed so much that the fifth century language was
virtually unintelligible to those living in the seventh century. [See
"Ireland before the Vikings" by Gearoid MacNiocaill, volume 1 of the
Gill History of Ireland.] If one finds an Irish poem written in
seventh century Irish which claims to give historical information
about fifth century Ireland, can this poem be regarded as a fifth
century poem which hasn't changed with time? Most certainly not. Is
it an accurate translation of an original fifth century poem? Maybe,
but quite possibly not. (Because of the restrictions of meter, poems
are notoriously difficult to put into more modern language without
changing the meaning.) Thus, I am very skeptical regarding any sort
of blanket statement that these poems are to be accepted at face
value. I would be willing to accept this for specific poems if
careful study by qualified linguists showed them to be genuinely old.
(Unfortunately, I haven't seen much of this type of study in Old Norse
poems, possibly because such studies are frequently in one of the
Scandinavian languages.)

>With this in mind, I checked St. Olav's Saga for any mention of Olav's
>father in the poems. In three of them (by the skalds Ottar, Sigvat and
>Bjarne) Olav is said to be "Harald's son".
>
>Lastly, the naming tradition at the time makes it unlikely that Olav
>Tryggvasson would name a son Olav.

Although I am not yet ready to completely rejects Adam's Norwegian
account on the places where he disagrees with the sagas, I agree that
he was probably wrong about the parentage of St. Olaf.

Two of the earliest Norwegian histories are the "Historia de
antiquitate regum Norwagensium" by Theodoricus (written ca. 1180?) and
"Historia Norwegiae" (early thirteenth century), neither of which
appear to be available in English (and are unavailable to me in any
form). For purposes of comparison, it would be intersting to see what
these sources say about the earliest Norwegian kings. Does anyone have
access to these?

Stewart Baldwin

Finn Karlsen

unread,

Mar 31, 1997, 3:00:00 AM3/31/97

Being just an amateur in medieval history, I probably should keep my
fingers shut. But since the subject interests me and I have access to some
of the sources, I have a few comments.

At 23:29 26.03.97 GMT, Stewart Baldwin wrote:
>
>The early Kings of NORWAY (based mainly on Adam of Bremen):
>
>HAAKON, of the stock of Ivar, first king of Norway [according to
>Adam], who ruled 35 years (say ca. 945?-ca. 980?) [see note 1]
>

In my norwgian translation of Adam (the only one I have, from 1993) the
translator has in a footnote pointed out that this must be Haakon
Sigurdsson Ladejarl, d. 995.

In Historia Norvegiae (norwegian translation from 1990 by Astrid Salvesen),
he is said to have taken the whole kingdom after the sons of Gunhild, the
wife of Eirik Bloodaxe, were dead. He had the nickname "the evil". He
called him self "jarl" instead of king because he descended from jarls as
his father was Sigurd and the mother Bergljot, daughter of Tore the silent,
jarl in Moere and Haalogaland. He ruled for 33 years and was killed by his
slave (trell) Kark.

In Historia de antiquitate regum Norvagiensium by Theodoricus (same
translator as above) the story of Haakon jarl is told through several
chapters.

>HARALD [Bluetooth] of Denmark, king of Norway (ca. 980?-ca. 985?)
>["Hartild" - see note 1]
>

In my Adam, there is a footnote to this passage (book 2, 34) pointing out
that at this time (994) Haakon Jarl has the power in Norway and in 995 Olav
Trygvason became king.

Neither Historia Norvegiae nor Theodricus has any mention of a son of
Haakon Jarl named Tryggve. They both point out that Olav Tryggvason became
king in Norway after Haakon Jarl. Historia mention the sons Svein and Erik
who fled to Denmark and were well recieved by king Sven. The historia says
that the norwgians were converted to the true belief and made Olav king as
they took the power from Haakon who at this time had ruled for 33 years.

Historia concludes that it is not possible to tell what happened to Olav.
After the battle outside Sjelland, he was not found dead or alive. King
Sven Forkbeard let the two sons of Haakon Jarl rule in Norway.

Theodricus also sites the rumours that Olav got away in a small boat, while
other says he drowned. He tells that Svein and Eirik ruled Norway for 15 yars.

>SVEIN of Denmark, also ruled Norway from the death of Olaf until his
>own death in 1014. [Adam, Book 2, xli(39)ff.]
>
>OLAF, d. 1030 [ASC, Mss. C, D, E], king of Norway 1014-1028, son of
>Cracabben [according to Adam, Book 2, li(49): "Olaph, filium
>Cracaben"]. He accompanied Svein on his conquest of England in 1013
>[Adam, Book 2, li(49)], but rebelled and made himself King of Norway
>on Svein's death in 1014 [Adam, Book 2, lii(50)]. He was driven out
>of his kingdom by Knut of Denmark [Adam. Book 2, lxi(59)], an event
>dated by the ASC to the year 1028 [ASC, Mss. C, D, E, F]. He was
>killed by his own people in 1030 [ASC, Mss. C, D, E], apparently after
>having briefly regained his kingdom [Adam. Book 2, lxi(59)].
>[Question: Is there any contemporary verification of the parentage of
>Olaf?.]
>

Theodricus says Olav was the son of Harald, son of Gudbjoern Syr, who was a
son of Bjoern Farmann who was a son of Harald Fairhair.

Historia says only that he was the son of Harald Grenske and the book ends
with him marrying Margareta sister (stepsister?) of the swedish king Olaf
Skotkonung.

>KNUT of Denmark and England, king of Norway, 1028-1035.
>[From this point on, there seems to be no serious disagreement between
>the sagas and Adam and the other more contemporary sources. The
>Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and Florence of Worcester verify the basic saga
>accounts that St. Olaf and Harald Hardrada were brothers by the same
>mother, and that Harald's father was named Sigurd ("Siward").]
>

Theodricus sites a list over norwegian kings that he apparantly has access
to and says that according to this list Knut king of Denmark and England,
son of king Sven, ruled Norway for 5 years together with his son Sven and
sisterson Haakon.

Finn Karlsen

0 new messages