Knights in the Scandinavian Countries

Hi, I posted this at twcenter.net also but not everyone looks at both forums so...

I am trying to do some research on the emergence of mounted knights in the Scandinavian countries. Specifically I want to know how and when the move to this style of warfare came about, and what changes to society and the economy were needed in order for it to occur.

Although there is a lot of information and interest on the Normans' adoption of heavy cavalry forces, I have not been able to find as much on the later adoption of this style of fighting outside Normandy. If anyone could give me a few pointers on where to start looking I would be very grateful. Thank you.

Regards,
Ambrosius.

You're addressing two complex issues here; the emergence of the Knight as a product of feudalism in Scandinavia, and the emergence of the Knight as a military unit representing a certain discipline of war.

After the Viking Age, Scandinavian society was gradually continentalized, and once you reach the later middle ages it's harder to tell it apart from other northern European societies like England or Germany. Political and military aspects follows this line of development.

Make sure to treat the three Scandinavian countries seperatly; Denmark, bordering Germany was always the first to recieve impulses from central Europe, and thus became the most continentalized. Here a feudal structure much like the one seen in the rest of Europe developed, and Denmark's flat land was ideal for knightly warfare. Sweden was arguably the most secluded of the three from European influences, f. ex. it adopted Christianity far later than its two neighbours. In Sweden too one sees the development of knightly warfare, but the feudalism of central Europe isn't present, serfdom never existed and the individual farmers usually enjoyed a large degree of independence and influence. Same with Norway, but here the mountaneous landscape just wasn't suited for mounted warfare at all, and thus the knightly charges of the south never happened, except maybe in the somewhat flatter southeastern areas (where I live ~;)). You could say warfare in Norway centered far more on ships and infantry than cavalry.

This is pretty much what I know about the subject, it's not my field of expertise I'm afraid. Try checking out this book:

http://www.ospreypublishing.com/titl...=S5058&ser=MAA

Thanks very much for your response and your words of caution, Spartakus. It is much appreciated. ~:)

Hi!

In Sweden the move to feudalism and mounted knights came around 1280.

The king Magnus Birgersson also called Magnus Ladulås (which would mean something like Barnlock, i.e. the king who put a lock on the farmers barns, meaning they could not anymore be subject to chieftains or nobilities freeguesting, up until this point powerful men could visit the farmers and demand food and supply for themsleves and their company as they saw fit)

But that was not the issue here. Magnus created the nobility and mounted knights in Alsnö stadgar in about 1280. In return for providing the king with mounted knights the chieftains and important families of old would gain freedom from taxation.

Of course this step is part in a longer process but this event (alsnö stadgar) usually is considered the time when feudalism and mounted knights are put in effect in Sweden.

It was the move away from the "ledungen" to the massive heavy cavalry.

As stated in some previous post the nobility in Sweden remained few and in comparison to continental patterns their power was very limited. The biggest class was the free farmers who much like their viking ancestors kept their rights to influence politics, if need be with the sword. (the Swedish farmers defeated more then one army of heavy knights in thier days, swedish nobility and kings, danish nobility and kings and german mercanaries all experienced this)

Kalle

Thanks very much to Kelle and Spartacus. I have had responses, both here and at twcenter.net, upon which I can build.

I appreciate your time and effort, more so because my library thinks that Scandinavian history begins and ends with the Vikings. Cheers guys, or should I say skol? ~:cheers:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AmbrosiusAurelianus

Cheers guys, or should I say skol? ~:cheers:

---

Skål!

Or for you who can't write 'å', it would be 'aa'.

By what I know of it, most of Scandinavia (bar Denmark and Skåne, the southern tip of what is now Sweden, which in any case spent much of its recorded history as a Danish province anyway) was rather unsuited for both feudalism and heavy cavalry warfare. If one is to sum up the chief geographic characterists of the region they add up to lots and lots of forest, lots of lakes and rivers (particularly in Finland), rather little in the way of genuinely arable land, rugged terrain (particularly in Norway) and habitation tending to be along waterways. Plus by what I've read, the local horse stocks tended to be of comparatively poor quality.

What that amounted to in practice was that fiefdoms large and productive enough to support a genuine feudal political and military system were sort of difficult to put together; another sign of this is that a large part of the castles around were pure fortresses, ie. military bases and strongpoints, not the kind of jumped-up residential manors so common in mainland Europe.

And the rugged, heavily forested and virtually roadless terrain wasn't exactly prime cavalry country by any stretch of imagination. The narrow, winding, ill-maintained lousy excuses of roads most serious land traffic (like armies) had to go by were ready-made bottlenecks - a determined force of infantry could easily hold at bay far larger forces regardless of their composition, and one of the most important advantages of cavalry was rudely all but neutralized by the restrictive terrain.

This combination of economics and geography conspired to keep the infantry comparatively important at the expense of the heavy cavalry, especially in comparision to the developement in the more open terrain of mainland Europe. And when the chivalry were both poor and not militarily all that important, their social and political clout over the monarchs and the peasantry (who provided the bulk of the infantry) was naturally comparatively limited.

Incidentally, I've read that the longbow was a fairly common weapon in the region. Vast expanses of woodland, very low population density, practical necessity of avoiding starvation (plus the commercial value of furs) and small upper class meant that the commoners could hunt quite freely, and the hunters naturally learned to be pretty good shots by necessity. I suspect a similar pattern holds for the entire Northern Coniferous Belt, but haven't seen anything definite one way or the other.

Since Scandinavia was both impoverished and rather out of the way, developements in weapons and armour also tended to lag behind the mainland - although contacts (and frequent warfare) over the Baltic also meant there was some Eastern influence too.

Of course landowning noblemen still served as men-at-arms and their subjects in turn owed feudal military obligations to them, but the pattern was somewhat different from that usually seen in Europe proper. Except in Denmark and Skåne, but then in the context they were functionally Germany due to geographic reasons and comparative affluence (ie. best farmlands in the region).

Yes, the Danish regions (I think that is a fair term for Denmark, Skåne, Halland and Blekinge) were very much the gateway to Europe, and also different from both.

The Danish nobility became possibly the strongest in all of Europe, amounting to no more than 5000 in all (thus each was quite rich). There used to be a lot more, but a good deal were bought out to become free farmers instead (thus they were freed from supplying the king, supplying troops in war ect ect). Everyone gained from that. A lot of free farmers became serfs out of their own will, it was quite simply cheaper to be a serf, and you were not required to serve in war (a good thing for the peasant, there weren't all those plunderraids anymore), in fact you were entitled to protection from the lord. Quite surprisingly there wasn't a revolution or similar, instead the people of all classes willingly (over time of course) created a Danish version of feudalism. Nobody forced it on them.
But surprisingly the leding (ledung if you want) was kept up until the early 1200s, and even later for naval service. So for a while you would find both knights and freeman levies fighting side by side in an equal manner, in a similar fashion to what the viking era had seen.

But horses in Scandinavia weren't of poor quality. Do you consider Icelandic horses of poor quality? They are the same. They are rugged, strong horses, able to withstand horrible conditions... In fact they have a lot in common with the Mongol steppe ponies. But they were more than just a little unsuited for heavy cavalry, thus to the fashion of the day they were a lesser choice. A knight would not get much from such a horse, an honestly they aren't as majestic as spanish or arabic horses. So as soon as one noble had such horses the others would soon follow.
This was very quickly learned in Denmark and it eventually (quite soon actually) ended up exporting warhorses for knights in the rest of Europe. The king had a large horse-estate near Esrum in northern Sjælland (Sealand), and horses from that estate were priced, and often used as gifts to foreign kings and so on. This was kept up for centuries, and the estate was functional even a century ago.

The longbow was common enough, even way back before the Vikings made their entrance on the worldscene. But it was not used to its full potential, just as a superior selfbow compared to the shortbows.
It has in fact been theorized that the vikings introduced the longbow to the Welsh when they raided their coasts. Battles at sea would not have been entirely implausible since the Welsh had roots among people similar to the Picts (know for their searaiding). And at battles at sea the longbow was very prominent.

Btw, the eastern influence in terms of weapons, armour and culture was more Viking-era, or at least that is what I have gathered. Gotland died out for a good while as a trading-/stangingarea, before it rose again with the Hansa. Indicating that the contact eastwards lessened a good deal. But this is more an area for Swedes.