GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2000-03 > 0951926503


From: "Jo Rune Ugulen" <>
Subject: Re: SV: OLAV OF NORWAY
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 17:01:43 +0100


Stewart Baldwin <> skrev i
meldingsnyheter:...
>For the benefit of those of us who don't have access to the above
>article (and wouldn't be able to read it even if we did), would it be
>possible to give an English synopsis of the main arguments given by
>Krag?

I'll include below the summary in English to Krag's article from 1989. In
addition I should mention that on pp. 253-266 in his book from 1991,
"Ynglingatal and Ynglingasaga," there is an exstensive English summary, that
might be worth reading. The remainder of the book is in Norwegian, but
you'll get a general idea of his views. I believe this book should be
possible to find in one of the larger libraries.

Summary (by Krag) to Claus Krag's article "Norge som odel i Harald Hårfagres
ætt," (Norsk) Historisk Tidsskrift, vol. 68 (1989), pp.288-302.
Note: Italics in the original text, are here between ' and '

[Start]
Most historians, following their medieval saga-writing predecessors, have
claimed that the Norwegian kings Óláfr Tryggvason, Óláfr Haraldsson, Haraldr
harðráði and their successors, were all the descendants of Haraldr hárfagri.
This claim has been combined with another one, both in the sagas and
nowadays, namely that Haraldr hárfagri did not only unify the kingdom, but
that he also, although the unification was ephemeral at first, rooted the
idea of a Norwegian kingdom, commonly thought of afterwards as a hereditary
possession ('óðal') belonging to Haralds male descendants.
The most important single figure in establishing this long dynastical line -
and in disestablishing it - is Haraldr harðráði; the subsequent kings all
descended from him. There is really no evidence that he claimed the throne
as a descendant of the first Haraldr. The contemporary sources, both
Byzantine and Norse skaldic material, indicate that his ascendancy was
solely based on the fact that he was the half-brother of Saint Olaf, on
whose side he had fought in the battle of Stiklastaðir. Only in later
sources does he appear as a member of the hárfagri family. This can be seen
both as an effort by the medieval writers to create unity and coherence in
Norwegian history, and as a tribute to the Norwegian kings, especially
Sverrir and his descendants. They had a very strong interest in looking upon
the Norwegian kingdom as hereditary, and the dynasty as very old.
The view outlined above is not entirely new. It was held with some
persistency by Nielsen, Bugge and Bull, but subsequently lost support,
mostly because of Koht's firm belief in the traditional view.
Only Nielsen doubted also that Óláfr Tryggvason and Óláfr Haraldsson (Saint
Olaf) descended from Haraldr. But there is good reason to reexamine the
facts. There is no actual evidence that 10th and early 11th century Norway
was really at that time regarded as 'óðal' in the hárfagri family - on the
contrary, Danish kings were also kings of Norway most of the time. Nor do we
see such a large number of claimants to the throne as would have been
expected if there really had existed, as a constitutional fact, national
bonds on kingship, with the hárfagri descendants as a privileged group.
Another disturbing fact is that the two Óláf's were from Østlandet [i.e.
Eastern Norway, J.R.U.'s comment], where their forefathers seem to have been
vassals under the Danish king, and where Haraldr hárfagri never really
gained supremacy.
The evidence used by modern historians to support the descendancy of Óláfr
Haraldsson from Haraldr, crumbles when reexamined. Some skalds (Óttarr,
Sigvatr) call him 'niðjungr Haralds' and 'arfvorðr Haralds,' but it is
rather obvious, from skaldic usage generally, that this Haraldr is not
Haraldr hárfagri, but 'Haraldr grenski,' Óláfs father. When it comes to
Óláfr Tryggvason and contemporary sources, there really exists no so-called
evidence at all. Neither do skaldic expressions such as 'Haralds áttleifð,
Haralds haukey,' and so on, denoting "Norway", point to other than Harald's
role as the legendary first ruler of the whole country. Similarly, England
is called 'Ellu ættleifð' and later kings 'Ellu konr', without the skald
implying that Ella founded a dynasty or that England belonged to his
descendants.
[End]

regards
----
Jo Rune Ugulen, P.O.Box 205, N-5201 Os, Norway
E-mail:
Distriktsrepresentant i Hordaland for
Norsk Slektshistorisk Forening

This thread: