King Harald Sigurdsson of Norway in History and Legend

An Honors Thesis

Presented to
The Faculty of the Department of History
Bates College
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the
Degree of Bachelor of Arts

By
Camden Alexander McKenna

Lewiston, Maine
March 25, 2011
 2

Acknowledgements

I would first and foremost like to thank my advisor, Professor Gerald Bigelow, for
making the writing process as stress-free as possible and for facilitating my research.
I would also like to thank Professor Michael Jones for first introducing me to Harald
Hardrada. Of course, a special thanks is owed to my family, who have supported me
through a long Lewiston winter and encouraged me in this project at every step of the
way. I would also like to acknowledge the residents of 75 Elm Street, namely, Kyle
Rattray, Sean O’Brien, Charles Burgis, Matt Ohlheiser, and Nick Salcido for always
being there, despite bed bugs, robberies, heating failures, car crashes, missing
microwaves and the innumerable other misadventures that have accompanied our
accommodation together. Last but not least I would like to thank the town of
Lewiston, Maine, for demonstrating to me that without the bitter, life just isn’t as
sweet.

As always, my organization would like to extend its heartfelt appreciation for the
constant support and oversight furnished us by our most generous benefactor, the late
President Dwight D. “Ike” Eisenhower. May he rest in peace.
 3

A Note on the Text:

Where possible, Old Norse, Greek, and Russian orthography has been avoided and
the common anglicized forms of personal names, place-names, etc. have been used
instead. The only exceptions occur when quoting sources directly or when the Norse
form may somehow further the argument being made. This system is used to enhance
the readability of the text for laymen and non-specialists. Also, to avoid confusion, all
foreign words have been italicized, although anglicized forms and adopted foreign
words remain unaltered.
 4

Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction
5

Chapter 2: Sources
11

Chapter 3: Context
29

Chapter 4: Narrative
I. Introduction: A Disclaimer
40
II. Young Harald and Olaf’s Test
42
III. Stiklestad
45
IV. The Journey to Russia
54
V. The World of the Rus
61
VI. A Norwegian Viking in King Arthur’s Court
71
VII. Journey to Constantinople
81
VIII. The Varangians
87
IX. Araltes
95
X. Magnus the Good and Harald the Ruthless
131
XI. Hard-Ruler
141
XII. 1066
164

Chapter 5: Conclusion
191
Bibliography
198
 5

Chapter 1: Introduction

In Norway great events took place at that time; King Harald surpassed all the
madness of tyrants in his savage wildness. Many churches were destroyed by
that man; many Christians were tortured to death by him. But he was a mighty
man and renowned for the victories he had previously won in many wars with
barbarians in Greece and in the Scythian regions. After he came into his
fatherland, however, he never ceased from warfare; he was the thunderbolt of
the north, a pestilence to all…1

These bold words are recorded by the German chronicler Adam of Bremen,

and refer to the most dynamic—and coldblooded—leader that the Viking World had

ever seen. His name was Harald Sigurdsson, but he gained eternal fame as King

Harald Hardrada, a name first used in the sagas of the Icelanders, which is variously

translated as Harald of the Hard-Counsel, Harald the Hard-Ruler, or Harald the

Ruthless. His story inflated over time to include legends of his unmatched heroism in

battle, acts of trickery and deception that would put the Norse god Loki to shame, and

of course anecdotes illustrating more commonplace looting and pillaging in all its

bloody detail. We are told that he sailed to the end of the Earth itself just to take a

look over the edge. We are told that he faked his own death to gain entrance to a

fortified city in a coffin, only to pop out with an axe and murder every one of its

dumbstruck inhabitants. We are told that he defeated the King of Africa in single

combat; that he was seduced by the Byzantine Empress; and that in his final moments

he tore off his armor in a berserk fury, slaughtering hundreds of hapless Englishmen

before he was finally put down near Stamford Bridge, Yorkshire, in the fateful year

1066.

1
Adam of Bremen, History of the Archbishops of Hamburg-Bremen, F.J. Tschan, trans. (New
York: Colombia University Press, 2002), 128.
 6

Yet behind the legend we find that Harald is a much more complex figure than

Adam of Bremen would have you believe. The most extraordinary episodes in

Harald’s life were in fact historical, and can be discerned from the tales that have

come down to us if only we are willing to tease out the facts from the corpus of myth

surrounding him. Harald Sigurdsson lived fifty-one years, from 1015 to 1066, and

within that time participated in virtually all spheres of Viking activity. He was born in

Norway not far from where Oslo (a city which he founded) is today. Forced into exile

after the death of his half-brother Saint Olaf, he travelled through Sweden into Russia

where he fought for King Jaroslav against tribes of steppe nomads and Poles, before

continuing along the Russian river systems to Constantinople, the gleaming capital of

the Byzantine Empire. It was there that he became a mercenary in the service of the

Emperor, a position that would lead him throughout Asia Minor, to Bulgaria, to

Sicily, and even to the Holy City of Jerusalem. He acquired immense wealth through

his service and through less “official” means, namely plundering and theft. Harald

used his ill-gotten gains to ensure that when he came back to Scandinavia in 1045, he

would be well placed to take the kingship of Norway, which he did, ruling jointly

with his nephew Magnus until 1047 and then on his own until his death in 1066. King

Harald’s reign was marked by autocratic tendencies hitherto unknown in Norway. He

had frequent disputes with the Norwegian aristocracy and the Church, and was

generally despised by his subjects, even though, in many ways, he did more good for

Norway than his predecessor Magnus “the Good” ever did. His death finally came

during the unsuccessful Norwegian invasion of England in the autumn of 1066, at the
 7

hands of the English King Harold Godwinson who is better known for losing to the

Normans three weeks later at the Battle of Hastings.

Harald’s appeal derives largely from the perception that he embodied the

consummate Viking causing untold carnage wherever he went, which happened to

include a lot of places. He represented everything the Viking Age stood for: he was

courageous in battle, fearless in the face of death, vicious to his enemies (who were

many), cunning or deceitful when necessary, utterly opportunistic at every turn, and

unapologetically stubborn about virtually everything. He did not ask, and never said

please; he simply took.2 Viking activity, though, extended beyond simply raiding and

pillaging, and Harald reflects that as well. He could be found in all theaters of Viking

operation: he was present in the areas of eastward Viking expansion in Russia; he was

a member of the renowned Varangian Guard of the Byzantine Empire, a corps of elite

Scandinavian warriors responsible for the personal protection of the Emperor; he

raided and looted extensively, mostly in Denmark; he played his part as a

consolidating, Christianizing Viking king; he supported trade with the North Atlantic

Islands and the new settlements in Greenland and North America; and he intended to

conquer and eventually settle England as a Norwegian colony.

Harald Sigurdsson was also a highly significant figure in European and world

history generally, who is often neglected by contemporary historiography. Most

historians, rather arbitrarily, see Harald’s death as symbolic of the end of the Viking

Age, but fail to investigate the circumstances of his life in anywhere near the fullness

accorded to contemporaries like William of Normandy, Cnut the Great, Harold

2
In fact, there is not even an equivalent of “please” in Old Norse (or any of the modern
Scandinavian languages for that matter) so we could literally say that please was not in his
vocabulary.
 8

Godwinson, or Saint Olaf. Both of these contentions are mistaken: Harald’s death did

not mean the end of the Viking Age and he deserves more attention than historians

have been willing to give him. Although Harald may have represented the pinnacle of

the Viking achievement and we do see a decline in traditionally Viking activities after

his death, Harald’s death did not in itself precipitate major changes in Scandinavia

and the Viking Age really should be said to extend for at least another century after

Stamford Bridge. Harald occupied a space of time that, instead of being seen as a

break with that which came before, should be seen as part of a transitional process

that essentially began when the Viking Age began and was still occurring well into

the twelfth century.

Harald’s true significance is not merely as a symbol, but as a forceful agent of

change who influenced events in Scandinavia and elsewhere that reverberated such

that they can still be felt today. As the Norwegian king, he not only founded a new

dynasty, but also took steps to eliminate regional opposition to the kingship and

enforce Christianity, thereby unifying the country as a distinct polity—a recognizable,

autonomous “Norwegian” state, albeit still not quite in the sense we might understand

nation-states today. The invasion of England was perhaps Harald’s single greatest

contribution to world history writ large. The Battle of Stamford Bridge weakened

Harold Godwinson’s English army, which then had to march from York to the

southern coast of England to repel another assailant. This second invading force was

the Norman army led by William the Bastard, who, were it not for the earlier

intervention of Harald, might have retained that original nickname instead of winning

his epithet and becoming William the Conqueror. Of course, William the Norman did
 9

in fact vanquish the weakened English forces in 1066 and as a result we are writing

and speaking English today instead of Norwegian.

The primary aim of this thesis is to accurately describe the historical Harald

Sigurdsson in contrast to the partial, distorted, and sometimes completely fabricated

picture found in the primary sources. Snorri Sturluson’s King Harald Sigurdsson’s

Saga, found in the Heimskringla compendium of king’s sagas and written in the 13th

century, is necessarily the most frequently used source for the life of Harald

Sigurdsson. This is by far the most detailed and well-known account of Harald’s

exploits and provides a rough template for the narrative of Harald’s life, but it has its

pitfalls, and needs to be cross-referenced systematically with the multitude of other

sources on the subject in order to ascertain the historicity of the events it purports to

record. Through rigorous critical analysis and a series of “little arguments” employing

all the available primary sources and secondary literature, we should be able to finally

arrive at a truthful narrative of Harald Sigurdsson’s life that eschews the legend

grown up around him. The other main goal of this thesis is to show, by allowing the

sources to speak for themselves as much as possible rather than by merely reciting the

received dogma, the reality of Harald’s character and his historical significance.

The first chapter, of course, is the introduction, where the reasons for pursuing

such a topic, the methodology, and the general aims and structure of the paper are

outlined. The second chapter is a comprehensive discussion of the primary sources

that bear on this topic, including extensive source criticism of each. The third chapter

is devoted to the early eleventh century context that Harald Sigurdsson was born into,

because it would be impossible to truly understand any historical figure without also
 10

knowing the circumstances in which they are situated. The fourth chapter is the main

body of the thesis, and consists in a complete historical narrative, from the first time

the young Harald is mentioned in the sources to his death by arrow-wound on a

Yorkshire battlefield far from his native land. The goal of this latter chapter is to

provide a truthful account of Harald’s life and a candid portrayal of the man’s

character. The fifth and final chapter is the conclusion, where the main themes

running through Harald’s life, his character, and historical significance, will all be

assessed and reiterated.

 11

Chapter 2: Sources

I. Introduction

As they are for many Viking Age figures, the primary sources for Harald

Sigurdsson’s life are limited and tantalizingly incomplete. In fact, almost everything

we know about Harald comes from authors writing at some historical distance from

his death, often centuries afterwards. It is important to remember, however, that these

twelfth and thirteenth century accounts are not true primary documents at all, but

rather the work of later historians, as far removed from the events they describe as we

are today from French Revolution (and they would have been at a further

disadvantage owing to the dearth of good primary written evidence available to work

with). The few roughly contemporaneous sources we do have usually provide barely

more than passing references on their way to another purpose. Also, the early sources

were very likely ill informed, biased, or both. While it is certainly possible to

construct an extremely basic outline of key events in Harald’s life using only roughly

contemporaneous sources, we are forced to look elsewhere for a coherent narrative of

the king’s life. Thus, in Harald’s case, we must disregard the usual historiographic

sentiment that temporal and spatial proximity to events determines historical

reliability and lean to a greater degree on the later yet altogether better informed

Icelandic sources.

II. Foreign Sources

Our earliest sources of information are all from outside Scandinavia. The

various chronicles and annals recording Harald’s last act, his ill-fated invasion of
 12

England in 1066, are to our knowledge the first written accounts of Harald

Sigurdsson’s existence. Ironically, these first accounts mention little more than the

year and manner of his death. This set of sources includes the Anglo-Saxon

Chronicle, written by monks as notes in the church calendar (there are a several

varying extant manuscripts) and updated continuously to record important events as

they occurred in England. The Chronicle is generally seen as a credible informant for

the years in question and what little information it offers can be easily validated.

There were also continuously updated Welsh (the Annales Cambriae) and Irish annals

(The Annals of Tigernach), but these only provide vague references to Scandinavian

events at the time and require significant interpretation, though the Annales Cambriae

do include an entry for Harald’s death in 1066.

From Constantinople comes the Logos Nouthetikos, or “Oration of

Admonition to an Emperor,” which comprises the last sections of a larger work called

the Strategikon written by a Greco-Armenian aristocrat named Kekaumenos

sometime around 1078.3 This remarkable document goes into some detail about

Harald’s service as a member of the Byzantine Varangian Guard. Kekaumenos’

objective with this text is primarily to describe noble virtues and right conduct for a

Byzantine emperor and the aristocracy at large, and he employs examples of noble

and ignoble behavior from fables and contemporary Byzantine history to illustrate his

point. Kekaumenos says that he actually fought alongside Harald for the emperor in

Bulgaria and apparently got to know him quite well, because he uses Harald as one of

his examples. The Strategikon thus not only provides an elaborate narrative of

3
N. Kekaumenos, “Kekaumenos: Logos Nouthetikos, or Oration of Admonition to an
Emperor §§77-88 of the Strategikon,” from Strategikon, W. North trans., in Sovety i rasskazy
Kekavmena, G.G. Litavrin, ed. (Moscow, 1972), pp.274-298, 1.
 13

Harald’s Varangian service, but is probably also the most reliable source we have

about him.

Apart from the poems contained in later Scandinavian texts and attributed to

Harald’s skalds (court poets), Kekaumenos’ Strategikon is the only source we have

claiming a credible personal relationship with Harald. Kekaumenos certainly fought

in the same battles as Harald and moreover, he would have absolutely no motivation

to misrepresent the facts of Harald’s service as he knew them. He wrote within living

memory of the events, meaning others would know if he got anything wrong, knew

his subject and knew his own experiences, and relates the information in a

straightforward way free from embellishment. That is not to say he does not offer his

own analysis of Harald’s character, but given his objective standpoint as a Greek and

his close relationship with his subject temporally and spatially, there is little reason

not to take him at his word. For all these reasons Kekaumenos is the most trustworthy

reporter of events available to modern historians, which is good because otherwise

Harald’s adventures in the Greek lands would have gone completely unrecorded

outside of his own exaggerated stories and the legends his men brought back with

him, which show up in the later literature.

Unfortunately, Kekaumenos’ Strategikon only pertains to one small episode in

the life of Harald Sigurdsson and eschews many important details even at that. For a

more complete picture we must look elsewhere, and consider sources of far less

repute. That said, the next roughly contemporary source to consider is the Gesta

Hammaburgensis Ecclesiae Pontificum (History of the Archbishops of Hamburg-

Bremen) by Adam of Bremen. The first edition is believed to have been completed
 14

around 1075/1076 AD and revised and updated between then and his death in the

early 1080s4. Adma’s major purpose was to immortalize the deeds of his

ecclesiastical see for all time. This was indeed a popular genre at the time, and works

known as gesta episcoporum (deeds of bishops) were endemic at European

monasteries and ecclesiastical centers.5 However, because the archbishopric of

Hamburg-Bremen was officially responsible for converting the heathen people of

Scandinavian, Adam included a wealth of ethnographic, geographic, and historical

information about that area, including relevant passages about Harald Sigurdsson.6

We know that Adam arrived at Bremen around 1066/1067 (just when Harald

was dying in a Yorkshire field) probably from somewhere in the south of present day

Germany.7 He undertook to write his history partly to show his gratitude to the

Archbishopric through the endeavor. One unsurprising characteristic of his work then

is that he, “was disposed to exaggerate the importance of Hamburg,” as Francis

Tschan notes in his introduction.8 It is also evident from Adam’s discussions of

historical figures and events that he tended not to evaluate them in political terms but

rather his, “mind ran to the personal in history,”9 which can sometimes be misleading

when speaking of a kingship. He did apparently use something like what we might

recognize as a historical method: he sought out sources, made use of eyewitnesses

before anything, and compiled available material. Specifically with reference to

4
Francis J. Tschan, introduction to History of the Archbishops of Hamburg-Bremen, F.J.
Tschan, trans. (New York: Colombia University Press, 2002), xxviii.
5
Timothy Reuter, introduction to the 2002 edition of History of the Archbishops of Hamburg-
Bremen, F.J. Tschan, trans. (New York: Colombia University Press, 2002), xi.
6
Tschan, xxvii.
7
Tschan, xxv.
8
Tschan, xxviii.
9
Tschan, xxix.
 15

Harald, his major source was the Danish King Svein Ulfsson (sometimes called Svein

Estridsson), but he also knew something about him from conversations with members

of the church who had to interact Harald during his reign. These informants were

unlikely to present a flattering picture of Harald Sigurdsson: Svein Ulfsson (King of

Denmark) was Harald’s (King of Norway) arch-enemy from the time of Harald’s

return to Scandinavia in 1045 until his death in 1066 (though a truce had been

concluded in 1064), and likewise the see of Hamburg-Bremen was exasperated with

Harald on account of his resistance to their episcopal authority over Norwegian

churches. As a result, the small section devoted to Harald, King of Norway portrays

him as a tyrant and sorcerer of black magic; “…a pestilence to all.”10 Short of

invoking the wrath of God, there is little else Adam could have done to turn

sentiments against the Norwegian king, and the extreme level of bias here casts doubt

on the accuracy of the work. Still, the segments on Harald do provide certain factual

information regarding his relationship with the church that, if carefully scrutinized,

can be rewarding to historical inquiry.

Two more foreign sources are relevant entirely because of their treatment of

Harald’s activities in England in 1066. Both of these are histories of England that

were written there in the 12th century. The first is the Gesta regum Anglorum or

“Deeds of the Kings of the English” by the monk William (c. 1095-1143) of

Malmesbury Abbey in Wiltshire, England, who completed the first edition of the

work in 1125.11 The second is the Historia Anglorum by Henry (c. 1088-1064),

10
Adam of Bremen, History of the Archbishops of Hamburg-Bremen, F.J. Tschan, trans.
(New York: Colombia University Press, 2002), 128.
11
J.A Giles, translator’s preface to William of Malmesbury’s Chronicle of the Kings of
England, J.A. Giles, trans. (London: Henry G. Bohn, 1847), vii.
 16

Archdeacon of Lincoln, who finished the first version of his book by around 1133.12

Both of these writers aspired to emulate the some degree the Ecclesiastical History of

the English People written by the monk Bede in 731 and praised by many later

historians as a work of magnificent infallibility (though this view has encountered

great resistance in modern times). These two later historians did in fact achieve great

renown through their works, which are noted for their scope and focus on veracity, as

they employed a rather sophisticated historical method in their researches. Their

importance for Harald Sigurdsson lies in their contribution of unique details

concerning the invasion of Northumbria and the Battle at Stamford Bridge in 1066.

III. Scandinavian Sources

The continental Scandinavian sources for the life of Harald Sigurdsson all

date from significantly after his death. For that reason they must be considered

secondary sources writing after the fact and relying on primary accounts when

possible. Though only one hundred years removed from an event, original documents

and accounts from the 11th century would have been very few and difficult to come

by in the 12th and 13th if they existed at all. One major reason for this was that the

literacy rate in Scandinavia in the 11th century must have been somewhere near zero

percent, though there was a thriving oral culture of carefully remembered and handed

down stories and verses. Hence these later writers had to engage in at least some

degree of inference to fill in the gaps of their knowledge and create cohesive

narratives, which even then would be rather sparing on details. The later authors must

12
Diana Greenway, introduction to Henry of Huntingdon: The History of the English People
1000-1154, Diana Greenway, trans. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), xiv, xviii.
 17

have drawn on earlier material for their narratives, but the nature of these earlier

Scandinavian sources is unknown. Various ‘lost’ sagas and histories have been

posited, but it is also possible that the works we know of were largely based on oral

tradition handed from generation to generation or on skaldic poetry.

The earliest extant Scandinavian sources are the Norwegian synoptic histories,

including the Historia Norwegiae (History of Norway), the Historia de Antiquitate

Regum Norwagiensium (The Ancient History of the Norwegian Kings), and the Agrip

af Noregskonungasögum (A Synopsis of the Sagas of the Kings of Norway). The first

of these only covers events up to the ascendance of St. Olaf Haraldsson in 1015, and

so is unhelpful to the current study. The second is a work by the Norwegian monk

Theodoric that relates events from the rule of Harald Fairhair (hárfagri in Old Norse)

in the mid-9th century up to the death of Sigurd Magnusson in 1130.13 Probably due to

the religious bent of its author, the Historia spends a disproportionate amount of time

elaborating the deeds of the two great Christian kings of Norway, Olaf Tryggvasson

and St. Olaf Haraldsson, providing only basic accounts of the less spiritually minded

rulers (including Harald Sigurdsson). Theodoric also interrupts the main narrative

with frequent asides and allusions to classical and biblical topics, sometimes whole

chapters in length, and the entire text is rife with embellishment (e.g. “[the Wends]

descended upon Denmark in unbelievable numbers, covering the face of the earth like

locusts”14), suggesting something of a moral agenda and of course a strong Christian

bias.

13
Peter Foote, introduction to An Account of the Ancient History of the Norwegian Kings,
David and Ian McDougall, trans. (London: Viking Society for Northern Research, 1998), viii.
14
Theodoricus Monachus, An Account of the Ancient History of the Norwegian Kings, David
and Ian McDougall, trans. (London: Viking Society for Northern Research, 1998), 37.
 18

The Historia was completed sometime between 1177 and 1187, but a date

within the years 1177-1178 seems most likely.15 It was dedicated to the archbishop of

Nidaros in Norway (equivalent to today’s Trondheim). Perhaps because of the

author’s close relationship with the Trondheim region, which is known throughout its

early history as a hotbed of subversion, the Historia is generally not as friendly to the

Norwegian kings as it is to the local jarls of the Trondelag region.16 Theodoric says

he conversed with Icelanders and made use of Icelandic poems, but the extent of his

dependence on skaldic poetry is unknown, specifically, it is not clear whether he used

them merely to confirm factual information or to provide that information in the first

place.17 He may have interpolated heavily to flesh out the skeletal synopsis he had

assembled from his “sources,” whatever they were. Theodoric’s reliability is therefore

highly questionable if it is not cross-referenced with other sources.

The last of the synoptic histories mentioned is the Agrip af

Noregskonungasögum (A Synopsis of the Sagas of the Kings of Norway) generally

supposed to have been written by c. 1190 in Norway (probably in the area around

modern Trondheim) by an unknown author, who seems to have used the Historia of

Theodoric as one of his sources.18 This was the only the synoptic history written in

the vernacular (Old Norse), perhaps reflecting the author’s popular tendencies. As

M.J. Driscoll points out in his introduction to the first full English translation, the

“Agrip is decidedly not an aristocratic work,” and its author shows a marked bias

15
Foote, xiii.
16
John Marsden, Harald Hardrada: The Warrior’s Way, (Gloucestershire: Sutton Publishing,
2007), 6.
17
Foote, xvii.
18
M.J. Driscoll, introduction to Agrip af Noregskonungasögum, M.J. Driscoll, trans.
(London: Viking Society for Northern Research, 2008), xii.
 19

against royal exploitation of the lydrinn (“people”), which has implications for the

sections on Harald “Hard-Ruler,” Sigurdsson.19 Despite this, there is a nationalistic

streak to the writing, which overemphasizes Norwegian achievements at the expense

of the other Scandinavian countries, and largely ignores Iceland (where the extant

manuscript was found).20 The significance of the Agrip is in its presentation of

substantially more information about Harald than we are able to find in Theodoric,

such as his presence at Stiklestad and his journey through Russia to Byzantium. The

unique information we do find in the Agrip also seems more reliable, with correct

dates being provided, locations and chronology that match up with the foreign

sources, and the author’s conscientiousness in pointing out areas of contention in the

history all reassuring the modern reader in ways Theodoric does not. Apart from

presupposing the unverifiable existence of earlier lost works, the best explanation for

this is that the author of the Agrip utilized oral tradition to a greater extent than his

predecessor and was able to find accurate information there. In this way the Agrip

seems to set the stage for the later, more complete saga writing which would take

place in Iceland.

The sources for the synoptic histories, their relationship to each other, and

their relationship to the sagas that came later is however still a matter of much

unresolved scholarly debate and well beyond the scope of this study to elaborate more

fully. Suffice it to say, the Agrip appears to have drawn from the other two synoptics,

all of them incorporated significant elements of Icelandic oral tradition, and they were

19
Driscoll, xii.
20
Driscoll, xii.
 20

all known and used to some degree by the later writers of the Icelandic king’s sagas.21

There are a few scholars who maintain that the similarities of the three texts are due

to their incidental utilization of a common oral tradition, and others have argued the

Agrip was based on the lost writings of Saemundr Sigfusson (1056-1133) and Ari

Thorgilsson (1067/8-1148), but there is “no consensus” as of yet, according to

Driscoll.22

One more Scandinavian source deserves to be mentioned, though not a

Norwegian synoptic history, and that is the famous (at least in Denmark) Saxo

Grammaticus, who wrote the Gesta Danorum (History [or Deeds] of the Danes)

between 1208 and 1218 as Denmark’s first complete work of national history,

intending to “glorify the fatherland,” and to “civilize it…to provide proof of its

culture before the eyes of the learned world” as Hilda Ellis Davidson says.23 Saxo

primarily relied on poems and inscriptions from Denmark and the literature of the

Icelanders in constructing his narrative.24 Saxo covers the history of Denmark from

its mythic and legendary origins all the way up to the reign of Valdemar I, son of St.

Canute. The Gesta was based on the model of classical and pre-Christian national

founding stories, and in particular Vergil’s Aeneid,25 making Saxo’s claim to

historical accuracy, especially for the earlier books, rather dubious. His nationalistic

predisposition is thus rather thinly disguised. For Saxo, the Danes and the Danish

ruler is always the protagonist while Norway is most often the bitterly hated enemy.

21
Driscoll, xiii-xv.
22
Driscoll, xv-xvi.
23
Hilda Ellis Davidson, introduction to Saxo Grammaticus: The History of the Danes, Books
I-IX, Peter Fisher, trans. (Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 1980), 1.
24
Davidson, 1.
25
Davidson, 2.
 21

In terms of the eleventh century then, we often find Saxo supporting Harald

Sigurdsson’s nemesis Svein Ulfsson, who was king of Denmark. Altogether, Saxo is

not a very valuable source for Harald Hardrada: the few independent stories he relates

are regularly and often blatantly false (Saxo places a highly uncalled for dragon in

Harald’s cell during his imprisonment in Constantinople), contentious, or tainted by

his pro-Danish bias. In short, his literary ambitions hinder his ability to be taken

seriously as a historian.

IV. Late Icelandic Sources

The Icelandic sagas of the 13th century offer the fullest and yet most

problematic accounts of Harald Sigurdsson. Fullest because we find numerous details

in them which hitherto had made no appearance at all in any work of literature and

problematic precisely for that reason. Where did they come? How is it that the story

of Harald Sigurdsson grows larger and larger as we move further and further away

from him in time? How did a few lines about his death in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle

become an entire saga over 170 years later? In almost any other historical context it

would be obvious that the later sources were crafted by rabid yarn-spinners,

aggrandizing a national hero, making a legend out of a lacuna, in the way that King

Arthur evolved into a full-fledged persona out of a few ambiguous references. But

with Harald and the sagas this is not the case. Quite remarkably, the sagas are more

reliable than some of their predecessors, and their contents can often be checked

against archaeology and external sources, verifying their claims.

 22

There are three versions of Harald Sigurdsson’s Saga, each found in a

separate compendium of other king’s sagas. The earliest version occurs in the

Morkinskinna compendium (meaning “moldy skin,” which refers to the condition of

the vellum, i.e. animal hide pages, when the manuscript was discovered). By volume,

Morkinskinna was by far the largest repository of written information about

Norwegian kings up until that time, beginning with the reign of King Harald Fairhair

and extending to the second half the twelfth century. Morkinskinna devotes 60% of its

contents to the interrelated lives of Magnus Olafsson and Harald Sigurdsson, a

welcome prospect given the paucity of earlier accounts.26 Theodore Andersson and

Kari Gade, in their authoritative English translation of Morkinskinna, vouch for the

significance of this piece of literature which not only, “established a new literary

type, the historical compendium,” but, “revolutionized history writing almost

immediately. The chronicle form was imitated in Fagrskinna about five years later

and in Heimskringla about a decade later,”27 (Morkinskinna was written around 1220,

by their reckoning).28 The overwhelming evidence suggests that the Morkinskinna

exploited the oral tradition of Iceland to great effect. Most of the narrative revolves

around episodes that Icelanders were involved in firsthand, whose tales they

presumably brought back to Iceland to be codified in verse and story telling. In fact,

Morkinskinna, like the later compendiums, quotes verses of Icelandic and skaldic

poetry verbatim as evidence or confirmation of the narrative. Besides its roots in the

oral tradition, theories have suggested Morkinskinna might be based on a lost

26
Theodore M. Andersson and Kari Ellen Gade, introduction to Morkinskinna: the Earliest
Icelandic Chronicle of the Norwegian Kings (1030-1157), Theodore M. Andersson and Kari
Ellen Gade, trans. (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2000), 2.
27
Andersson and Gade, 497.
28
Andersson and Gade, 66.
 23

compendium or chronicle by the same Saemund Sifgusson (who lived 1056-1133) as

mentioned earlier, or on Agrip, or on Theodoric’s Historia, or a lost work by Ari

Thorgillsson, or especially Eirik Oddsson’s lost Hryggjarstykii, or all of them; but

there is no settled agreement on literary origins.29 Unfortunately, the author, unlike

Snorri, does little in the way of editing to sift out truth from fiction. Instead he applies

a rather cavalier methodology to determine what to include, which appears to be just

about everything he encountered on his subjects. Nonetheless, if approached with

appropriate caution, the Morkinskinna proves one of the most valuable and complete

sources for 11th century Norway.

The Morkinskinna compendium, besides containing a great deal about Harald

in his personal saga, also relates several pertinent Thaettir, or tales, which can stand

alone as isolated episodes and usually focus on Icelanders at Harald’s court with

Harald used as a kind of backdrop to their own personal dramas. Though the

historicity of these stories is often doubtful (they all seem to exist out of place in the

chronology), these asides can help to crystallize elements of Harald’s character and at

the very least show Icelandic opinions about him.

Fagrskinna (meaning “fair skin” or “beautiful vellum” depending on who you

ask) was written c. 1220 not long after Morkinskinna also by an unknown author.30 It

is sometimes called Noregs konunga tal, especially in medieval vernacular references.

This compendium also contains king’s sagas covering the same period as

Morkinskinna (if the end of Morkinskinna were not defective), including a version of

Harald Sigurdsson’s Saga, but eschews many of the anecdotes that characterized the

29
Andersson and Gade, 1-2.
30
Lee M. Hollander, introduction to Heimskringla: History of the Kings of Norway, Lee M.
Hollander, trans. (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2009), xix.
 24

Morkinskinna, probably in an attempt at greater historicity. Importantly, and

anticipating Heimskringla’s heavy reliance on poetic sources, Fagrskinna cites

skaldic verses with greater frequency than its predecessor.31

Heimskringla (often translated “world’s orb”) is the masterwork of the famed

saga-writer Snorri Sturlusson and includes the most celebrated version of Harald

Sigurdsson’s Saga. The 13th century Icelandic chronicle of the Sturlung Clan, called

Sturlunga Saga, alludes to Snorri’s writing of Heimskringla having taken place in

1230/1231 and most scholars feel comfortable with that time.32 It is, like

Morkinskinna, a compendium of king’s sagas, each saga presenting a different

Norwegian king in chronological order. Though at times Snorri takes whole pages

and many stanzas of poetry directly from Morkinskinna or Fagrskinna, he refines

what he has at his disposal, omitting spurious details and adding his own insights.

Unlike the author of Morkinskinna and his shotgun approach, Snorri’s selectivity

bears the mark of a true historian with a genuine desire to truthfully report the facts of

the past as best as he knows how. Snorri expounds a definitive methodology, which is

rare among authors of this time, in his version of Harald’s Saga:

…many more of [Harald’s] feats and achievements have not been written
about here, partly because of our lack of knowledge, and partly because we
are reluctant to place on record stories that are unsubstantiated. Although we
have been told various stories and have heard about other deeds, it seems to us
better that our account should later be expanded than it should have to be
emended.33

That is not to say that Heimskringla is not without pitfalls, Snorri, after all, did not

have a huge amount of material to work with, and the verses and orally transmitted

31
Hollander, xix.
32
Hollander, xxii.
33
Magnusson and Palsson, 86.
 25

stories he cites as evidence may well have been corrupted in the transmission process

over the years, some maybe even deliberately invented. Specifically, as Lee M.

Hollander observes in his introduction, Snorri at all events exhibits a “cool

impartiality…Snorri does not moralize, he is ‘objective’ and is content to let facts

speak for themselves; whereas the compiler of Morkinskinna, on whom he leans

heavily, often cannot refrain from expressing his indignation or approval.”34

Though without doubt a fantastic saga writer, Snorri does have his faults as a

historian. As Magnus Magnusson aptly points out in his introduction to King

Harald’s Saga, “He [Snorri] saw politics in terms of personal motivation, of human

aspirations and failings.”35 Snorri, like the authors of the Icelandic family sagas, is,

“more concerned with the character and fate of the individuals than with strict

historical accuracy, historical truth and plausible fiction were often so thoroughly

fused that it is hardly possible to separate the one from the other.”36 His goals were

not the same as the modern historian; factual accuracy came second to producing

great and enduring literature or didactic political narrative, depending on the

sequence. That is not to say accuracy was not important, Snorri placed a premium on

reliable sources, preferably contemporary; he valued eyewitness accounts and those

with the good memories who could transmit those accounts in an unbroken line from

generation to generation (a kind of oral family tree that Snorri frequently enumerates

before repeating the account). He especially trusted the evidence of poetry and was in

a unique position to use it more effectively than anyone. He was acutely interested in

34
Hollander, xxiii. Why does
35
Magnus Magnusson, introduction to King Harald’s Saga, Hermann Palsson, trans. (New
York: Penguin Books, 2005), 14.
36
Magnusson, 14.
 26

skaldic poetry and a master of its form, producing his own treatise in the form of the

Prose Edda as a detailed instruction manual to would-be skalds the world over. This

meant that he was better able than anyone to determine which poetry was good and

which was bad both on aesthetic and factual grounds. He also knew who the reliable

skalds were and who would have been likely to misrepresent the facts.

Another major Icelandic source is the Orkneyinga Saga, written independently

from the three versions of Harald Sigurdsson’s Saga sometime around 1200 and used

by Snorri Sturlusson as source material for the Heimskringla.37 Like the

Heimskringla, the Orkneyinga Saga used poetry as evidences and was in some

measure intended to enshrine the national oral tradition, which was, for probably a lot

of the same reasons as in Iceland, quite strong in Orkney. The saga is primarily a

history of the exploits and adventures of the various earls of Orkney, which came into

the Norwegian sphere of influence at the start of the Viking age. Because of this, the

narrative often drifts into foreign affairs, particularly those in Norway, and includes

sections about King Harald that are presumably informed by the stories that

Orcadians who knew him brought back to the island. Because Earl Rognvald of

Orkney rescued Harald from the Battle of Stiklestad and brought him to Russia, the

saga contains a brief description of the journey to Novgorod which we do not see

anywhere else. The only version of the Orkneyinga Saga now in existence is a revised

one from the Flateyjarbok, which was compiled in 1390 by two Icelandic priests and

rediscovered in the 15th century on the island of Flatey (hence the name).38

37
Hermann Palsson and Paul Edwards, introduction to Orkneyinga Saga: The History of the
Earls of Orkney, Hermann Palsson and Paul Edwards, trans. (New York: Penguin Books,
1981), 9-10.
38
Palsson and Edwards, 19.
 27

Apparently, the Heimskringla used the text of the original Orkneyinga Saga, but then

the revised version (the only one we have) ended up using Heimskringla for its

revisions, which makes it difficult to determine which material is original.

One additional, fourth version of Harald Sigurdsson’s Saga exists from the

Flateyjarbok, apparently having been added sometime between 1390 and when the

book was found again on Flatey in the late 1400s.39 This is known as the ‘Separate’

Harald’s saga and shares much in common with the version found in Morkinskinna.

Because its few unique pieces of information are riddled with internal and external

contradictions, this version is not all that useful. Furthermore, the earlier sagas

already contain mostly everything of value that the Flateyjarbok version can offer

anyway.

Harald Sigurdsson’s story is most familiar from Snorri’s version of his saga in

Heimskringla and this is also the source that will receive the most emphasis in this

study. That is not to say that it is a fully accurate account; as praiseworthy as the

sagas are for their time, they would be unacceptable as works of history today. They

carry too much of the literary with them, are too liberal and trusting with their

sources, exclude too much, confuse their chronology, people, and events on a regular

basis, and include stock stories and legends too frequently, all of which makes them

entertaining but poor histories. Therefore, in order to ascertain the relevant facts about

Harald Sigurdsson from the sagas it will be necessary to check Snorri against the

other sources (especially the foreign sources), against himself for internal

contradictions, and against the realm of possibility, that is, we must see if what was

written was likely to have really occurred given the context of the Viking Age. In this
39
Marsden, 7.
 28

last capacity, sources that do not mention Harald at all can be useful for setting the

scene and elaborating upon areas of otherwise insufficient knowledge by filling in

blanks with the most likely possibilities. For this purpose sources such as the Russian

Primary Chronicle, Michael Psellus’ Chronographia, the De Administrando Imperio

of Constantine VII, other king’s sagas and thaettir, and even certain archaeological

findings from the time period are all helpful.

 29

Chapter 3: Context

I. Introduction

This section outlines the events prior to Harald’s emergence as a historical

figure. The context he is born into—the factional violence in Norway, the geopolitical

situation in Scandinavia, and also the personal loyalties and feuds that came

prepackaged for him at the outset—are extremely important to understanding

Harald’s life, and especially his conduct as King of Norway. The forces and figures

that influenced the lives of his predecessors resurface during Harald’s reign with

active parts to play, either as agents of mayhem or providence as the case may be. In

his time, Harald would have to overcome some of the same challenges that his

ancestors confronted all the way back to Harald Fairhair, the semi-legendary first

king of Norway. These challenges included the entrenched localism of Norway’s

ubiquitous petty kingdoms and the danger posed by a strong Danish state. Closer to

Harald’s time Christianity became a political factor with the conversion of unified

Norway by St. Olaf, whose kinship ties with Harald would later legitimize his claim

to the throne. Many important figures, both for and against the kingship, were

operating well before Harald came onto the scene, and some, like the unfortunately

named Einar Paunch-Shaker, had become generation-transcending institutions.

Therefore, it pays to explore the ground from which Harald sprang and in doing so

uncover the factors he was faced with as he grew into the ruler he would become. The

majority of this background information is here drawn from Snorri Sturluson’s

version of Saint Olaf’s Saga (though several others are known) from his

Heimskringla compendium, and where possible, only uncontroversial and reliably

 30

historical episodes have been utilized. Where the text becomes unreliable or

confused, Gwyn Jones’ authoritative History of the Vikings has been consulted to fill

in the gaps in accordance with modern scholarship.

II. The Family

Harald Sigurdsson was born in 1015 AD, the youngest son of Sigurd Syr (Syr

translates to Sigurd the Sow, though why he was called this is a somewhat of a

mystery), a minor king of Ringerike, a small region slightly northeast of present-day

Oslo. Harald’s mother was Åsta Gudbrandsdatter who had previously been married to

Harald Grenske, a grandson of Harald Fairhair, the first king of Norway (Sigurd Syr

was also purportedly related to Harald Fairhair, but this lineage may have been

invented). Åsta’s son by her previous marriage to Harald Grenske was Olaf

Haraldsson, better known to history as Saint Olaf, King of Norway. According to the

Heimskringla, Harald Grenske had deserted his wife Åsta soon after impregnating her

with Olaf in order to pursue another woman. If we are to believe the literature, this

woman, Sigrid the Haughty, was somewhat put off by Grenske’s advances and

resolved the matter by getting him drunk at a banquet, trapping him inside the great

hall, and then burning him alive with another of her luckless suitors.40 However it

happened, Harald Grenske was certainly dead by the time his son was born (in 995),

because Olaf was raised entirely by Åsta’s second husband Sigurd Syr. So although

Olaf Haraldsson and Harald Sigurdsson were only maternal half-brothers, for all

intents and purposes they shared the same father, Sigurd Syr, and thus their kinship

40
Lee M. Hollander, trans., Snorri Sturluson, Heimskringla: History of the Kings of Norway
(Austin: University of Texas Press, 2009), 186.
 31

bonds would have been just as strong as if they had been full blood brothers. Snorri

reports that the Norwegian king at the time, Olaf Tryggvasson, had come to Ringerike

“to christen the people” and that “Sigurd Syr and Åsta, his wife, had themselves

baptized together with her son Olaf [Haraldsson], and Olaf Tryggvason became the

godfather of Olaf Haraldsson. He was three years old at the time,”41 meaning the

whole family would have converted to Christianity in 998 AD. This would have

meant that Harald was raised in a firmly Christian environment, especially so

considering he was growing up during the reign of his half-brother Olaf, who

expended much effort forcefully Christianizing the more stubbornly pagan areas of

Norway. Indeed, through nearly all of Harald’s formative years he was growing up in

a united Norway on its way to becoming Christian.42 Olaf’s policy throughout this

years meant that Pagans were actively persecuted or executed and uprisings forcefully

suppressed, and Harald would have received from all this a thoroughgoing Christian

indoctrination and a concept of what a ruler should be that reflected his own half-

brother’s hard-headed and uncompromising modus operandi.

Sigurd Syr’s household was one dedicated to farming, which might explain

the epithet “Sow,” referring to the fact that he spent as much time digging through the

ground as a hog. He displays an even-temper and is circumspect in his affairs,

acquiring great wealth for himself while largely avoiding the intrigues and

improprieties that were endemic in aristocratic Norwegian families of the time. Snorri

often juxtaposes his demeanor with that of his stepson Olaf and to a much lesser

41
Hollander, 200.
42
Harald was one when his half-brother took over in 1016 and fifteen at the Battle of
Stiklestad in 1030, when Olaf died. A more in depth consideration of his age is found in the
first section of the next chapter.
 32

extent Harald (Sigurd died when Harald was very young). The sagas portray Åsti as a

strong Viking woman, whose own ambition is manifested through her sons. Snorri

says that Åsti induced a man named Hrani to take her twelve-year-old son Olaf, who

had by this time earned the nickname Olaf “the Stout” on account of his compact yet

powerful figure, on his first Viking expedition to Sweden (this would have been

around 1007).43

III. Olaf the Stout, the Saint, and Half-Brother

His adventure took him raiding all around Scandinavia and each success only

increased his reputation. Even at such a tender age, Snorri relates how the young Olaf

subdued other Vikings throughout Sweden and Denmark, raided into Finland and

along the coast of Frisia (in modern Holland), and supposedly assisted the displaced

king of England, Aethelred, in destroying the London bridge in a bid to win the

country back from the Danes.44 There are definitely some years unaccounted for in

Snorri’s narrative, because, if we trust his counting of the seasons, it seems Snorri

gives a date of ca. 1008-1010 for the death of the Danish King Svein Forkbeard in

England after he had driven Aethelred into exile. He also says that following his trip

to England and the death of Aethelred, Olaf was raiding in France for almost three

years, and that “by that time thirteen years had passed since the fall of King Olaf

Tryggvasson (in 1000), suggesting that Olaf was in France in 1013 (with Svein and

Aethelred having died before 1008 and 1010 respectively). We know more or less

definitively from other sources that, in fact, Svein died in 1014 and that Aethelred

43
Hollander, 246.
44
Hollander, 246-254.
 33

died in 1016. Clearly, the chronology of the Heimskringla seems to have broken

down. So either Snorri has omitted or condensed several years of Olaf’s life, perhaps

placing his activity in France after England when in fact it occurred before, or he has

put the deaths of Svein Forkbeard and Aethelred out of context, which seems less

likely given that the events line up with what English sources report. Whatever the

case, Olaf successfully helped Aethelred regain his kingdom for two years (1014-

1016, following Svein’s death) before he too died and was succeeded briefly by his

son Edmund Ironside (for less than a year) and then Cnut the Great in 1016.

The death of King Svein Forkbeard in 1014 created a power vacuum in

Norway. Svein had been ruling Norway along with his native Denmark (and later

England) since 1000, when he defeated Olaf Tryggvasson and his “Long Serpent”

warship at the famous battle of Svold. In the meantime, the earls of Norway were

consolidating power and were ready to welcome Olaf as king of a united Norway and

Olaf did not wait to take advantage of that sentiment. Of particular prominence and

influence was the emerging Ladejarl Svein Hakonarson45 and the wealthy landowner

Einar Thambarskelfir (often translated “Paunch-Shaker” but more literally “Wobbly-

Belly”). These Trondelag earls had always been a force of political instability in

Norway and detested attempts at unification under a strong kingship because this

would diminish their political influence and threaten to erode their local power bases.

In 1015, Olaf made a grand entrance onto the political scene when he defeated Earl

Hakon of the Trondelag and began his conquest of Norway. Previously, during the

reign of the Danish King Svein Forkbeard, Norway was divided into spheres of

45
Ladejarl translates to earl of Lade, an area near modern Trondheim. The earls of Lade had
dominion over the greater Trondelag region and were very influential politically.
 34

influence, with the vast majority of real power held by Trondejarl (earl of the

Trondelag) Eirik Hakonarson (Earl Hakon’s father) and his half-brother Svein

Hakonarson. Eirik officially ruled in the name of King Svein Forkbeard46 and Svein

officially ruled in the name of Olaf Skötkonung, then the king of Sweden, but in

reality these Earls retained semi-autonomy in their affairs, which explains why they

were hesitant to accept King Olaf’s disruption of the status quo. Furthermore, a great

deal of power was invested in lesser kings such as Sigurd Syr of Ringerike and also in

powerful landed men. Snorri astutely sums up the situation at the time of Olaf’s

conquest:

At that time there was in Norway a great number of landed-men. Many of

them were powerful and so high-born as to be in direct descent from royal or
earls’ families, and they were also very rich. Whoever governed the country,
whether kings or earls, depended on them, because in every district it was
these landed-men who had the greatest influence with the farmers. Earl Svein
was good friends with these landed-men, and so it was easy to collect troops.
Einar Thambarskelfir, his brother-in-law, was in his company, and so were
many other landed-men, and also many who before had sworn allegiance to
King Olaf both landed-men and farmers.47

Unification was not an easy matter. The endeavor required shrewd political

maneuvering and guarantees that what the king could provide would really be in the

best interest of the nobility. As it stood, even Danish rule was mostly nominal for

those in the Trondelag, whose day-to-day lives and allegiances had not changed much

during their “subjection”. The earls and landowners remained the visible and effective

authorities.

In part this peculiar political situation has something to do with Norway’s

unique geography. The mountains and forests that comprise the center of the country

46
Eirik Hakonarson went to England at Svein Forkbeard’s urging in 1014 and left his son
Hakon in charge of his domain.
47
Hollander, 279.
 35

were impossible to traverse with an army, and any kind of meaningful

communication or transport required ships. Because of this, the towns and farmsteads

along the extensive coast of Norway were only ever loosely connected to one another,

very much like the islands of an archipelago, and were thus able to develop as

isolated polities with independent identities. To complicate matters further, many of

the regional leaders (spuriously or otherwise) claimed to be descendants of Harald

Fairhair, and used their dubious genealogies to justify claims to power. Naturally this

made efforts directed at centralization very difficult for would-be kings like Olaf

Haraldsson. In view of the political circumstances he was faced with, we can begin to

appreciate the magnitude of Olaf’s undertaking.

Despite this adversity, Olaf was able to raise levies and take advantage of

strong support in the south of the country, especially in Vestfold (his home region)

and the Upplands. This is probably in part due to the fact that the Southern regions

had experienced more direct interference from Denmark under Svein Forkbeard and

subsequently came to see in Olaf a strong, homegrown counterweight to the powerful

Danish state and the threat of invasion. Before he could completely take over though,

Olaf had to defeat Svein Hakonarson, which he did in the sea-battle of Nesjar in

1016. His stepfather Sigurd joined him in battle with his own army. Svein had the

backing of the Swedish king and the wily Einar Paunch-Shaker who brought with him

a sizeable retinue from the Trondelag, and Erling Skjalgsson, a regional leader from

Western Norway. Although Olaf won the battle and thus cleared his path of

opponents for the time being, most of the major players in the conflict survived only
 36

to pop up down the road as formidable obstacles to the national unification and

Christianization of Norway that Olaf envisioned.

Despite continued resistance from regional leaders and the occasional

homegrown rebellion, Olaf was able to maintain his kingship over all of Norway and

set up his great hall in Nidaros, in the Trondheim region (presumably to keep a close

eye on unruly subjects there). King Olaf’s efforts led to significant progress towards

the unification of Norway, and people (including Harald Sigurdsson, who was an

infant when Olaf took over) began to get used to the idea of one nation under a

monarch, and for that matter, God. Olaf Haraldsson is most remembered for his role

in effectively completing the conversion of Norway begun earlier by his predecessor

Olaf Tryggvasson (r. 995-1000). He achieved these results largely through a

campaign of compulsion consisting of military action, threats, torture, or execution.

Everywhere a strict Christian, anti-heathen law-code was enforced and read aloud at

regional assemblies (Things). With baptism as the only respite from annihilation and

terror, it was not surprising that most Norwegians abandoned their Pagan belief

system for the infinite compassion of Christ. Despite this unique brand of persuasion,

he was to his more loyal subjects, as Gwyn Jones says, “a good king, even a very

good one,” though not as good as certain hagiographies (chronicles of saint’s lives)

suggest.48 Olaf’s strong-handed methods were of course overlooked when he was

canonized the year after his death in 1030. The cult of St. Olaf exploded immediately,

and Norway’s patron saint became a figure of legend said to have performed many

miracles, some of which are faithfully reported in the Heimskringla. Perhaps more

importantly he became a symbol of a powerful united Norwegian nation and its new
48
Gwyn Jones, A History of the Vikings, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 376.
 37

common faith. St. Olaf’s posthumous status was of course an enormous boon for his

half-brother Harald Sigurdsson when he claimed the kingship years later.

The significance of Christianity coming to Norway was immense. Although

earlier Norwegian rulers like king Hakon I “the Good” in the mid tenth century and

the somewhat more successful Olaf Tryggvasson had already introduced Christianity

to Norway, their attempts at converting the great bulk of conservative farmers had

met with limited success and the more isolated regions were especially strong

proponents of the old religion. Olaf made a point of changing that, constructing

churches and ransacking pagan strongholds when necessary. Besides the obvious of

allure of eternal salvation, there were probably also political motives for Olaf’s

behavior: Christianity brought with it an organized administrative structure that could

be exploited by the king for his own purposes (in dealing with the logistics of

unification for example). Furthermore, the papal relationship conferred legitimacy

upon the monarch, while the nation itself increased its international prestige by

entering the club of non-barbarian nations. There were other material benefits as well,

like new allies, potential revenue sources, and the justification to seize power and

enforce the rule of law in the name of God, which probably carried somewhat more

clout then the name of Thor or Odin.

In his crusade to Christianize Norway, King Olaf initiated a hugely significant

and arguably irreversible sea change across all levels of Norwegian societies, with

consequences that extended far beyond which idol your everyday Viking chose to

worship. In Gwyn Jones’ assessment, “It brought Norway out of the past and into the

present, lessened her isolation, and inducted her, partly at least, into the fuller
 38

European civilization of the time”—all important changes if Norway hoped to exist as

a nation independent of foreign powers, and specifically Denmark, as they

consolidated into more powerful states with greater territorial ambitions.49 Norway’s

domain under Olaf fell over the Atlantic Islands, including Orkney, the Faeroes and

Shetland and Norway was able to conclude an alliance with Sweden in the face of

Denmark’s growing power under Cnut “the Great.”

Beginning with a defensive mission to Denmark in 1025 to repel the colluding

raiding parties of Norway and Sweden that were harrying the Danish coast at the

time, King Cnut of Denmark became increasingly aggressive and dangerous to his

Northern neighbors. He began to actively recruit the disaffected regional leaders of

Norway to his banner, so that when the time came he could rely on domestic

subversion to undermine Olaf’s defensive capacity. Cnut promised immense wealth

and prestige under his new order, and it is likely that the former petty kings and lords

expected the greater degree of autonomy that their former subjection to Denmark

entailed, and about which they doubtless fondly reminisced. In truth, Cnut probably

did not have to do much to stir this group to revolt and he found easy allies in the

unfailingly dubious figures of Throrir Hound, Einar Paunch-Shaker (whose tenacity

and unusual epithet never ceases to amaze), and Erling Skjalgsson. Others, such as

Kalf Arnason, deserted from Olaf’s side at crucial moments in the conflict. Without

much support and with his levees for troops coming up disappointingly empty-

handed, Olaf was defeated and forced to flee through Sweden to Jaroslav’s court in

Russia (a route that Harald himself would follow not long after). Cnut found no

further resistance in Norway and placed the former Trondejarl Hakon, who had been
49
Jones, 377.
 39

in exile in England, on the throne of Norway and his son Harthaknut became king in

Denmark, with Cnut himself now the absolute ruler over England, Denmark, and now

Norway and parts of Sweden.50

One year after he assumed the kingship of Norway, Earl Hakon suffered death

by drowning leaving no obvious successor. Disregarding political prudence and in an

affront to the ambitions of Kalf Arnason and Einar Paunch-Shaker, Cnut appointed

his half-English son Svein to the post, and in doing so risked alienating his

Norwegian constituents. Meanwhile, at Jaroslav’s court, Olaf heard the news and

decided to seize the opportunity, departing for Sweden where he received assistance

(and troops) from his ally King Onund in Sweden. Olaf’s enemies in Norway

remained undeterred by the prospect of Danish overlordship, as represented by the

new pretender Svein, apparently preferring to remain the privileged nobility rather

than submit to the strong monarchy that Olaf was keen to impose. Thorir Hound,

Erling Skjalgsson’s sons, and Kalf Arnason, along with other lords from the West and

South all gathered forces to take up arms against the coming invasion. Olaf, perhaps

ahead of his time in his appreciation of the power of propaganda, had brought along

Icelandic poets and skalds, which he insisted witness the battle first-hand from behind

the shield-wall in order that they might sing his praises knowing the reality of his

triumph. Certainly they contributed greatly to the auspicious and highly embellished

battle-narrative as Snorri records it, and we owe them for the detail with which the

fateful Battle of Stiklestad in 1030 was illustrated and handed down to posterity.

However, Harald’s involvement in Norwegian history had by then already begun, and

it is to his early life that we now must turn.

50
Jones, 382.
 40

Chapter 4: The Narrative

I. Introduction: A Disclaimer

The limited source material available to us must to some degree determine any

possible narrative of Harald Sigurdsson’s life. The information we have is too

frequently unreliable and too riddled with lacunae to use as the basis for what might

satisfactorily be called a modern “biography.” A biography of a Viking king can

never approach the kind of coherence and level of detail that we might expect from a

biography of an American president. Unlike biographers of Calvin Coolidge or

Richard Nixon, we are not faced with the problem of making sense of a vast amount

of information and ordering it into a consistent and meaningful narrative, with only

the relevant facts presented. Rather we are in many cases forced by our lack of

information to take what seem like irrelevant facts and squeeze relevance out of them.

Unfortunately it is all too easy in this case to make faulty inferences if we endeavor

too enthusiastically to build towering arguments from unstable or nonexistent

foundations. At times, we have to be content with what we know, or content to offer a

suggestion with the proviso that we may never know.

The same is true in Harald’s case. The sources for his early life, that is, before

he was fifteen, when he participated in the battle of Stiklestad, are almost totally

silent. Following that, his adventures in Russia and Byzantium are covered by a good

diversity of sources but in no great detail (Jonathan Clements notes how, “even Snorri

whisks through the Russian years in barely a page”51). In his kingship, we find the

51
Clements, 189.
 41

most overwhelmingly detailed accounts, particularly in the Icelandic King’s Sagas,

but also from highly biased writers like Adam of Bremen. Lastly, the epic events of

the year 1066 are treated as though through a magnifying glass by highly varied and

detailed accounts from several quarters. Following the sources in this way would

produce the traditional picture of Harald’s life, overloaded in its treatment of the

kingship and disappointingly austere when it comes to the globetrotting of his

younger years. The goal here has not been to follow this model, but rather to

condense the narrative of Harald’s kingship and expand that of his youth. This is for

two reasons. The first is that such a strategy will hopefully result in a more balanced

and complete picture of Harald Sigurdsson, with due diligence to the formative events

prior to his reign, than the sagas on their own allow for. Secondly, it is hoped by this

method that the narrative will engage more fully with those areas of Harald’s life that

provoke scholarly controversy and capture the public imagination. These happen to

coincide in the area of Harald’s travels abroad because not only is the evidence for

this period rather shallow, but it was then that his exploits ranged over nearly the full

gamut of Viking activity: raiding, pillaging, serving as a mercenary, sailing, travelling

to new lands, and generally wreaking havoc across the medieval world. To approach

this goal, there will be times when the narrative relies by necessity on inference, even

occasionally those based on general circumstances of the time found in sources not

specifically dealing with Harald Sigurdsson, but at all events, these will be as limited

and conservative as possible and should not, of course, be read as the final word.
 42

II. Young Harald and Olaf’s Test

Harald Sigurdsson is mentioned as a child in one brief chapter of Snorri’s

Saint Olaf’s Saga wherein King Olaf decides to test his half-brothers at a banquet

following the death of Sigurd Syr. He concludes only the youngest, the three-year-old

Harald, has the making of a king (which is suiting: the name Harald came from the

Old Norse for ‘ruler of warriors’52)53. This story is rather formulaic and probably

represents a lack of scrutiny in Snorri’s usual screening process, though he does alert

us to its questionable historicity with the signpost, “we are told that…” before he

launches into it. Nevertheless the tale, fanciful as it is, might be based on an actual

privileged relationship between Harald and his half-brother Olaf, which we see

demonstrated in other places too. Snorri relates Olaf’s not-very-profound test of

courage as follows:

The king [St. Olaf] set on one knee his brother Guthorm, and on the other, his
brother Halfdan. The king looked at the boys, frowning on them, and showing
an angry countenance. Then the boys whimpered. Thereupon Asta [the boys’
mother] led up to him her youngest son, called Harald. He was three years old
then. The king frowned down on him. But he faced him fearlessly. Then the
king took the boy by his hair and tugged it. The boy grabbed the king’s
mustache and twitched it. Then the king said, “You are likely to be
vindictive54 when you grow up, kinsman.”55

Snorri records that a few days later Olaf observed his half-brothers playing and

noticed that, while the two older ones were taking after the domestic tendencies of

their father Sigurd Syr by building farmhouses, the youngest, Harald, was playing

with woodchips in the water that he pretended were warships. At this sight Olaf

52
Marsden, 20.
53
Hollander, 314.
54
Based on the word choice here (i.e. “vindictive” or, alternatively, “vengeful”) we may see
this episode as specifically foreshadowing Harald’s later retribution against the districts that
supported his later rival, Hakon Ivarsson, in the attempted rebellion of 1064.
55
Hollander, 314.
 43

remarked that, “It may well be, kinsman, that the time will come when you will be in

command of ships.”56

Finally, Olaf has a third premonition about Harald’s future after he asks each

of the brothers what they would like to have most. Whereas Guthorm answered large

fields and Halfdan answered many cows, Harald replied that he would like nothing

more than “Housecarls” (the personal armed retinue of elite warriors that a Viking

chieftain kept in tow), and enough of them to “eat up all of my brother Halfdan’s

cows at a single meal,” upon which Olaf predicts to Asta that, “In him [Harald] you

are likely to bring up a king mother.”57

Now any time we are presented with quotations in an Icelandic saga which

purports to record events of two centuries earlier, we ought to be wary. The way

Snorri begins with “We are told that…” and concludes with, “We are not told what

else they said,” suggests that he had his own doubts about the authenticity of the

story, which probably came to him through oral channels (this tale seems to be unique

to Heimskringla and is not found in Morkinskinna or Fagrskinna, which we know

Snorri drew upon heavily). Despite his reservations, Snorri chose to include it

anyway. Of course he may have done this simply to dramatically foreshadow the

events of the later King Harald’s Saga, but even if the details of the plot are not

accurate, the episode provides other insights as well. If Harald were three years old at

the funeral banquet of his father, then that puts Sigurd Syr’s death at 1018 (if we

assume that Harald has a handle on his own chronology here and that Harald was 15

at the Battle of Stiklestad in 1030). If this is true, even give or take a couple of years,

56
Hollander, 314.
57
Hollander, 315.
 44

we can draw the conclusion that Harald Sigurdsson grew up for the most part without

a father. It is likely then, given the seniority of his elder brother, that the recently

crowned King Olaf would have acted as the father figure for young Harald. We can

understand then the strength of the bond between the two, demonstrated by Harald’s

determination to fight by Olaf’s side at Stiklestad and supported by the

aforementioned anecdote and others, including Harald’s lifelong preoccupation with

exacting revenge on those who fatally betrayed his sibling. As John Marsden perhaps

too-emphatically hypothesizes, “Harald was indeed to become a vengeful man: so

much so that it might almost be possible to recognize his entire reign as a warrior

king in terms of a twenty-year blood-feud in vengeance of the kinsman laid low on

the field of Stiklestad.”58 This relationship entailed much more than standard Viking

kinship ties. Not only that, but we can see why Harald would have been generally

considered heir apparent, as the man with the most legitimate claim on Norwegian

kingship after Olaf’s death, and why he had to flee for his life when his brother fell.

Also this relationship makes it easier to understand why later King Magnus, Harald’s

nephew, would put up no resistance when Harald came back from abroad to claim the

kingship of Norway. However, before he could ascend the throne, Harald had to

embark on a veritable odyssey of his own, beginning with his brother’s death at

Stiklestad in 1030.

58
Marsden, 24.
 45

III. Stiklestad

Harald was 15 at the Battle of Stiklestad, as attested by the Agrip af

Noregskonungasogum59, Fagrskinna60, and Heimskringla61. Agrip, the earliest of the

sources, is succinct: “On Olafr’s side were his brother Haraldr, fifteen years of age, a

handsome man of great stature, Rognvaldr Brusason [earl of Orkney] and Bjorn

Digri.”62 Fagrskinna justifies this claim with a verse from a poem called Sexstefja

that was written by Harald Sigurdsson’s trusty Icelandic skald Thjoldolf in honor of

his benefactor. This excerpt is found in only one of Fagrskinna’s manuscripts:

He [Harald] left reluctantly

Lifeless Olafr, the ruler,
His helmet-stand hiding,
Of twelve and three winters [i.e. 15 years old]63

Snorri quotes Thjodolf again in his King Harald’s Saga, to the same effect:

Heard have I that near to

Haug did rage the shield storm;
By his brother stood, though,
Bulgary’s-destroyer.64
Parted from his peerless
Prince he, all unwilling—
Fifteen years the youth then—
Beyond the woods to hide him.65

Interestingly, Morkinskinna refrains from mentioning Harald’s age at all, though it

otherwise corresponds with even greater detail to the accounts given by Snorri and

59
M.J. Driscoll, trans., Agrip af Noregskonungasögum (London: Viking Society for Northern
Research, 2008), 43.
60
Alison Finlay, trans., Fagrskinna: A Catalogue of the Kings of Norway (Leiden: Brill,
2004), 159.
61
Hollander, 577.
62
Driscoll, 43.
63
Finlay, 160.
64
“Bulgary’s-destroyer” alludes to Harald’s later campaigns in Bulgaria as a member of the
Varangian Guard fighting for the Byzantine Empire.
65
Hollander, 577.
 46

Fagrskinna.66 Stranger still, the author of Morkinskinna had access to a great body of

Thjodolf’s poetry, some of which he quotes in the same chapter for other purposes,

but apparently was not aware of the verse that included Harald’s age, or felt it was

unimportant. Still, when attempting to fix Harald’s dates this deviation is slightly

disturbing, especially when the author of Morkinskinna tells of how a Swedish farmer

who put Harald up after the battle thought he was a “man”; then again we are told in

every source how the young Harald was already fully developed, and certainly

manhood in Viking culture seems to have arrived at an astonishingly young age by

our standards.

Kekaumenos, in his Logos Nouthetetikos, mentions that Harald was a “young

man” when he came to Constantinople during the reign of Lord Michael the

Paphlagonian (1034-41) and was soon afterwards dispatched to Sicily in the

campaign of 1038.67 If Harald were 15 at Stiklestad, then he would have been 23

upon entering Byzantine service, which would surely constitute “a young man,”

whereas a number closer to 28 (if we think of Harald as around 20 for at Stiklestad,

for no particular reason) might be pushing it by medieval standards. If he were 15

during the battle, he would have been 32 at the beginning of his kingship and 51 at his

death, both reasonable ages for such occurrences. What’s more, there is little reason

to doubt the claims of the different sources, and there is no alternative age to be found

anywhere. Moreover, the age of 15 fits in snugly with the chronology of Harald’s life

going forward. Harald’s age at this time is important for placing his birth date (1015)

and for establishing his age at any other time, as they are never explicitly given.

66
Theodore M. Andersson and Kari Ellen Gade, trans., Morkinskinna: the Earliest Icelandic
Chronicle of the Norwegian Kings (1030-1157)(Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2000), 130.
67
Kekaumenos, 6.
 47

Modern scholarship also unanimously agrees on Harald’s age at this point, accepting

Snorri’s claim, if not his entire description of the battle, so we can rest easy putting

Harald at 15 years old at Stiklestad in 1030.

The battle itself was the result of an attempt by Olaf Haraldsson, who had

been deposed in 1028, to return from his exile in Novgorod and regain his former

lands. He left his illegitimate six-year old son Magnus back in Russia under the

watchful eye of King Jaroslav. Olaf travelled through Sweden, staying with his ally,

King Onund, while he gathered troops for the invasion. Snorri says that it was in the

Swedish district of Jarnberaland that Olaf met up with troops from Norway, and that,

“Among them was Harald, the king’s brother, and many of his kinfolk, and it was a

most joyful reunion. By that time their troops numbered twelve hundred men.68”69

Snorri also tells that as soon as news of Olaf’s return had reached Norway, Harald

Sigurdsson helped spearhead the troop gathering as the man of “highest rank among

them [Olaf’s supporters]” and despite being “fifteen years old at the time,” though

“tall and of full-grown appearance.”70

Snorri also includes an anecdote about Harald that is found nowhere else and

probably invented. Again we find the familiar warning implied by Snorri’s use of

quotations, this time it is Olaf saying, “It seems advisable to me… that my brother

Harald be not in this battle as he is still only a child,” to which Harald argues “By all

means I shall take part in it, and if I am so weak as not to be able to wield a sword,

68
This figure of twelve hundred is actually equivalent to 1440, because in Viking times
calculations were made using so-called “long hundreds”, which were really equal to 120.
69
Hollander, 489.
70
Hollander, 488.
 48

then I know what to do: let my hand be tied to the haft [hilt].”71 Snorri then recites a

poem that “we are told” was written by Harald himself for the occasion, gloating

about his courage.72 In all probability, the poem and the story were inserted later; the

first for dramatic effect, and the second perhaps as a misattribution, as it is not

specific to Stiklestad in any way. In any case, it seems unlikely that Olaf would have

argued with his fully-grown half-brother (who would have had little trouble holding a

sword at that age) when he was in need of manpower. What’s more Olaf himself

supposedly began his warrior career at the tender age of 12 (whether this exact age is

accurate or not is debatable, but he would have had to be quite young). So, while

Harald definitely fought alongside Olaf at Stiklestad, it is highly unlikely such an

argument ever took place.

Olaf expected to be hailed as Norway’s rightful ruler, but instead found the

nascent country polarized, with large numbers siding with the regional nobility in

their support of Danish authority (represented by Cnut). The chief players on the

opposition side were Thorir Hound, Kalf Arnason, Finn Arnarson, and the sons of

Erling Skjalgsson. The earls and powerful men of Trondheim must have been unsure

how the battle would turn out, because they chose not to participate. Their absence

confirms what we already knew about this set and in particular Einar Paunch-Shaker:

that they were at all events consummate political opportunists whose loyalties seemed

to shift as often as the tides. Snorri divulges Einar’s pragmatism in a moment of

surprising insight when he explains that, “Einar was mindful of the fact that Knut had

promised him the earldom over Norway, and also that the king had not kept his

71
Hollander, 501.
72
Hollander, 501.
 49

promise. Einar was the first among men of influence to maintain the sanctity of King

Olaf.”73 Agrip gives the following account of the prelude to the battle, but the

motivations it attaches to Olaf’s enemies cannot be entirely trusted:

Later St Olafr returned to Norway through Sweden and came from Jamtaland
[an independent region between central Sweden and Norway] to Thrandheimr
[Trondheim] and came down in Veradalr [a valley in the Trondelag], and then
Kalfr of Egg [Kalf Arnarson], because of his malevolence and eagerness to
fight, rose against him and prepared for battle with all his might. He gained
the support of many men, mostly those who wished to keep Olafr’s Christian
preaching from the country, for they knew that he would again preach it and
support it with all his power as he had done before. But Kalfr gave as his
pretext that the sons of good men should not be held hostage and fought King
Olafr in battle at Stiklestadir.74

It is doubtful that the resistance had anything to do with opposition to Christianity.

The hagiographical sentiment of Agrip and just about every other Scandinavian

source for Olaf makes such a comment almost certainly one further plug for his

Sainthood. Rather it is more likely that the coalition of farmers (Bondir) assembled

against Olaf for more personal reasons. Agrip is probably right to center upon Kalf

Arnarson, who was according to Gwyn Jones “at the center of preparations” in

Trondheim.75 Having betrayed Olaf in 1028, Kalf Arnarson had a lot to lose if the

former king came back to power, just as did followers of the late Earl Erling

Skjalgsson, who also had a hand in driving away Olaf to begin with. In Gwyn Jones’

reckoning, it was precisely those “great chieftains who had accepted bribes and office

at Knut’s hand [that] had everything to lose if Olaf returned to power.”76

As for the date of the battle, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, which was recorded

at the time of the event, says for its 1030 entry:

73
Hollander, 527.
74
Driscoll, 43.
75
Jones, 383.
76
Jones, 383.
 50

This year returned King Olave into Norway; but the people gathered together
against him, and fought against him; and he was there slain, in Norway, by his
own people, and was afterwards canonized.77

While the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle provides the best evidence for this, Snorri also

relates that there was an eclipse of the sun during the battle, as Sigvat the

contemporary poet recorded (we must remember Olaf was keeping poets behind his

shield-wall to witness the battle):

No small wonder, say the

Sailship-steerers, was it,
When from cloudless heaven
Hardly warmth gave the sun-orb
An awful omen—from the
English I learned the portent—
For the king that fast did
Fail daylight in battle!78

This eclipse is known to have occurred on August 31, 1030,79 though Snorri places

the battle on “Wednesday the fourth Calends of August” or July 29th, 1030.80 In fact,

he is even more specific, saying that, “it was close to midday when the armies met,

and early in the afternoon when the battle began. The king fell before high noon [the

sun reached its highest point at 3 pm on that day, so that is what is meant by high

noon], and the darkness lasted from midday till high noon.”81 The exact time of day is

probably impossible to exactly determine, unless we take Snorri’s words on faith.

Theodoric agrees with Snorri on the date of July 29th, only one year earlier, saying

that, “The blessed Olafr went to his rest on the twenty-ninth day of July, which was

77
James Ingram, trans., The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (Nashua NH: MesaView, 1847), 65.
78
Hollander, 514.
79
Marsden 52.
80
Hollander, 521.
81
Ibid.
 51

then a Wednesday, in the year 1029 after the birth of our Lord.”82 Agrip, which may

have used Theodoric, also put Olaf’s death at “one thousand and twenty-nine winters

from the birth of Our Lord.”83 The one year discrepancy was most likely an

accounting error, but still the dates supplied for the eclipse and the battle are

inexplicably conflated. John Marsden cites the “impressive correspondence between

the timing recorded in the saga… and those calculated for the historical eclipse of

August” as evidence that the battle most likely occurred on August 31, the date of the

eclipse, and that the confusion probably stemmed from misinterpretation of an early

source which would have said “1029 years and two hundred and nine days since

Christ’s birth,” which in ‘long hundreds’ (i.e. 120; the standard at the time) comes to

August 31, while in ‘continental hundreds’ and from January 1, the date comes to

July 29.84 The date of the Battle of Stiklestad was thus most likely August 31, 1030.

Olaf was apparently killed fairly early on in the battle. Agrip says Olaf, “was

wounded in the knee by one of Kalfr’s men. He sank down and prayed and threw

down his sword. Thorir Hundr and Thorsteinn knarrasmidr dealt King Olafr his death

blow.”85 Snorri also mentions Throrir the Hound, protected by the “magic of the

Finns,” as the man dealing the deathblow, but also that in addition to Thorstein

“Shipbuilder” either the nefarious Kalf Arnarson himself or a relative of his

(confusingly also named Kalf) contributed, with the three blows in combination

finally felling the king, whose valiant resistance was no match for the gang that

82
Theodoricus, 37.
83
Driscoll, 45.
84
Marsden, 52.
85
Driscoll, 45.
 52

attacked him.86 According to all the sources, at some point in the fray Harald was

wounded,87,88 possibly defending Olaf, if we are to believe Thjoldolf’s verses.89 His

wounds are also the best explanation as to why he would have stayed in hiding in

Sweden following the battle rather than flee directly to Novgorod as planned.

Although Snorri’s description of the battle itself is highly detailed, it is also

extremely unreliable. Its aim is to emphasize through either hyperbole or sheer fiction

the glory of Saint Olaf, the grand scale of the battle, and the tragedy of Olaf’s

ultimate defeat. In John Marsden’s analysis, “The principal concern of the saga

narrative at this point appears to be the portrayal of a great Christian warrior king,

even on in the mould of Charlemagne, insisting that all his warriors enter battle as

Christians, chalking the symbol of a cross on their shields and advancing with the

war-cry of ‘Forward, forward, Christ-men, cross men, king’s men! [‘Fram, fram,

Kristsmenn, krossmen, konungsmenn!’]”90 Like the authors of the hagiographies,

Snorri was looking to venerate Norway’s patron saint as a symbol of national unity

and pride and a figure that legitimized Scandinavia’s claim to Christianity with his

miracles and martyrdom. Gwyn Jones is more sober in his appraisal of the battle,

which he believes, “…reflected the permanent realities of Scandinavian politics:

pressure and interference from Denmark and Sweden, and the Norwegians divided

into factions.”91 Olaf’s battle was less a crusade than a power play derailed by a

motley collection of resentful farmers, and his death was not martyrdom but the result

86
Hollander, 514-515.
87
Hermann Palsson and Paul Edwards, trans., Orkneyinga Saga: The History of the Earls of
Orkney (New York: Penguin Books, 1981), 56.
88
Driscoll, 45.
89
Hollander, 577.
90
Marsden, 37.
91
Jones, 384.
 53

of an erosion of Norwegian political support in the face of Danish hegemony.

Nonetheless, the preparations for Olaf’s canonization began the very winter of his

death, with powerful men like Einar Paunch-Shaker leading the charge, seeking a

rallying point for Norway against the growing power of Denmark.92

92
Hollander, 526.
 54

IV. The Journey to Russia

Following the significant defeat at Stiklestad and Olaf’s death, Harald was

forced to flee or else face retribution at the hands of the victorious regional leaders,

including those that slew his half-brother. Harald, being only 15, and moreover

wounded in battle (to what extent we do not know precisely), was in dire need of help

and protection, which came from an Orkneyman and great friend of Olaf’s named

Rognvald Brusason. This is where the Orkneyinga Saga, or The History of the Earls

of Orkney, begins to contribute to the story, mainly through its concern with

Rognvald, who would later became an earl of Orkney himself. It states:

[Rognvald] Brusason took part in the Battle of Stiklestad in which King Olaf
the Saint was killed, but Rognvald got away along with other fugitives. He
rescued from the battle King Olaf’s brother, Harald Sigurdarson, who was
badly wounded. Rognvald left him with a peasant to recover from his wounds
and travelled east over the Kjolen Mountains to Jamtland [this is the same as
the Jamtaland mentioned earlier], and on from there to Sweden where he met
King Onund. Harald stayed with the peasant until his wounds were healed,
then with the peasant’s son as guide he made his way east to Jamtland and
from there to Sweden, travelling secretly.93

The wound is something of an anomaly, appearing in no other sources (though

Heimskringla and Morkinskinna contain references, they certainly used Orkneyinga

Saga as its source for these events).94,95 The sources based on Orkneyinga Saga offer

a prime example of how one small detail can be spun out by later historians into an

elaborate yarn: Morkinskinna tells of how Harald was seriously wounded and rescued

by Rognvald, who then put him up with a farmer to recuperate. However,

Morkinskinna then goes on to relate a first-hand account by the son of the farmer

(which Snorri chose to omit because of its suspiciousness), in which twelve men

93
Palsson and Edwards, 56.
94
Andersson and Gade, 14.
95
Marsden, 55.
 55

arrived carrying the young Harald, who was then escorted North in a red cloak on

horseback to wherever the rest of the travelers were. Upon arriving, the farmer’s son

finally sees Harald’s impressive and manly visage (though we remember Harald was

only fifteen at the time) and learns his name. Now, there is not much reason for

Harald to be cloaked in the presence of the farmer and his son, and this story also

implies an unrealistically short recovery time (“a little while”), and as always, the

entire story being in direct quotes should worry us, as should the fact that the later

sagas in Heimskringla and Fagrskinna reject the story.96

There is little doubt of course that Harald would have acquired an injury of

some kind in the course of daylong hand-to-hand combat in a battle that his side lost.

However the saga’s claim makes it sound rather serious, at least serious enough that

he required rescuing and needed to recover for some time in Jamtland at a kindly

farmer’s house before moving on. There seems little reason why he would stay with

the peasant if not injured, and little reason why Rognvald would not have departed

immediately for Russia unless he was waiting for Harald, whose royal bloodline was

still precious to Olaf’s surviving followers. It appears also that somewhere close to a

year elapsed between the battle and the time Harald was in Russia, (the verse in

Morkinskinna, “the next year, king of warriors, you spent east in Russia,”97 which

Snorri quotes, attests to this fact)98, yet it would not have taken him that long to get

there unless he dallied somewhere along the way. Harald’s Saga also attributes a

verse to Harald that was purportedly composed during his trek across the mountains,

96
Andersson and Gade, 130.
97
Magnus Magnusson and Hermann Palsson, trans., Snorri Sturluson, King Harald’s Saga
(New York: Penguin, 2005), 47.
98
Andersson and Gade, 131.
 56

a journey we are meant to believe he undertook clandestinely and always fearing for

his life. The verse, composed, “while riding through a thicket” is as follows:

Now I go creeping from forest

To forest with little honor:
Who knows, my name may yet become
Renowned far and wide in the end.99

We should be suspicious of this poem, which is supposed to juxtapose Harald’s

inauspicious beginnings with the success and power that he would one day achieve.

The poem’s inclusion looks too much like another dramatic device, anticipating as it

does the later events of the king’s life, with which the saga’s audience would have

been well acquainted. There is also a common thread in many sagas to tell tales of

great leaders travelling among the people to show their greatness and the attitude of

the people towards them when stripped of the pomp and circumstance that would

normally accompany a royal personage. It is of course possible that the saga author

decided to include this particular segment because of its obvious and remarkable

prefiguring, but more likely that it was either totally invented or the product of an

older Harald, an ambitious skald, or a later poet, seeking to glorify the king by

appealing to his youthful exploits. This poem was also included in Morkinskinna’s

supposedly firsthand account, framed within the farmer’s son’s tale as recited only to

him as they passed through the forest to rejoin Harald’s comrades. This appears, like

the entire sequence, to be another rather cavalier interpretation on the part of

Morkinskinna’s author of the limited information provided by the earlier Orkneyinga

Saga in an attempt to enlarge the frame of the poem with the questionable farmer’s

son’s tale.

99
Magnusson and Palsson, 46.
 57

The next phase of the journey, after Harald had recovered from his injuries

and arrived at Onund’s court in Sweden, might well have been precipitated by

Rognvald Brusason, who seems to have acted as a kind of unofficial leader of the

renegades. Doubtless thinking back to the close relationship and hospitality offered to

Olaf, who stayed in exile in Novgorod from 1028-1030 (before his fateful decision to

take back Norway), Rognvald, Harald, and the survivors of Stiklestad turned to

Jaroslav “the wise” for aid and refuge. In fact, Rognvald himself had stayed with Olaf

at Novgorod for the few years he was away from Norway, and would have been

personally acquainted with Jaroslav and the best route for getting there. Also, the

young Magnus, illegitimate son of St. Olaf (who despite his problematic birth was

still in line for the kingship; he was after all a descendant of Harald Fairhair) was still

in exile in Novgorod, adding to its appeal as a base for the Norwegian expatriates. As

the Orkneyinga Saga relates: “In Sweden Harald went to see Rognvald Brusason.

Then they travelled east together to Russia along with many of the troops who had

been with King Olaf. They kept on the move until they reached Novgorod, where

King Jaroslav gave them a kindly welcome on account of the holy King Olaf.”100

Agrip is much briefer in its account, not having Rognvald Brusason and other

Orkneymen to inform it, laconically remarking that, “In the battle in which St Olafr

fell his brother Haraldr was wounded, and after Olafr’s death he fled the country to

Russia and went thereafter to Mikligardr [the Viking name for Constantinople], and

some say that he claimed the kingly title in Norway, but others deny this.”101

Following this reserved affirmation we hear nothing more of Harald until his return to

100
Palsson and Edwards, 57.
101
Driscoll, 45.
 58

Scandinavia from the Agrip, probably due to the scarcity of its own sources for his

escapades in that part of the world. Harald’s Saga spends only a page describing

Harald’s stint in Russia, although it acknowledges that he “stayed in Russia for

several years and travelled widely throughout the East [while he was there].”102

The information provided by the saga record is in fact mostly based on

accounts brought back to Iceland from Orkneymen and Icelanders who were at

Harald’s side through his entire journey. That is not to say the sagas have not

embellished or fabricated certain episodes. Indeed, the ‘abroad’ section of Snorri’s

saga is ruthlessly ahistorical, though Snorri himself probably naively relied on

undependable sources like the stories of returned Icelanders who had served with

him, many of which were exclusively oral tales distorted by over a century of

repeated transmission before he finally put them down to vellum, crystallizing their

otherwise fluid content. It is worth noting, however, that Snorri was himself a direct

descendent of one of the Icelanders who accompanied Harald to Constantinople, and

so had perhaps the best claim to knowledge of those events of anyone in Iceland,

though even this should not fill us with too much hope for accuracy. It is also clear

from the similarities of accounts that Snorri relied heavily on the Orkneyinga Saga

(or more precisely, Orkneyinga Saga’s not-currently-extant antecedent known as

Jarl’s Saga, thought to have been composed at the end of the 12th century), at least

for that material which intersects with his purposes.103 Finally, and as always for

Harald, Snorri puts a great deal of faith in the contemporaneously composed verses of

Thjodolf Arnorsson, who was Harald’s, “favorite poet…who spent many years in his

102
Magnusson and Palsson, 47.
103
Marsden, 55.
 59

company,” and who is the only source outside of Orkneyinga Saga that alludes to

Harald’s covert escape to Sweden.104 According to the “Tale of Sarcastic Halli”

found in Flateyjarbok, Thjodolf “was an Icelander whose family came from

Svarfadardal. He was a well-mannered man and a great poet. He was on very warm

terms with King Harald. The King called him his chief poet and honored him above

all his other poets."105 This same tale mentions another interesting aspect of Harald’s

kingship that may have skewed the later writing of the later Icelandic sources and

contemporary poets when it says that, “King Harald loved Icelanders very much. He

gave Iceland many valuable goods including the good bell for Thingvellir [The

national assembly place]. And when the great famine came to Iceland—and such

another has not come—he sent four knorrs loaded with flour, one to each quarter, and

he had a great many poor people transported from Iceland.”106 These same details are

presented in Heimskringla, as well, which emphasizes how he “sent out to Iceland a

bell for the church which had been built for the Althing at Thingvellir with timber

provided by St. Olaf.”107

Thjodolf by and large is one of our most important sources for Harald, being

contemporary to him, Icelandic, and very close to the king, who was as Gabriel

Turville-Petre points out, an enthusiastic “patron of poets.”108 Besides this, Harald

composed many verses of his own that surface in the Icelandic Sagas and even

104
Gabriel Turville-Petre, “Haraldr the Hard-Ruler and his Poets,” Lecture, The Dorothea
Coke Memorial Lecture in Northern Studies from University College London, London,
December 1, 1966, 10.
105
George Clark, trans., “The Tale of Sarcastic Halli” in The Sagas of the Icelanders: A
Selection, ed. Örnólfur Thorsson (New York: Penguin, 2001), 694.
106
Ibid.
107
Magnusson and Palsson, 87.
108
Turville-Petre, 4.
 60

Snorri’s Edda, and Turville-Petre even thinks, “no king of Norway was a better poet

than Haraldr,”109 (though this is not to say all that much), which meant he would have

had a particular insider’s appreciation for the art form, commissioning only the finest

poets in the land. Therefore it is likely, as court poet of Harald, Thjoldolf would have

heard much of what he committed to verse from Harald himself, making him an

excellent repository for the deeds of his patron. How well those deeds stood the test

of time in the Icelandic oral tradition, and whether Harald himself might have saw fit

to alter aspects of his story are separate questions, but one that must be considered as

well in any analysis of Thjodolf’s lyrics.

109
Turville-Petre, 19.
 61

V. The World of the Rus

When Harald arrived in Russia he would have arrived in a completely

different world. Though Christian, the Russian variant of Christianity at this time was

based on the Orthodox tradition propagated by the Byzantine Empire, which they

accepted for geopolitical reasons; the Empire was both the most powerful regional

military and the preeminent seat of culture and learning, with an unbroken connection

to the fallen Western Roman Empire. Unlike the Scandinavians, who adopted the

Latin language for official writing and its alphabet for their vernacular, the Rus used

their own literary language,110 known as Church Slavonic, based on the vernacular

Slavic spoken throughout the country but using the Greek alphabet and heavily

affected by Greek literary forms. In their architecture, too, the Rus followed the

example set by the Greeks, though in the early medieval period we still see traces of

Scandinavian influence.111 In short, while Scandinavia and the rest of Northern

Europe orbited around the Catholic Church and Rome (even to the extent that the old

Roman roads, towns, and fortifications were still in use in places like England), the

focal point for Eastern Europe, including Russia, was decidedly Constantinople,

whose Greek-speaking residents claimed to represent the continuation of the glory of

Rome on the shores of the Bosporus.

Most of our information for Russia (known more precisely as Kievan Rus

during the centuries before the Mongol invasion) comes from the Russian Primary

110
The Bulgarians were the first to apply the Cyrilic alphabet to the Slavic spoken language
for liturgical purposes after their conversion to Christianity in the 9th century, and the Rus
adopted this practice.
111
A good example of the immense Byzantine influence on Russian architecture during this
period is the impressive Saint Sophia Cathedral in Kiev, which was founded by Jaroslav
(whose grave can be found inside) in 1037 and is still standing today. He also founded
another Cathedral of Saint Sophia within the Kremlin (fortifications) of Novgorod.
 62

Chronicle (sometimes called The Tale of Bygone Years), a compendium of year-by-

year entries thought to have been compiled in 1113. While this source has much to

say about the history and politics of the Russian lands in the 11th century, it does not

specifically mention Harald, though this should not surprise us too much, as the

arrival of the teenage Harald was probably not considered a momentous occasion by

the monks who wrote the Chronicle. However, it is still a highly useful document in

that it provides a wealth of contextual information during the years Harald was active

in Russia and can be used in cross-reference with other sources to determine what he

was probably doing during his stay.

Scandinavians founded the first towns of Russia as trading centers, the first of

which, Staraja Ladoga, dating from the 8th century (on Lake Ladoga, not too far from

St. Petersburg), was still operating during Harald’s time. They exacted tribute from

the local populations of Slavs and other groups of tribal societies, including Slavs,

Balts, Finns, and Pechenegs, and made significant profit from the fur trade. Most

importantly, the Scandinavians took advantage of Russia’s river system to transport

goods for trade between the Baltic Sea region and the Mediterranean, primarily from

trade routes that reached as far as the Mediterranean (via the Dnieper River route to

the Black Sea), and the Arab world (via the Volga River and down through the

Caspian Sea). These two wealthy southern civilizations were both more than willing

to pay a premium for the exotic northern goods that the Vikings delivered. The local

Slavic people used the word Varangians to refer the Scandinavians collectively.

According to the Chronicle, the Slavs established an ineffective government of their

own after kicking out the Varangians and swiftly descended into anarchy. They
 63

subsequently saw the error of their ways and called the Varangians back in hopes of

finding, “a prince who may rule over us, and judge us according to the law.”112 There

is debate among scholars of Russian History as to whether the Rurik story is indeed

true, because it seems to take the spotlight away from the native Slavic people.113 The

ruler of Russia in Harald’s time, Jaroslav the Wise, was a member of this Riurikid

Dynasty. The structure of the society in the beginning of the Riurikid reign was that

of a small ruling class of Scandinavians and an overwhelmingly huge population of

Slavic subjects, from which the ruling class extorted tribute.

We know from the Chronicle that the years leading up to Harald’s arrival

were tumultuous ones for the Russian leaders. As John Marsden puts it, “The history

of the first centuries of the Rus, as recorded in the annals begun in the eleventh

century… represents a catalogue of almost incessant warfare, in establishment of

lordship over subject peoples, contention with predatory neighbors or internecine

conflict between rival siblings of the ruling Rurikid kindred.”114 The enemies of the

Riurikid dynasty were diverse, including ancient and mysterious tribal groups like the

Balts and Finns, other Slavic groups like the Wends, living in modern-day Poland,

and nomadic steppe-dwellers like the Pechenegs, whose incessant raiding with

mounted archers was especially troublesome during Jaroslav’s reign.115 In response to

the threat from nomads, Prince Vladimir constructed and Jaroslav extended the Snake

112
Serge A. Zenkovsky, ed., Medieval Russia’s Epics, Chronicles, and Tales (New York:
Meridian, 1974), 49.
113
Zenkovsky, 49.
114
Marsden, 60.
115
The Pechenegs’ effectiveness lay in their rapid, mounted assaults, mobile campsites, and
especially their small, lightweight, and accurate curved composite (or bamboo) bow, which
was despite its size as powerful as a longbow. This technological advantage was also one of
the main contributors to Genghis Khan’s later success.
 64

Ramparts, 300 miles of fortifications just high enough to prevent hopping by a steppe

pony joined at strongpoints of earthwork and timber, but all these efforts seem to

have been in vain.116 The Pechenegs in particular became adept at utilizing the frozen

river systems of Russia as highways for their cavalry, whose assaults could therefore

bypass the dense forests and strike in any season. The Rus had also to contend with

the immensely wealthy civilizations to their South, including the Jewish-Turkic

Empire of Khazaria (occupying a large territory spreading outwards from the

Caucasus area) and the ever-present Byzantine Empire. As Marsden mentions, there

was also rampant internecine friction at all levels of society from the tribal Slavs to

the ruling Riurikid family itself, whose members were by no means above fratricide.

Another powerful destabilizing force was the opposition between the power centers

of Novgorod in the North and Kiev to the South, whose geographical distance

translated into different interests and loyalties, all of which hindered attempts to

consolidate power in the hands of a single Russian potentate.117 Especially in

Novgorod, the people’s assembly, or Veche, curbed the power of the princes to some

extent. Also Novgorod, more so than Kiev, was home to a large and influential

merchant class, of which many were Scandinavian descendants, and a pervasive

cosmopolitanism118 and “commercial atmosphere,” which is described in the

116
Marsden, 77.
117
According to the Russian Primary Chronicle Kiev was a fortified town originally settled
by Slavs under Khazar overlordship until the Rus took it for themselves.
118
The city seems to have functioned bilingually at the very least, and would definitely have
played a roll in the sale or transport of the paradoxical 9th century bronze Buddha statue that
was found in Swedish Viking horde.
 65

Novgorodian Chronicle (Novgorod would even later become a member of the

Hanseatic League of independent trading cities).119

Byzantine and Russian records show that as early as 860, the Scandinavian

Rus were noted for their direct and recurring military expeditions against

Constantinople, which met with varying success, though they usually culminated in

beneficial trading arrangements. The earliest of these treaties is recorded in the

Russian Primary Chronicle as being from 907, when the Byzantine authorities

mandated monthly allowance for Rus (by this of course they meant Scandinavians)

merchants for stays in Constantinople up to six months.120 This suggests that the Rus

travelled to Constantinople primarily and most frequently as traders, not as

mercenaries. However, even at this early date, another treaty from 912 clearly shows

that the Empire was enthusiastically employing Rus mercenaries:

Should the occasion arise that you must declare war, and some Rus’ wish to
honor your emperor with their service, as many as want to come to him of
their own free will and remain under his command shall be allowed to do as
they wish…121

A further treaty in 945 goes expands the rights and arcane regulations governing Rus

traders, limiting their operations in the city (the Rus were restricted to the Saint

Mamas quarter in the suburbs Constantinople and had to fill out paperwork to

conduct business), probably because of suspicions stemming from earlier raiding

expeditions against the city.122 Indeed there seems to have been an understandable

lack of trust between the Byzantines and the unpredictable “barbarian” Rus, whose

119
Zenkovsky, 77.
120
R.I. Page, Chronicles of the Vikings: Records, Memorials, and Myths (Toronto: University
of Toronto Press, 1995), 98.
121
Page, 99.
122
Ibid.
 66

ships on the horizon could have equally signaled the approach of valuable furs from

the North or the unanticipated ransacking of the city and surrounds. Even in Harald’s

time, Constantinople was continuously under threat from the North, and another

favorable trade agreement was concluded in the wake of an unsuccessful naval

expedition against the city as late as 1043.

By the time of Vladimir and his successor Jaroslav, the Scandinavian features

of the Russian state were dissolving, as can be seen most evidently in the

Slavicisation of the rulers’ names. It was Vladimir who converted the Rus to

Christianity and in doing so “solved the important problem of Russia’s cultural

orientation.”123 Vladimir deliberated carefully between the major religions

surrounding him before making his choice, variously considering the Islam of the

Arab traders and Volga Bulgars,124 the Catholicism of the Germans, the Judaism of

the wealthy Khazar aristocracy, and finally Greek Orthodox Christianity. The religion

of the Byzantine Empire eclipsed all the rest in the “glory” of its rituals and the

grandeur of its holy places (like the massive Hagia Sophia), which convinced the

Russian delegation to Tsargrad (the Slavic term for Constantinople, meaning City of

Emperors) that they had found heaven on Earth in Constantinople.125 Of course there

were also strong geopolitical incentives for the conversion. There is some scholarly

controversy over the matter of whether Vladimir’s conversion was the result of a deal

in which the Rus assisted Basil II “the Bulgar-slayer” in his suppression of a rebellion

orchestrated by a Bardas Phocas in, a former royal advisor, in 987. The Russian

123
Zenkovksy, 65.
124
Volga Bulgars were a separate branch of the same ethnic group that inhabited Bulgaria,
but occupied a territory around the Volga River in European Russia and converted to Islam.
125
Zenkovsky, 66.
 67

Primary Chronicle alludes to an episode in which the Byzantines demanded he

convert before marrying Basil’s sister Anna, but also says how “by divine agency” he

was struck by a brief bout of blindness, which miraculously dissipated upon his

baptism, convincing him to accept the faith.126 Though we may never know exactly

how it happened, we do know that in the aftermath of their political wheeling and

dealing Vladimir had a prominent Byzantine wife (which we can read as “political

alliance”), Basil II was furnished with 6,000 Rus troops with which he crushed his

enemy,127 and Vladimir had agreed to the wholesale conversion of his people to

Orthodox Christianity. The enormity of Basil’s concession in giving his sister over to

Vladimir can be seen in the fact that, as John Julius Norwich points out in his A Short

History of Byzantium, “No princess born in the purple had ever been given in

marriage to a foreigner and Vladimir was not only a foreigner but a heathen, who had

killed his own brother and who already boasted at least four wives and 800

concubines: a fact which in no way discouraged him from creating havoc among the

matrons and maidens of any town he happened to visit.”128 In addition to the

immediate political benefits for Vladimir, converting to the Byzantine flavor of

Christianity meant firmly aligning Russia with the Empire, bolstering cultural

exchange, ensuring the continuation of lucrative trade agreements, and providing

greater security (including the potential for military alliances in the future).129

126
Zenkovsky, 69.
127
Many of these soldiers likely stayed on in Byzantine service as mercenaries, forming the
backbone of the Varangian Guard during this period.
128
John Julius Norwich, A Short History of Byzantium (New York: Vintage Books, 1999),
208.
129
One example of the close relationship that developed between the Empire and Kievan Rus
in the aftermath of Vladimir’s conversion is an episode reported by Cedrenus in which Basil
 68

Jaroslav was perhaps even more adept than Vladimir at shrewd political

maneuverings, as we can see from an aggressive marriage policy for his daughters,

who became queens of France, Hungary, and Norway, and he would have understood

the immense importance of maintaining strong ties with the Byzantine Empire.

Jaroslav was nicknamed “the Wise” for propagating Christianity throughout Russia,

supporting religious establishments and monasteries and commissioning scribes to

translate Greek manuscripts into Slavic. The Russian Primary Chronicle characterizes

Jaroslav as an enlightened ruler, equally if not more responsible for the success of

Christianity in Russia as his predecessor:

During his reign, the Christian faith was fruitful and multiplied, while the
number of monks increased, and new monasteries came into being… [He] was
devoted to priests, especially to monks… [and] he wrote and collected many
books… [Jaroslav’s] father Vladimir plowed and harrowed the soil when he
enlightened Russia through baptism, and this prince [Jaroslav] sowed the
hearts of the faithful with the written word, and we in turn reap the harvest by
receiving the teaching of books.130

Despite their common goal of Christianization, Jaroslav and Vladimir were

not on the best of terms, Vladimir preferring to stay in Kiev while Jaroslav

consolidated his powerbase in Novgorod. Before Vladimir’s death in 1015, the

Chronicle informs us that tensions between the two had risen to a fever pitch, and

Jaroslav was in the process of recruiting mercenaries. He, “sent across the sea and

brought Varangians,” in an attempt to professionalize his fighting force with the

warrior elite of Scandinavian.131 As Jonathan Clements points out, there were also

personal and cultural reasons for Jaroslav seeking assistance from Scandinavian

II provided Byzantine admirals and a fleet of Varangian mercenaries to help Jaroslav fight off
the Khazars on the Black Sea in 1016.
130
Zenkovsky, 72.
131
Marsden, 63.
 69

warriors, “particularly those with whom he had a family connection—his [Jaroslav’s]

wife Ingigerd was Olaf’s sister-in-law.”132 Russia at this time had no national army

but only personal retinues of armed retainers surrounding great chieftains, similar to

early Germanic chieftains with their comitatus or the Scandinavian hirdmen and

housecarls. In Russia the personal war-band was called a druzhina and was used to

gather tribute and for personal protection, but was never very large. Other sources of

troops included tribal levies from controlled territory, but most important of all were

mercenaries recruited from abroad. By the time Vladimir died, Jaroslav was already

organizing his forces through these channels, paying particular attention to the

recruitment of the famously effective mercenary soldiers of Scandinavia.

Vladimir’s death was no cause for relaxation, as Sviatopolk, Jaroslav’s half-

brother, pounced at the opportunity to seize Kiev with his own band of mercenaries

recruited from the ranks of Pecheneg steppe-warriors. Sviatopolk and Jaroslav vied

for control of Kiev until Jaroslav won a decisive victory in 1019, although a new

pretender, named Mstislav (a son of Vladimir), quickly appeared from the woodwork

to challenge his dominance. At every turn, Jaroslav was quick to summon the tried

and true fighting men of Scandinavia to his aid. In 1026, a treaty was reached

dividing Russia along the Dnieper (Jaroslav was left in charge of Novgorod and Kiev,

Mstislav in charge of the area to the East of the river, with Chernihiv as his capital).
133
A strained peace lasted until 1036, when Mstislav died without an heir and

Jaroslav the ‘Grand Prince’ was able to consolidate the kingdom once more.

Jaroslav’s long reign, from 1016-1054, represented the “golden age” of Kievan

132
Clements, 189.
133
Marsden, 63-65
 70

Russia, “the age when material, intellectual, and artistic achievements were

particularly brilliant.”134

134
Zenkovsky, 71
 71

VI. A Norwegian Viking in King Jaroslav’s Court

For several reasons, we know Harald must have stayed with Jaroslav for some

years following his escape from Stiklestad in 1030. As discussed previously, it

probably took him about a year to finally arrive in Novgorod, meaning he would have

been roughly 16 years old. He stayed there for at least a couple of years, until at least

1034 (19 years old), when he travelled to Constantinople in search of fame and

wealth.135,136 He could not have left Russia earlier than 1034 because Snorri, using

Fagrskinna and Morkinskinna as his sources,137 states that Michael Catalactus

(Michael IV) was emperor when Harald arrived in Constantinople, and we know

Michael’s reign began in the Spring of 1034 and lasted until 1041.138 Kekaumenos’

Logos Nouthetetikos (or Oration of Admonition to an Emperor) agrees with this

dating, saying that, “Since Harald was a young man, he wanted to come and show

reverence to the most blessed emperor Lord Michael the Paphlagonian [Michael IV]

and to gain a view of the Roman system,” (Kekaumenos conveniently ignores the

obvious profit motive in his attempt to glorify Harald as a servant of the Empire).139

Fagrskinna then is probably right in saying that “Haraldr stayed there [in Russia] for

a long time and fought many battles,” implying that his service under Jaroslav was

not just a brief stopover on his way to Constantinople, rather he must have had a

135
Sigfús Blöndal, The Varangians of Byzantium, trans. and rev. Benedikt S. Benedikz
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978), 61.
136
Marsden, 70.
137
Another source Snorri mentions referring to Michael is a poem by the Icelandic poet Illugi
that says, “Harald, you forced the Meditteranean lands to submit to the great Emperor
Michael.” Magnusson and Palsson, 52.
138
Harald also could not have left later than 1037 because we know he participated in the
Byzantines’ Sicilian expedition of 1038, but this is too late if we take into account the
“several years” of campaigning testified to by the sources occurring before that.
139
Kekaumenos, 6.
 72

reason that motivated his journey South that surfaced several years after his arrival in

Novgorod.140

Despite what the sagas say, Harald was probably not immediately made a

high-ranking officer of the “Russian Army” by Jaroslav, though he could have led

small groups of Scandinavians on tax-collecting missions. In the first place, there was

no standing “Russian Army” per se, rather the Rus relied on tribal levies (voi),

defensive town militias called up in times of need, and the small druzhinas already

mentioned.141 Secondly, as Sigfús Blöndal correctly points out, “during his first stay

in Russia, Haraldr was a young, unproven boy in his teens, and even if he went on an

expedition with either Jaroslav himself or Eilifr, he would only have gone as a very

junior person and not been likely to receive any great share of the takings.”142 For

these reasons we cannot trust Snorri’s claim that Jaroslav, “made Harald and Earl

Rognvald Ulfsson’s son, Eilif, commanders of his defense forces,” (Fagrskinna goes

even further saying that “King Jarizleifr appointed Haraldr as second in command

over his army and paid a wage to all his men,”143). This misinterpretation probably

rests on the ambiguity of the word “leaders” in the following verse of Thjodolf’s,

which Snorri quotes:

Side by side
The two leaders fought;
Shoulder to shoulder
Their men lined up.
They drove the Slavs [Austr-Vin∂um]144
Into defeat

140
Finlay, 183.
141
Marsden, 61.
142
Blöndal, 85.
143
Finlay, 182.
144
Austr-Vin∂um probably refers to the East Wends, a group of Slavic people living on the
southern coast of the Baltic Sea.
 73

And gave the Poles [Læsir]

Scant mercy.145

Though they could well have been leaders of a detachment in the Russian campaigns

against the Poles in 1031 (perhaps even of the whole contingent of Norwegians they

brought with them), Harald and Eilif were certainly not the commanders of the

Russian defense force. In addition to the sentiments of Thjodolf, Orkneyinga Saga

contends that “all the Norwegians joined up with Earl Eilif, the son of Earl Rognvald

Ulfsson, to take over the defenses of Russia, and it was there that Rognvald Brusason

stayed when King Harald Sigurdarson went to Byzantium, defending the country for

several years during the summer but staying in Novgorod over winter.”146 Eilif in all

probability did have a great deal of real power as the son of the recently dead lord of

Staraja Ladoga, 147 Rognvald Ulfsson.148 However, Orkneyinga Saga says nothing

about Harald gaining any position of power, but we can see now how Snorri and the

author of Fagrskinna (which Snorri must have consulted) could have easily conflated

the two sources (Thjodolf’s poem and the Saga’s description of Eilif) to reach his

faulty conclusion regarding Harald’s title.

At any rate, Orkneyinga Saga furnishes us with other important pieces of

information. It mentions that Rognvald Brusason (the subject of the chapter) fought

around Novgorod and that Rognvald was in “Ladoga Town” when Einar Paunch-

Shaker and Kalf Arnason came looking for Magnus Olafsson (St. Olaf’s bastard

child) in their attempt to elevate him to the throne of Norway after Cnut’s death in

145
Magnusson and Palsson, 47.
146
Palsson and Edwards, 57.
147
Staraja Ladoga was a fortified trading post known from archaeological study as the first
Viking settlement in Russia, located on the Volkhov upriver from Novgorod and not far from
Lake Ladoga or modern St. Petersburg.
148
Page, 101.
 74

1035. Einar and Kalf then submitted their case to Jaroslav in Novgorod for

arbitration. Jaroslav decided to let the young Magnus go with his father’s killers and

take his kingdom, despite the protestation of Ingigerd (Jaroslav’s queen) and

Rognvald Brusason.149 All this suggests that Harald would have certainly had

Novgorod, and not Kiev, as his base of operations during the Russian campaigns

contrary to what Blöndal believes150, as this was where his group settled down first

and remained when he continued on, and because Novgorod was where the

sympathetic King Jaroslav preferred to hold court. Marsden’s speculation that Harald

would have been inexorably drawn to the perennially besieged city of Kiev for

mercenary work shortly after the Polish campaign seems superfluous: there would

have been plenty of opportunities for similar service in Novgorod where he the rest of

the exiled Norwegians chose to stay. Furthermore, his employer and major benefactor

Jaroslav was primarily located in Novgorod (unless campaigning).

Marsden also cites a line from Adam of Bremen’s History of the Archbishops

of Harmburg-Bremen to justify his claim that Harald served in Kiev. Before arguing

this point further, it is important to note that Adam of Bremen was a huge detractor of

Harald, (as an ecclesiastical figure aligned with Denmark he was doubly indisposed

towards him: Harald the King was in constant warfare with Denmark and resented the

Archbishopric’s ability to appoint bishops in Norway). Adam’s disaffection is

wonderfully captured in his acidic characterization of Harald’s kingship: “King

Harold surpassed all the madness of tyrants in his savage wildness… he never ceased

149
Driscoll, 47.
150
Blöndal, 55.
 75

from warfare; he was the thunderbolt of the north, a pestilence to all...”151 Besides his

obvious bias, Adam also proves vastly ignorant of his subject: he mentions that

Harald “gave himself up to magic arts,” that he had “clawed hands,” and “extended

his blood-stained sway as far as Iceland,” (which in fact never happened).152 Clearly,

Adam of Bremen is not to be trusted. But even if he were, the two lines Marsden

refers to, do not come close to locating him in Kiev: “he had previously won in many

wars with barbarians in Greece and in the Scythian regions”153 and “Becoming there

[in Constantinople] the emperor’s knight, he [Harald] fought many battles with the

Saracens by sea and with the Scythians by land…”154 Marsden takes Scythians to

have meant Pechenegs, which were mostly operating around Kiev. However, even

ignoring the fact that Adam specifically mentions these battles as being during

Harald’s Byzantine service, the word Scythian in medieval usage was a catch-all term

for any barbarian, usually steppe-dwellers, and as such could have referred to Bulgars

(whom we know Harald fought against), Magyars, Goths, Pechenegs, Turks, and even

Scandinavians from Russia (who are sometimes called “Tauro-Scythians” by

Byzantine sources)155, so it is rash to assume that these “Scythians” were really

Pechenegs. Even granting they were, there were periodic raids by Pechenegs on the

Byzantine Empire, which dispatched routine missions against them that Harald could

have participated in. Lastly, the recorded campaign by Jaroslav against the Pechenegs

took place in 1036, two years after Harald most probably had left for Constantinople.

Although the 1034 date could be a little flexible given the inadequacy of

151
Adam of Bremen, 128.
152
Ibid.
153
Ibid.
154
Adam of Bremen, 124.
155
Blöndal. 33.
 76

chronological information we have, scholars have almost unanimously agreed upon it,

and there are good reasons for thinking they are correct, as we shall see. In short, we

can more safely determine that Harald was operating in North around Novgorod for

most of his tenure with Jaroslav. Of course we can assume that Harald would have

had to travel to Kiev briefly en route to Constantinople; after all the town’s

significance grew out of its favorable position as a trading center with relatively easy

passage to the Empire via the Dnieper River, although his presence there is not

specifically mentioned by the sources.

Marsden also provides a good scene-setting description of the kind of

weapons and armor that Harald would have adopted, based on general trends among

Russian and Russo-Scandinavian regalia. He would have been strongly influenced by

local traditions and the necessities that arose in combat with local tribes. He probably

adopted most of his combat armor from the Rus, which showed a combination of

Byzantine and steppe-nomad influences, and would have been decked out in furs and

baggy Slavic trousers. As in Scandinavia, the battle-axe was still the workhorse

weapon in Kievan Rus and would have certainly maintained its place in his arsenal,

but there is also the possibility that he would have assumed the use of a curved

scimitar.156

The tax-collecting missions that Harald would have undertook at the

beginning of his service with Earl Eilif, while not as glorious as later poets might

have us believe, were also not merely routine shakedowns. As one might expect when

dealing with fearsomely named subject peoples like the Finno-Ugrian speaking

Chuds, payment could often only be enforced through what may be gently termed
156
Marsden, 81.
 77

Realpolitik. On top of their “formidable military presence” inherited from years of

contact with the many flavors of Asian steppe warriors to the East, the “Finno-Ugrian

denizens of the northern forests and sub-Arctic tundra were believed by the northmen

to be possessed of sinister occult powers.”157 Furthermore, the “arduous pólútasvarf,”

as Blöndal calls these tribute-gathering missions, were conducted in wintertime on

sled and horseback by the druzhina (which we know was not very large) and a small

number of mercenaries from Scandinavia like Harald himself.158 According to the

10th century Byzantine De administrando imperio (on the administration of the

empire), during these ‘circuits,’ the druzhina overwintered with tribes like the

“Derevlyanians, Dregovichians, Krivichians, Severians, and the rest of the Slavs who

pay tribute to the Rhos” until the rivers unfroze.159 We can imagine that the faraway

and isolated tribes, sometimes speaking non-Indo-European languages, were not

always keen to submit to such terms from some abstract overlord miles away,

especially in the midst of the harsh Russian winter, and violence was often the

outcome. Such was the case with the Chuds, who had to be forced to pay, which

probably meant something more akin to “forced to sit back and watch while the

druzhina looted and sacked their settlements,” which was par for the course from a

Viking’s perspective.

Following the crushing of the Chuddish insubordination, the Primary

Chronicle records a large and successful campaign undertaken by the combined

157
Marsden, 68. Norsemen seem to have a long-standing phobia of shamanistic, tribal
peoples, which is reflected in their interactions with the Sami of northern Scandinavia, who
were also believed to possess otherworldly magical powers. Cf. also the earlier incident at
Stiklestad, when Thorir Hund reportedly becomes invulnerable on account of Finnish
enchantments.
158
Marsden, 71.
159
Page, 96.
 78

forces of Jaroslav and Mstislav against the Poles in 1031, who had fallen into anarchy

after the recent death of their leader. 160 Jaroslav and his foreign mercenaries would

have handily defeated the Poles in their disarray and Kievan Rus then expanded

eastward into the region now known as Belarus. Typical of his general foreign policy,

Jaroslav confirmed the peace by marrying off his sister Maria to King Casimir of

Poland. This Polish campaign is probably the specific action that Thjodolf is referred

to in his verse about Eilif and Harald. In an attempt to kill two birds with one stone,

Jaroslav parlayed his victory into a twofold long-term strategic advantage when he

initiated the resettlement of captured Poles in new towns along the Rhos River, thus

simultaneously neutralizing former enemies by incorporation into his own polity and

creating an effective buffer between the nomadic raiders (especially Pechenegs) of

the eastern steppe and the important city of Kiev in the West.

Next, Harald may well have supported Jaroslav’s 1032 campaign against the

Ob-Ugrians in the formidable region known as the “Iron Gates” in the Northern

Urals. According to Marsden, the Ob-Ugrians were traditionally held to have been,

“locked behind iron (or copper) gates until the Day of Judgment and, indeed a similar

expedition to the Ob River beyond the Urals disappeared entirely without trace in

1079.”161 It is unfortunate then that we are provided with so little detail on this

campaign, which must have been fraught with hardships and practical experience that

would have contributed to Harald’s growth as a warrior and leader.

Although Jonathan Clements puts his faith in a tale recounted by the separate

Harald’s saga in Flateyjarbok, Fagrskinna, and Morkinskinna, which claims that

160
Marsden, 69.
161
Marsden, 74.
 79

Harald asked to marry Jaroslav’s daughter Elisabeth (Ellisif in Old Norse) during his

first stay in Russia,162 this probably never happened. Instead it was most likely a

romantic addition or distortion derived from the more romantic sensibilities of the

13th century in Iceland, and also used as a device to explain Harald’s decision to

undertake service as a Varangian mercenary. Clements justly dismisses the portrayal

of “frustrated romance” and “star-crossed lovers,” as anachronistic but believes that

Jaroslav offered a marriage of convenience to his daughter at this time, provided

Harald come back when she was older. Under this explanation, he was turned down

by Jaroslav until he had accumulated greater wealth and power, and of course the

City of Caesars would have been the most natural place to go to achieve that end

(although, according to Fagrskinna, he would pine away there writing poems for his

dearly beloved).163,164 Given that Elisabeth would have been barely ten years old

during Harald’s first stay in Russia165 and Harald clearly was not preparing to settle

down and raise a family, it would have been a rather astonishing thing for either

Harald, Elisabeth, or Elisabeth’s father, to want such an arrangement or for Harald to

consider marriage at all. It is more likely that the arrangements were made during the

few years Harald stayed with Jaroslav again on his return journey from

Constantinople, when Jaroslav knew the wealthy Harald was now on his way to claim

the Norwegian kingship, and when his daughter was of marriageable age. So we must

162
Clements, 190.
163
The 16 romantic poems alluded to by Fagrskinna are certainly ridiculous (all ending in
“yet the Ger∂r of the gold ring/of Gar∂ar leaves me dangling,” with Ger∂r meaning goddess
and Gar∂ar Novgorod); it is difficult to see a character such as Harald the “Hard-Ruler”
becoming emotional about a girl he had not seen in a decade and who he only ever knew as a
ten year old.
164
Finlay, 191.
165
Blöndal, 55.
 80

search for another explanation for why Harald was driven to Constantinople, and this

was probably the same reason that drove the legions of his Scandinavian predecessors

who had followed the same path to glory and riches.

 81

VII. Journey to Constantinople

One good reason for thinking Harald had already left for Constantinople in

1034 is that the sagas say how Einar and Kalf, as has previously been mentioned,

went to Novgorod to bring back the young King Magnus to rule over Norway after

the death of Cnut the Great in 1035. The Agrip says that Magnus “returned to Norway

four years after the death of his father King Olafr [in 1030],” and that Magnus was

“nearly eleven years old when he came to the country.”166 The two could not have

arrived earlier than this because the power vacuum Magnus was to fill was created by

the death of Cnut in England that very year. Harald’s conspicuous absence from the

discussion of whether his young nephew should return home as king is strong

evidence that he was not with Jaroslav and therefore not in Russia at the time. Harald

surely would have asserted his claim to the throne then, as he would do later, if he

were there, and potentially would have murdered Kalf Arnason on the spot as well.

We must of course also allow the several years of Byzantine mercenary service that

the sagas describe before the Sicilian campaign in 1038. Thus we may assume that

Harald was either well on his way or already in Constantinople by 1035 at the latest.

Snorri cites a poem in full by Bolverk Arnorsson, Thjodolf’s brother that is

our only description of his journey south:

Bleak showers lashed dark prows

Hard along the coast-line;
Iron-shielded vessels
Flaunted colorful rigging.
The great prince saw ahead
The copper roofs of Byzantium [Miklagard];
His swan-breasted ships swept
Towards the tall-towered city.167
166
Driscoll, 47.
167
Magnusson and Palsson, 48.
 82

Such a stirring portrayal of the voyage as Bolverk’s unfortunately does not

give us much detail on Harald’s route. However, the poem does tell us that they

encountered storms on coast, probably on the Black Sea, where ships from the

Dnieper estuary piloted along the shore to avoid the hazards and imprecision of open-

water navigation.

The best account of the journey in general is found in the De administrando

imperio by the Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitos, which was written c. 944 in the

time of Sviatoslav.168 G. Moravcsik and R. J. H. Jenkins, the translators of the

authoritative edition of this text, concluded that the source of the De administrando

imperio’s section on the Dnieper route, “was in all probability a Northman who,

living in the bilingual milieu of Kievan Russia, was familiar with the Slavonic

tongue,” while D. Obolensky maintains the author of this particular chapter had

travelled the route as far as Kiev, or was merely translating a Slavic text into

Greek.169 Whatever the case, the author clearly shows extensive personal familiarity

with the Rhos (the Greek term for Scandinavians in Russia) and their methods.

Without doubt, Harald would have led his fleet down the usual route (laid out

in the De administrando) to Constantinople. For most Vikings on trade missions to

Byzantium, the journey began in Sweden, probably from Uppsala, Birka, Sigtuna, or

the island of Gotland, crossed the Baltic Sea and up the Neva River into Lake

Ladoga. From there they travelled upstream on the Volkhov (this was probably where

Harald began; Novgorod and Staraja Ladoga are both on the Volkov) into Lake Ilmen

and into the Lovat River. At the terminus of the Lovat ships had to be portaged, that
168
Page, 36.
169
Page, 94.
 83

is, either carried by their crews or rolled on logs over land, to the source of the

Dnieper. At this point the De administrando describes the scene:

All these [boats] come along the river Dnieper and converge on the fortress of
Kiev. The Slavs who are bound to pay the Rhos tribute—those called Krivichians and
Lenzanes and the remaining Slav regions—hew the hulls in their wooded hills during
the course of the winter, and when they have them ready, at the season when the
frosts dissolve, they bring them to the lakes nearby… these people come into the said
river Dnieper, make their way to Kiev, drag their ships along for fitting out and sell
them to the Rhos. The Rhos buy the plain hulls, and from their old ships [those they
come to Kiev in], which they break up, they provide oars, rowlocks, and whatever
else needed. So they fit them out.170

The boats Harald would be using then were mostly not “Viking ships” as we

understand them, at least not anywhere to the scale of the Oseberg or Gokstad ships.

The ships the Slavs provided were hulls made from hollowed out tree trunks, valued

for their versatility and mobility in the swift flowing rapids of the Dnieper.171 Later,

after entering the Black Sea, the Rus would modify these ships with masts, sails, and

oars, to prepare them for the open water, but is unlikely they ever approached the

glorious “swan-breasted” and “iron-shielded” vessels of Bolverk’s poem (though as

for the “colorful rigging” who can say?). The topic of Viking ship technology is

however a rather developed field and there is much controversy on this point; it is

conceivable that in the intervening century or so between the report of the De

administrando and Harald’s journey, Vikings took to using larger, sturdier vessels

like those of their homeland. It could also be possible that Varangians, being

mercenaries and not merchants (who seem to be the focus of the De administrando’s

description), would have perhaps brought their own warships for service, or at least

fitted out Slavic tree-trunk boats in a more war-like and imposing manner.

170
Page, 94.
171
Ibid.
 84

As if the journey to Kiev were not already enough of a hassle, Harald would

have encountered seven rapids (each with different names in “Russian” i.e. Old Norse

and Slavonic, like “Don’t fall asleep”) on the Dnieper that they also had to portage

around.172 What’s more, besides Kiev itself, the Dnieper ran straight through

Pecheneg country, and the travelers would have had to contend with the incessant

threat of horse-mounted raiders,173 who were well aware of the kind of wealth in furs

and gold that flowed up and down that river. The De administrando even makes the

rather startling claim that, “until they [the Rhos] are past the river Selinas [which

feeds into the Black Sea from the region of modern Romania] the Pechenegs run

alongside them. And if as often happens the sea casts one of the ships ashore, the

whole lot land to make a common stand against the Pechenegs.”174 Of course this

entire time the whole group would have been making frequent stops at towns along

the way too innumerable to list, but which nevertheless are named by the De

administrando. After making their way safely along the western shores of the Black

Sea and past Bulgaria, they would have arrived at Mesembria, “and at last their

journey is at an end, full as it was of agony and fear, hardship and danger.”

Though Snorri is silent on the issue of exactly which way Harald came to

Constantinople, Morkinskinna has a rather twisted interpretation to offer. It is based

on a misinterpreted verse by the Icelandic poet Illugi which says: “Often my lord

destroyed the peace of the Franks [Frakkar] before dawn…”175 which the author took

to mean Harald was engaged in battle in France, when really it was referring to his

172
Page, 95.
173
Ibid.
174
Page, 96.
175
Andersson and Gade, 132.
 85

fights with the mutinying French-speaking Normans during the Sicily campaign.

Morkinskinna goes on to trace the path of his journey to Constantinople “From there

[his campaign in France] he went to Lombardy and then to Rome, and after that to

Appulia, where he set out by ship and came to Constantinople and into the emperor’s

presence… with warships and a great company.”176 The author of Morkinskinna has

misconstrued a reference made by Thjodolf to Langbardaland, which actually

referred to “the Southern Italian district which formed the Byzantine province

Longobardia, and that the Frakkar were the French Normans who were disputing this

very Langbardaland in Southern Italy.”177 The two skalds were then misinterpreted as

talking about Harald’s initial journey, when in fact they were speaking of his later

campaigns in Italy.

Harald certainly would have travelled with a large group, perhaps hundreds of

fellow warriors, as Morkinskinna says, and all the other sagas attest to a “large

following” as well.178 Kekaumenos, our trustworthy contemporary Byzantine source,

insists that Harald arrived with a “following of 500 noblemen,” (a nice round number

like 500 is slightly too convenient unless they were all hired contractually ahead of

time, but it probably was near that number give or take a couple dozen on either

side).179 Marsden believes this entourage of fighting-men was comprised of the same,

“Varangian troop in Russia, probably still including those of Olaf’s housecarls who

had come to Russia with Rognvald and been recruited alongside Harald into Eilif’s

176
Ibid.
177
Blöndal, 56.
178
Magnusson and Palsson, 47
179
Kekaumenos, 6.
 86

forces.”180 This war-band of Harald’s it seems followed him wherever he went, and

would have been his ever-present powerbase in the same way more ancient Viking

chiefs were surrounding by a doggedly loyal retinue of elite warriors (we could even

suppose by now that this constituted what was effectively a druzhina of Harald’s

own). Through the various plunder accumulated in Russia and the promise of more in

Byzantium, Harald, at the tender age of 19 (or thereabouts), was fast becoming a

leader and a force to be reckoned with by all accounts.

180
Marsden, 79.
 87

VIII. The Varangians

Though there is some debate over the origin of the term Varangian, the most

common etymology has the term coming from the Norse word vàr meaning

‘confidence’ or ‘vow,’ and its derivative Væringi meaning “a group of men who had

sworn oaths of allegiance and fellowship.”181 The word Varangian is an anglicized

form of Varjag, Varegu, or Væringjar, which were the words used by Slavic and

Greek sources to describe Norsemen from Russia. Though they had been referred to

in Byzantine sources prior to 1034, that is the year in which Varangians are first

mentioned by that name (from an account found in Cedrenus).182

Although the Byzantines had known Scandinavians from Russia183 since

before the tenth century, they did not directly employ them as mercenaries until then.

Following Prince Oleg’s (r. 879-912) unification of Novgorod and Kiev, he signed a

mutually beneficial treaty agreement with Constantinople (no doubt influenced by

recent Russian raids on ‘Tsargrad’), which included the provision that Russian

mercenaries would be allowed to enter service in the rank-and-file Byzantine army.

The Varangians were especially useful as marines or naval specialists, because they

almost always had extensive knowledge of sea-warfare and navigation and were

frequently assigned to “light vessels called ousiai… for suppressing piracy… and

many Russians and Varangians who entered imperial service actually began their

time in the navy.”184 While foreign mercenaries increased in number and prestige, the

Scandinavians only achieved the honor of their own regiment in the time of Emperor

181
Raffaele D’Amato, The Varangian Guard: 988-1453 (Oxford: Osprey Press, 2010), 5.
182
Magnusson and Palsson, 48, note 3.
183
The Swedes in particular were responsible for most of the early Scandinavian activity in
Russia and the East.
184
D’Amato, 19.
 88

Basil II “The Bulgar Slayer,” or “Bulgaroctonos” in Greek (r. 976-1025), whose reign

“represented the apogee of High Byzantium.”185 This transition was spurred by the

insurrection of Bardas Phocas, who marched on Constantinople in 987. The emperor

was compelled to request assistance from Prince Vladimir, who was at that time

ruling Kievan Rus and dealing with a huge group of foreign mercenaries he had

recruited directly from Scandinavia during his fratricidal campaign against his brother

Yaropolk. These thousands of men were at the time dangerously idle and Vladimir

was apparently struggling to provide payment, the Chronicle reporting that they were

‘furious at the Prince’s unwillingness or incapacity to pay them their wages… [and]

demanded that he show them the way to the Greeks.”186 Vladimir must have been

more than happy to oblige, because the next time we hear of this warmongering cadre

in the sources is in 987/988, when they arrived 6,000 strong and ready for battle

outside Constantinople.187 The Greek historian Michael Psellus refers to Basil placing

these Scandinavians in a regiment of foreign mercenaries his Chronographia, writing

around 1063: “The emperor Basil knew the folly of the Romans188 and, since a select

185
Blöndal, 41. It is perhaps worth pausing on the state of the Byzantine Empire in the time
of Basil II. E.R.A. Sewter in his introduction to Michael Psellus’ Chronographia (London:
Penguin, 1966), describes the empire “at the height of its powers,” with an enlightened if not
necessarily benevolent emperor: “Basil had devoted all his energies to the business of ruling;
he never married, spent most of his time on or near the frontiers, developed a war-machine of
terrifying efficiency, coveted autocracy, but despised outward symbols. He crushed
rebellions, subdued the feudal landowners, conquered the enemies of the Empire, notably in
the Danubian provinces and the East… The treasury was full to overflowing with the
accumulated plunder of Basil’s campaigns… For most of [the citizens] life was gay and
colourful.” Unfortunately, by Harald’s time things were different: “Two generations later
everything had changed. The rulers who succeeded Basil were either unworthy or largely
ineffective,” squandering their wealth, devaluing currency, and everywhere breeding graft
and corruption within the bureaucracy and the courts.
186
D’Amato, 6.
187
Ibid.
188
By Romans, Michael Psellus is really referring to citizens of the Byzantine Empire. The
Byzantines, perhaps rightly, continued to refer to themselves as Romans up until the final
 89

force of Tauro-Scythians [the Greek Tauroskuthai was a Byzantine term for

Norsemen from Russia] had joined him recently, he trained them and put them in a

division with other foreign troops, and so sent them against the enemy.”189 According

to the contemporary De re militari, By the end of the tenth century, the Varangians

had even been endowed with their very own special unit that reported directly to the

emperor, although many more continued to serve in the regular army.190 These

thousands accompanied Basil II on his major campaigns for the rest of the reign,

including the routs in Bulgaria that earned the emperor his nickname, where he

infamously ordered his army (Varangians included) to blind tens of thousands of

Bulgar prisoners just to make a point. In an even more brutal display, Aristaces tells

of how the Varangians spent three months executing Basil’s order to have every man,

woman and child in 12 districts of Georgia killed during a 1021 expedition against the

then King Georgi.191 The Varangians travelled far from their familiar habitat in

Basil’s service, reaching Tripoli in North Africa by 994 and shortly thereafter the

Armenian historian Asochik reports that 6,000 “Russians” were present in the

emperor’s wars against Georgia and Armenia, where there was friction between the

Varangians and the Greeks.192 This number seems to have been retained as late as

1203, when 6,000 Varangians are reported to have valiantly defended the city of

Constantinople from the Venetian and Western forces of the Fourth Crusade, who

dissolution of the Empire in 1453, because they represented the surviving half of the empire
after the fall of the Western Roman Empire. It was only later historians that introduced the
term ‘Byzantine’ in order to make a distinction between the two cultures, which had indeed
diverged considerably by the reign of Basil II (the Byzantines spoke Greek, not Latin, for
instance).
189
Blöndal, 44.
190
Blöndal, 46.
191
Blöndal, 47.
192
Ibid.
 90

despite their best efforts ultimately captured the city.193 According to Byzantine

historian Raffaele D’Amato, “the surviving Rus formed the nucleus of the imperial

bodyguard which became known as the Varangian Guard, and the sight of these

axemen became a sign of the emperor’s presence on the battlefield.”194

Though Varangians after Basil’s reign are most often associated with the elite

personal guard of the emperor, they also continued to serve in their own military

regiment on campaigns away from the emperor himself. Therefore there Greeks made

a distinction between ‘Varangians of the City,’ which referred to the bodyguard

(which included a disproportionately huge quantity of men for their limited

responsibilities, who eventually became guards of the city itself as well) and the

‘Varangians outside the City’ who served in the navy, in garrisons, or on far-afield

expeditions. The ‘Varangians of the City’ were not allowed to leave the emperor’s

side, and for that reason had to remain in Constantinople as long as he was there.195 In

addition to their bodyguard functions, the emperor sometimes preferred to use his

Varangians for policing within Constantinople to implement the less popular imperial

policies and carry out the emperor’s dirty work, and also as jailers, “especially in the

dreaded Nóumera prison attached to the Great Palace.”196

The benefits of employing Varangians as opposed to Greek troops were

tremendous. Firstly, they were fearless and excellent soldiers, arriving with their own

effective weaponry, command structure, and combat experience, and reputed the

world over as the most fearsome and unscrupulous pack of barbarians around.

193
D’Amato, 15.
194
D’Amato, 7.
195
Blöndal, 45.
196
D’Amato, 20.
 91

Secondly, they were reliable. The Varangians were uncompromisingly loyal to

whoever paid them the most, and the empire was in the best position of anyone to buy

their obedience. Most importantly, they came without land-holdings or factional

allegiances and remained politically neutral despite the sordid intrigue surrounding

them in the emperor’s court. As long as they received their paycheck, they were on

the emperor’s side, which is probably why “their regular pay and extra bonuses alike

were way above the emoluments of the rest of the army.”197 In fact the Varangians

were so well paid there was actually a substantial entrance fee just to join the Guard

that was readily paid because of the assurance of later wealth down the line (after

about a year the mercenaries would have made back their initial investment and

begun collecting a profit of c. 40 nomismata per month).198 In addition to their salary,

Varangians were able to keep a significant portion of what they pillaged (pirate-

vessels especially were quite lucrative sources of income) and were entitled to a

certain percentage of the spoils of war. Eventually, Varangian loyalty seems to have

become codified in social norms in addition to the monetary incentives, because by

the early 12th century, the Byzantine Princess Anna Komnene would write that the

Varangians, “regard loyalty to the Emperors and the protection of their persons as a

family tradition, a kind of sacred trust and inheritance handed down from generation

to generation; this allegiance they preserve inviolate and will never brook the slightest

hint of betrayal.”199 By the time of Anna Komnene however, the composition of the

guard had begun an ethnic shift, tending more towards Anglo-Saxon émigrés

escaping from the Norman conquest of England, although Scandinavians would still

197
Ibid.
198
D’Amato, 21.
199
Ian Heath, The Vikings (Oxford: Osprey Press, 1985), 22.
 92

be present in the guard up until the dissolution of the Empire, albeit in smaller and

smaller numbers.200

Because of their unique attributes and status within the empire, the Varangians

seemed like the best choice for an emperor’s personal life-guard: not only would he

be protected by the most lethal killers known to the medieval world, he would also

have the added assurance that his guards would not be involved in any assassination

attempts, which were always a worry in the Byzantine court. As Blöndal drily points

out: “such being the political temper of the Greeks, assassination as a means of

advancement was only too popular a game,” and even the founder of the revered

Basil’s dynasty won the throne through such means.201

Despite their many benefits, the Varangians were not always the most pleasant

company. Noted for the enormous quantities of alcohol they would consume, the

Varangians soon acquired the nickname ‘wine-bags’ among more aristocratic

elements (which of course included anyone writing about them). Michael Psellus

offers a detailed description of the Varangians from seeing on contingent personally

in 1057: “Next to them stood men from the foreign mercenaries… Tauro-Scythians,

terrible of aspect and huge of body… The soldiers were… blue-eyed… the

Varangians kept their natural complexion… the Varangians fight like madmen, as if

ablaze with wrath… they do not care about their wounds and they despise their

bodies.”202 Oddly enough, there is also archaeological evidence of their debauchery,

“from [illegible] runic graffiti that was carved into a lion in Athens’ Piraeus harbor, to

200
Heath, 23.
201
Blöndal, 41.
202
Michael Psellus, Fourteen Byzantine Rulers, trans. E.R.A. Sewter (New York: Penguin,
1966), 289.
 93

the name ‘Halfdan’, etched into a balcony of Saint Sophia [the Haghia Sophia],

presumably by a Varangian bodyguard tired of standing through yet another

interminable Greek Orthodox ceremony.”203 Regardless of their erratic behavior, the

Empire did confer upon the Varangians the somewhat unique “right to judge their

own members” according to their own law and customs.204 The special treatment

continued with the building of Varangian churches throughout the city, including one

dedicated to St. Olaf called Panaghia Varanghiotissa or ‘Our Sacred Lady of the

Varangians.’205

The commander of the Varangian Guard was usually a Greek, whose title was

Akolouthos (Greek for ‘the follower’; this was supposed to be the man following most

closely behind the emperor in procession). The Akalouthos, was initially a man of

incredible power, even given the keys to Constantinople when the emperor was away.

The vastly important Megalodihermeneutes, or ‘Grand Interpreter’, would accompany

the Akolouthos and commanded the many other lesser interpreters employed by the

Guard (because of course most of the Norsemen could not speak Greek). The elite

members of the Emperor’s personal bodyguard were called the Manghlavitae, a title

that Harald would eventually acquire himself, and their commanders were called

Spatharokandidatos, who were in turn commanded by a Protospatharios.206

Harald enrolled in the Guard during its heyday. The primarily Scandinavian

ethnic composition of Byzantine mercenary forces began to change by 1070 with an

influx of Englishmen that the Byzantines would come to call Englinovarangoi, who

203
Clements, 191. There are other extant runic scrawls in other places of the cathedral as
well.
204
D’Amato, 22.
205
D’Amato, 24.
206
D’Amato, 16.
 94

began to replace Russian army units. The Anglo-Saxons gradually became the

majority in the Guard as the centuries wore on, though there were always

Scandinavians with them. The Guard’s military duties and importance to the empire

were at their zenith in the 11th century, but by the 15th their responsibilities had taken

on a strictly ceremonial character.207

207
D’Amato, 13-14.
 95

IX. Araltes

After arriving at Constantinople in 1034 via the Dnieper route from

Novgorod, Snorri informs us that Harald, “presented himself to the Empress [Zoe]

and immediately joined her army as a mercenary.”208 This line is instructive because

it tells that Snorri understood as well as anyone that, at the time, the real power of the

empire lay with the aging Empress Zoe (the niece of Basil II) and not her husband, as

we shall see. However, it is also extremely unlikely that the 19-year-old Harald

personally met the Empress upon his arrival, especially if we are to believe

Morkinskinna’s claim that Harald insisted upon concealing his royal blood during his

employment.209 In that version of the saga, Harald is said to have, “immediately

entered the emperor’s service and called himself Nor∂brikt. It was not generally

known that he was of royal blood. On the contrary, he urged everyone to conceal the

fact because foreigners are shunned when they are the progeny of kings.”210

There are several reasons for disputing that Harald ever took up the alias

Nordbrikt. In the first place, Snorri, though fully aware of and probably in

consultation with the earlier sources (including Morkinskinna and the separate

Harald’s saga in Flateyjarbok) chose to omit any reference to Nordbrikt. Secondly,

the five hundred “noblemen” who accompanied Harald from Russia would certainly

have known quite well who their leader was, and it would have been impossible to

208
Magnusson and Palsson, 48.
209
One further example of the outrageous aggrandizement going on in the sagas is the
dialogue in Morkinskinna, so obviously untrue its not worth noting in the main body of the
text, that has Harald responding to the Empress Zoe’s request for a lock of his hair by asking
in turn for “one of [her] pubic hairs.” In reality, Harald would have had hardly anything to do
with the Byzantine Empress on a personal level, and would have assuredly been killed on the
spot for saying anything of the kind. Andersson and Gade, 133.
210
Andersson and Gade, 132.
 96

keep all of them quiet for any length of time. Thirdly, the very concept of a powerful

man concealing his identity in order to mingle among the common people has the ring

of folklore and is a common theme in legendary sagas, especially in stories of the

Norse Gods (we see this device employed in Greek mythology on a regular basis, as

well, as when Zeus takes on the shape of a man to achieve some objective or another).

This pattern may be what motivated the earlier Morkinskinna story of the cloaked

Harald hiding in the peasant’s house after escaping the battle the disaster at Stiklestad

and never disclosing his identity to the farmer’s son the entire time they travelled

through the Swedish forest (although discretion in the latter case would have been

much more plausible than the current one, owing to considerations of imminent

danger and the abundance of his enemies).211 Morkinskinna even offers one more

dubious tale of Harald incognito, immediately preceding the main body of Harald’s

saga, wherein Harald meets King Magnus for the first time concealed as a messenger

(from himself), making a neat and disconcerting set of three similar plot devices in a

row.212 There are also quite specific reasons for not thinking he went by the name

Nordbrikt: Kekaumenos, our contemporary Greek source, clearly knows Harald and

his distinguished lineage and tells us as much, without even a passing reference to his

deception. In point of fact, Araltes, as he is called in the Greek, suffered nothing in

regards to career advancement from being the “progeny of kings.” Rather, he would

eventually achieve ranks of great prestige in the imperial bodyguard, where his

identity would certainly have been known. But here we are perhaps getting ahead of

211
Andersson and Gade, 130.
212
Andersson and Gade, 129.
 97

ourselves, and the situation in Constantinople at the time of Harald’s arrival must next

be considered.

The nearly fifty year-old Zoey’s marriage to the aristocrat Romanos Argyros

in 1028, which was intended against all odds to supply an heir, ended tragicomically

when she had him strangled in the bath in 1034 after she, “first bewitched him with

drugs and later had recourse to a mixture of hellebore as well.”213 Emphasizing the

premeditation of the murder, she then immediately married Michael IV the

Paphlagonian, her court chamberlain of peasant origins with whom she had been

openly having an affair for some time.214 As Michael Psellus, who was present at the

funeral service of the emperor, explains, “The Empress Zoe, learning of [Romanos’]

death–she had not herself been present while he was dying–immediately took control

of affairs, apparently under the impression that she was the rightful heir to the throne

by divine permission. In point of fact, she was not so much concerned to seize power

on her own behalf; all her efforts were directed to securing the crown for Michael.”215

Michael the peasant was then suddenly crowned emperor Michael IV the

Paphlagonian and, “as for the old emperor, they cast him off as though he were some

heavy burden.”216

The manipulative Zoe was not good for the empire, which experienced a

serious decline during her lifetime and after the successes of her uncle Basil. In the

course of thirteen years (1028-1041) she had three marriages, which is considered

highly disrespectable in the Orthodox tradition. She dispatched her sister Theodora to

213
Psellus, 81.
214
Magnusson and Palsson, 48, note 1.
215
Psellus, 87.
216
Psellus, 88.
 98

a nunnery shortly after the death of her father, Emperor Constantine VIII, because she

was politically inconvenient. Her affair with Michael, who was a commoner, caused a

political debacle and brought bad publicity to the court when the public widely

suspected she was behind the murder of the previous emperor. Michael IV suffered

from epileptic fits and developed life-threatening (and impotence-inducing) dropsy by

the end of his career, but managed to hold the empire together reasonably well, at

least by Byzantine standards. Still, during his reign civil disobedience was slowly

incubating and intrigues at the courts multiplying, influenced in no small part by the

ambitions of Michael’s devious eunuch brother John.

This was the sorry state of affairs that Harald walked in on when he arrived at

Constantinople in 1034; clearly the “apogee” of Byzantine culture under Basil II had

rather unceremoniously concluded. Although Gwyn Jones believes, “it would be

imprudent to insist on the details of the campaigns with which [Harald’s] saga credits

him during the next ten years,” we must try anyway in order to tease out the truth

from this obscure period.217 The sagas offer a wealth of ‘information’, but most of it

amounts to stock stories, legends, and hyperbole, with little in the way of

chronological signposts, like Morkinskinna’s tale of how Harald exorcized a dragon

from a hysterical woman’s dreams by lighting a pyre under its lair and “causing the

serpent some grief..[so] he would move his lair.”218 For the most reliable account of

this time we must turn not to the far-removed Scandinavian sources, but to the closely

contemporary, and, as has been shown, very reliable Kekaumenos, who included a

217
Jones, 404.
218
Andersson and Gade, 133.
 99

narrative of Harald in his ‘Book of Advice to the Emperor.’ Kekaumenos’ story of

Harald runs as follows:

Harald [Araltes] was the son of the king of Varangia, and he had a brother
[named] Ioulabos [Olaf] who held his father’s rule upon his father’s death,
after casting his brother Harald into second place for the rulership after him.
Since Harald was a young man, he wanted to come and show reverence to the
most blessed emperor Lord Michael the Paphlagonian and to gain a view of
the Roman system. He also brought with him a following of five hundred
noblemen. He entered, and the emperor received him just as was allowed and
sent him along with his force to Sicily. There, a Roman army was fighting for
the island. Setting off, [Harald] displayed great deeds. Once Sicily was
subjugated, he returned with his force to the emperor and [the emperor]
honored him as a manglabites. After this it happened that Deljan rebelled in
Bulgaria, And since Harald had his force, he went on campaign with the
emperor and showed forth deeds against the enemy that were worthy of his
good birth and noble character. After subjecting Bulgaria, the emperor
returned home. At that time I was fighting on behalf of the emperor as best I
could. When we came to the city of Mosunoupolis, the emperor rewarded him
for those [regions] for which he had fought, and honored him as a
spatharocandidatos. After the death of Lord Michael and his nephew the ex-
emperor [Michael the Caulker], Harald wished to return to his homeland and
made this entreaty before Monomachos. He was not allowed but, in fact, his
way out narrowed. Nonetheless, he secretly escaped and ruled over his land
instead of his brother Ioulabos [Olaf]. Yet he did not grow proud because of
the honors given to him—the manglabites and spatharocandidatos—but
rather maintained his loyalty and love for the Romans while he ruled.219

Based on this account we can create a rough but reliable outline of Harald’s

mercenary career. Kekaumenos says that he was accepted into service without issue

and was then sent along with “his force” to Sicily. There are probably some years of

activity (which Kekaumenos either was unaware of or thought too trivial to mention)

before the Sicilian campaign when Harald was engaged on missions typical of new

Varangian recruits, including anti-piracy, which we will have to investigate in further

detail. That he left for Sicily with “his force” adds weight to the sagas’ claims that he

was left in control of the men he brought with him (Snorri says “he kept his unit

219
Kekaumenos, 6-7.
 100

together as a separate company”220), and that they fought as a unit throughout his

service. After the Sicilian campaign, Harald was awarded the rank of manglabites

(member of the imperial bodyguard) for his valor, but was sent off again with his

forces when the emperor quelled the rebellion of Deljan in Bulgaria. This was almost

certainly where Harald met Kekaumenos, who was there, “fighting on behalf of the

emperor.” Once again, following this campaign, Harald was promoted, this time to

the rank of spatharokandidatos, the third highest position in the Guard. Now

Kekaumenos relates that Harald wished to go home, but that the new emperor

Constantine IX Monomachos forbade this (r. 1042-1055). Although we are not told

explicitly that Harald was jailed, the ambiguity of the statement “his way out

narrowed” could be taken to mean just that. Finally, after his covert escape from

Constantinople, Kekaumenos emphasizes how Harald maintained a congenial

relationship with the Byzantine Empire during his kingship (although the extent of his

interactions with the Greeks would have been limited).

Kekaumenos is frustratingly brief in his account of the events in between

Harald’s arrival in 1034 and his escape, which we know must have been closely

following than the ascension of Constantine Monomachos in 1042 and precipitated by

the tumultuous political situation in Constantinople at the time. We are given only the

major campaigns, and then only cursory descriptions of them, but the Sicilian

expedition only set off in 1038 and lasted until 1040, and the suppression of the

Bulgarian insurrection ran from 1040 to 1041, leaving a large chunk of time

unaccounted for.221 The sagas on the other hand do an enthusiastic job filling in the

220
Magnusson and Palsson, 48.
221
Norwich, 221.
 101

gaps, though they must be treated with significantly more caution, and it is to them

we must turn for a more detailed explanation of Harald’s activities. Much of the

information about Harald’s Varangian career was probably contributed by Icelanders

who had served with him, including, “an Icelander named Mar, who was the son of

Hunrodr, and the father of Halflidi Masson,” and more importantly, Ulf Ospaksson

and a certain Halldorr Snorrason who was an ancestor of Snorri himself.222 Snorri

portrays Halldor as, “a huge, exceptionally powerful man… a man of few words; he

was blunt and outspoken, sullen and obstinate. The king [Harald] found these traits

disagreeable, as he had plenty of other men around him who were both well-born and

eager to serve him.”223 In contrast, Ulf Ospaksson was, “extremely shrewd and well-

spoken, very capable, loyal, and honest.”224 He went on to become Harald’s Marshal

and acquired much territory from the King when they were safely back in Norway.225

The semi-independent “Tale of Halldor Snorrason II” as told in Morkinskinna,

describes the bittersweet rapport between Halldorr and Harald. It begins by describing

how “Halldor Snorrason had been in Constantinople with Harald, and had come West

with him, from Russia to Norway. He had received much honor and respect from

King Harald.”226 The rest of the tale however goes on to record a tumultuous

relationship, which finally culminated in Halldor breaking off from Harald (for

reasons that seem to surround issues of improper monetary compensation for

Halldor’s service), and travelling back to Iceland to live out his days as a farmer at

222
Andersson and Gade, 132.
223
Magnusson and Palsson, 87.
224
Magnusson and Palsson, 88.
225
Ibid.
226
Terry Gunnel, trans., “The Tale of Halldor Snorrason II” in The Sagas of the Icelanders,
ed. Örnólfur Thorsson, (New York: Penguin, 2001, 685.
 102

Hjardarholt. In this capacity he probably had much time to reflect on his many

adventures with Harald and would have told stories to his descendants all about his

travels, which eventually filtered down to his famous descendant, Snorri Sturluson.

Snorri informs us that, “that very autumn [of his arrival in 1034] he joined one

of the galleys patrolling the seas east of Greece…The commander-in-chief of the

whole army was a man called Georgios, a kinsman of the empress.”227 Harald’s

commander was indeed the general Georgios Maniakies (called Gygir by the sagas), a

thoroughly disagreeable aristocrat, who took pleasure in torturing his enemies and

would later proclaim himself emperor in an unsuccessful revolt a decade after Harald

concluded his service, but Giorgios was by no means a kinsmans of the empress.228

And, although Maniakes was the commander of the Sicilian campaign in 1038, it is

not clear that he would have been entrusted with more menial tasks like the Aegean

pirate-extermination missions Harald was to embark on, although he may have served

a highly removed oversight position. Perhaps Georgios was aboard the large dromoi

used as a capital ships, with their two-hundred men and Greek fire capabilities, but it

is more likely that only the typical Varangian ousiai, which accommodated fewer

soldiers but could outpace Arab dhows,229 would be deployed for such missions. Still,

Snorri’s statement that, “Georgios and Harald sailed to many of the Greek islands and

inflicted heavy damage on the corsairs there,”230 could well be true, even if it seems

doubtful that Byzantium’s top general would be accompanying a rookie 19-year old

Norseman on such missions. Plunder from pirate ships, as has been noted, would have

227
Magnusson and Palsson, 48.
228
Norwich, 221.
229
Marsden, 93.
230
Magnusson and Palsson, 48.
 103

been a quite lucrative source of income for Harald, who only needed to “pay a

hundred marks [really 120, as the tradition then was to count in long hundreds] for

each ship, but that they should keep anything over and above that.”231 Blöndal and

Marsden argue that the Varangians had only to pay 120 marks from the booty

plundered from each corsair, but a later statement by Morkinskinna to the effect that

the Varangians didn’t have enough money to, “pay the emperor the sum agreed

upon,”232 suggests that they had accrued a debt through the ‘rental’ of ships for their

expeditions (at the rate of 100 marks), as Andersson and Gade, affirm,233 and this

seems a more likely interpretation of “pay a hundred marks for each ship” anyway,

which does not usually mean “pay a hundred marks [of the total treasure onboard] for

each [pirate] ship [captured].” Even with the cost, such ventures could certainly be

profitable if enough pirates were dispatched. According to Zonaras and Cedrenus, in

addition to the ever-present pirates in the Aegean, there was also “a great Arab fleet

from Sicily and Africa” that harangued the Greek islands, especially the Cylades, and

even the mainland, which the Greeks scored major successes over in the early days of

Michael IV’s rule.234

Following Harald’s forays on the Mediterranean, the sagas tell of numerous

hostile encounters between Georgios Maniakes and Harald during land operations at

indeterminate places. The first of these is a dialogue-heavy tale that involves Harald

drawing lots with Maniakes when they were determining whose forces would get

better campsite. The problems with this episode are numerous. Firstly, Maniakes

231
Andersson and Gade, 137.
232
Andersson and Gade, 139.
233
Andersson and Gade, 427.
234
Blöndal, 60.
 104

would never have tolerated such insubordination in his war-machine. Secondly,

Maniakes, as the highest-ranking Greek commander, would never have submitted to

drawing lots with a low-ranking foreign mercenary for anything. Lastly, that lots

could have “decided that the Varangians should take precedence in all the matters that

were in dispute”235 is utterly ridiculous because not only would the Greeks never have

accepted the result, but also they would not have put such matters as precedence in all

disputes up to random chance to decide in the first place. Snorri concludes his story

with the categorical statement that, although, “many other disagreements arose

between them…Harald always got the better of it in the end.”236 He then mentions

that Harald was given leave by Maniakes to command his own autonomous force of

Varangians and Latin-speaking troops, who were probably Normans (“to take his men

elsewhere and see what they could by themselves”) because the general was

becoming irritated by Harald’s unwillingness to fight under Maniakes’ command (a

tactic Harald undertook in order to make Maniakes look bad, while at the same time

achieving great success and renown under his own banner).237 Most of these types of

stories are probably false, perhaps brought back by Harald’s followers or even Harald

himself as a way of playing up his own importance and establishing a legendary

persona, but in any case, they do capture the reality that there was tension between

the Varangians and their authorities, and even between the Varangians and the Greeks

at the level of general infantry (this was a recurrent problem with the Byzantine’s

foreign mercenaries; the brawl that broke out in 994 in Armenia between Varangians

and Greek forces as reported by Asochik attests to this fact).

235
Magnusson and Palsson, 50.
236
Ibid.
237
Magnusson and Palsson, 51.
 105

Africa is the next place specifically mentioned as Harald’s theater of

operation, but by this Snorri probably meant Asia Minor or the Middle East.238 The

confusion probably stems from an error of geography on Snorri’s part. He says that,

“Harald now went with his army to Africa, to the parts which the Varangians call the

Land of the Saracens,”239 but this Serkland, which Snorri picks up from a poem from

Thjodolf, actually encompassed the entire Muslim world and could therefore just

have easily meant parts of Anatolia or the Caucasus, where there were heavy

engagements between the Greek and Muslim forces around this time, with the Greeks

under the command of none other than Georgios Maniakes.240 Blöndal suggests

several distinct possibilities for battles that the Varangians, and therefore Harald, may

have fought before he embarked for Sicily, but which we cannot fully verify,

including attacks on Muslim-controlled Edessa in southeastern Anatolia and

skirmishes against the incessant Pechenegs in the border regions.241

Although the sagas claim that Harald began operating totally independently of

outside control (excluding the emperor), Blöndal shows this could not possible have

been the case: the lowest Varangian rank to have independent command of his troops

was spatharokandidatos,242 and then only occasionally, and we know from

Kekaumenos that Harald only attained such a rank in the twilight of his career. A

passage from Cedrenos places Byzantine activity in the winter of 1034 in the Theme

238
It is not entirely outside the realm of possibility that Harald could have travelled to North
Africa for some purpose given that Varangians in the past are recorded to have fought as far
afield as Tripoli. However, there doesn’t seem to be any Byzantine involvement with the
continent at the time in question that we can discern from the sources.
239
Magnusson and Palsson, 51.
240
Blöndal, 62.
241
Ibid.
242
Ibid.
 106

(themes were administrative units of the Byzantine empire) of Thracesion in Western

Anatolia. This same passage describes Varangian military discipline with the example

of one of their members who tried to rape a local woman but was subsequently killed

by her. The Varangians then honored the woman with gifts and left the rapist’s body

unburied to rot.243 This incident shows us a slightly more scrupulous regiment than

was common in the early medieval world, and especially in Russia, where leaders like

Vladimir openly took part in the raping and pillaging of his enemies, encouraging his

forces to do likewise. Blöndal believes that it could well have been Harald doling out

such harsh justice, but 1034 seems too early for him to be in position of power.

Thjodolf’s poem says Harald captured “eighty cities” while in Serkland and

before heading off for “the level plains of Sicily” (although Sicily is in fact not level

at all). This number is probably a gross exaggeration representing simply that he

fought in many successful battles against Muslims, which must have been true if we

believe, as Snorri says, that “Harald spent several years in Africa [again, probably

Anatolia or the Caucasus] and garnered there an immense hoard of money, gold, and

treasure of all kinds.”244 Importantly we also learn from this same passage that, “All

the booty [Harald] did not require for expenses he used to send by his own reliable

messenger to Novgorod into the safe keeping of King Jaroslav. In this way Harald

amassed a vast hoard of wealth—not surprisingly, considering that he had been

plundering in the richest parts of the world…” Harald then, from a very early point,

perhaps even since before he left Novgorod, was using his mercenary service strictly

243
Blöndal, 63.
244
Magnusson and Palsson, 52.
 107

as a means to an end: he wanted wealth and prestige so that he could return a glorious

and unstoppable war-chief to his native Scandinavia.

It is about this time in Snorri’s narrative that his chronology breaks down and

he descends somewhat atypically into the utterly fantastic.245 Snorri has Harald going

to Sicily after his exploits in Serkland, and then going to Jerusalem. However, if he

ever actually made the journey to Jerusalem, he could not have done so between 1038

(when the Sicilian campaign began) and when broke out of jail in 1042, because that

entire time he was occupied either with military campaigns, his imprisonment, or, in

the later years, caught up in the political chaos that eventually engulfed

Constantinople. So Harald’s “expedition to the Holy Land” in all probability took

place closer to 1036, when “Emperor Michael concluded a treaty with the Caliph

[Moustansir-Billah] of Egypt, which permitted the emperor to restore the damaged

church that had been raised over Christ’s grave. Harald seems to have been in

command of the troops sent to escort the Byzantine craftsmen to Jerusalem.”246 Snorri

and the author of Morkinskinna quote a poem about Harald’s journey to Jerusalem

written by Stuf Thordarson “the Blind” who was said to have heard it firsthand:

With courage sharp as a sword-edge

The all-triumphant warrior
Left Greece to conquer Palestine—
With his overwhelming power
The land fell to his army
Unscorched and undisputed;
May the Almighty protect him.247

245
Many of Heimskringla’s stories are in this case derived from the less reliable
Morkinskinna, including that concerning the drawing of lots already mentioned.
246
Magnusson and Palsson, 58, note 2.
247
Magnusson and Palsson, 59. Cf. Andersson and Gade, 144.
 108

Given the realities of the recently concluded treaty, which surely encouraged many

would-be pilgrims to undertake the journey from Constantinople to Jerusalem in this

rare moment of peace, we can see why it might be that Harald with his ‘superior

force’ might so easily ‘conquer Palestine.’ There were in fact no enemies to be

fought, and all the cities and towns along the way opened their doors because of the

30-year alliance put in place by the ultra-tolerant half-Byzantine caliph. Of course

Harald surely would have clashed with highwaymen and bandits along the road,

including nomadic Bedouin, but that was after all why the Byzantines would have

hired him for escort duty. Harald’s facility at killing bandits is explicitly mentioned in

the sagas, suggesting just this sort of work detail: “He cleared a route all the way to

the river Jordan, killing all the robbers and other trouble-makers in the area.”248

In Blöndal’s view, it could have even been possible that the pilgrimage

included the Empress Zoe and/or her more devout sister Theodora, although there is

no evidence to support such a conviction,249 and it would probably have been more

likely that he was merely protecting the builders and engineers assigned to the

rebuilding of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, along with some aristocratic pilgrims

and officials. Although Marsden believes that Harald might already have been a

Varangian Guard (i.e. conferred the title of Manglabites) by this time, based on his

conjecture about the presence of royalty in the convoy Harald was to protect, it is

probably safer to stick to the precise dating given by the contemporary Kekaumenos,

who is quite clear in saying that he only received such a post after the Sicily

campaign. Kekaumenos statement makes even more sense when we reflect that

248
Magnusson and Palsson, 59.
249
Blöndal, 65.
 109

members of the Guard (the ‘Varangians of the City’) were not allowed to stray far

from the Emperor’s immediate proximity and would not have taken part in campaigns

like the one in Sicily, where the Emperor was not himself present.

Morkinskinna, Fagrskinna, and Snorri go on to record Harald’s pious deeds as

a good Christian after he reached Jerusalem in almost the exact same words: “He then

went to bathe in the River Jordan, as is the custom among other pilgrims. He

contributed to the sepulcher of our Lord and the holy cross and other holy relics in

Jerusalem. He gave so much money in gold that no one can calculate the amount.”250

There is a good reason the amount of money he donated is said to be incalculable, and

that is because he probably offered nothing at all, or the bare minimum to ensure that

God would overlook many transgressions would be overlooked. As we may

remember, Harald consistently shows he is a greedy man, hungry for wealth and

power (even the fictitious anecdotes in the sagas attest to that), and greatly concerned

with accumulating a vast horde of riches to add to the enormous pile already at

Jaroslav’s court in safekeeping. We may also remember that the 13th century authors

of the sagas were much more enthusiastic proponents of Christianity than many of the

11th personalities they described, including Harald, who we may surmise based upon

his activities as a professional soldier was not the spiritual of men. These details of

Harald’s stay in Jerusalem are recorded first in Morkinskinna without poetic

precedent and used verbatim in the later sources, suggesting that the author of

Morkinskinna may have planted these in an effort to make an otherwise religiously

unremarkable king appear to be rather more benevolent and pious than he really was,

and that the later sources simply lifted the entire passage because it sounded good.
250
Andersson and Gade, 144.
 110

The next place where we can be sure that Harald operated was Sicily. Sicily,

which had originally been a Byzantine territory, had fallen into Saracen hands over

two centuries before Michael IV became emperor. Basil II had intended a huge

invasion of the island in order to reassert Byantine control once more, but died before

he could carry out his plans, and the Emperor Michael saw fit to make good on his

predecessor’s legacy.251 The emperor entrusted the project to the experienced and

able hands of Georgios Maniakes. The Emperor’s motivations for undertaking such a

large-scale logistical nightmare were manifold, as Lord Norwich explains: “The

continual raids on Byzantine south Italy by the Sicilian-based Saracens were rapidly

becoming a threat to imperial security. The Mediterranean was alive with pirates,

prices of imports were rising and the level of foreign trade was beginning to

decline.”252 Besides the practical implications, the Arab presence was viewed as an

“affront to national pride”; there were still many Greeks living on Sicily and it was a

symbol of Byzantium’s inefficacy that they had been unable to reclaim the island in

the two centuries of Muslim occupation. This was also the opportune time to strike, as

inter-emirate friction had just erupted into full-fledged civil war and the Muslim

defenses were in disarray. Unfortunately for Maniakes, who might otherwise have

handily dealt with the situation, the inept Michael had selected an even more inept

leader for the command of the Byzantine fleet in the form of his brother-in-law

Stephen the Caulker. Despite initial successes, like the early capture of Messina, it

was not long before Stephen accused the contemptuous Maniakes of treason,

essentially over a trivial issue of disrespect, and the general was forced to return to

251
Norwich, 220.
252
Ibid.
 111

Constantinople, leaving Stephen in complete control, which jeopardized the entire

operation. Stephen subsequently died in a botched assault and was replaced by a

eunuch, who was an even worse commander than Stephen. The final disaster came

from within the Byzantine ranks themselves, when the Lombard mercenary

contingent decided to revolt in 1040 and kill the Byzantine governor, inciting further

rebellion among other mercenary groups, including, notably, the ‘Latin-speaking’

Normans,253 although the Varangians characteristically remained loyal. Michael IV

then ordered a partial withdrawal from the island, which quickly reverted to Saracen

control. The Emperor did not have much to time contemplate his grievous defeat

however, because by that same summer rebellion had broken out in Bulgaria,

requiring Michael’s undivided attention, and with his sickness worsening Michael felt

compelled to adopt Stephen the Caulker’s son Michael (also “the Caulker”, or

Kalaphates in Greek),254 who was then “in command of [the Imperial] bodyguard,”255

to provide an heir to the throne.

The sagas do not help to clarify the obscurity surrounding Harald’s

involvement in the Sicilian expedition. Snorri mentions three siege stories without

particular reference to place, in which Harald uses extraordinary cunning to outwit his

hapless enemies, and all of these are certainly works of fantasy. They are all dialogue-

intensive, unusually precise in their description of actions but unusually imprecise

about where and when the events took place, and they come in a suspect series of four

253
The Normans would go on to present no end of trouble for the Empire, eventually
conquering all of southern Italy. We also have evidence of Harald fighting directly against the
Normans from a poem by Illugi which says that “My Lord went often early to disturb the
peace of the Franks.” Blöndal, 70.
254
Norwich, 221-222.
255
Psellus, 100.
 112

(“In the first town… in the second town… in the third town…” etc.). The first of

these is supposed to have occurred, “as soon as Harald landed in Sicily,” and is so

outrageous it deserves to be told in full. Upon settling down to a siege, Harald, who is

inexplicably acting independently of any Byzantine authority, realizes drastic

measures must be taken, because the town is well-stocked and breaking through has

proven more difficult than he initially thought:

So now Harald thought up a scheme: he told his bird catchers to catch the
small birds that nested within the town and flew out to the woods each day in
search of food. Harald had small shavings of fir tied to the backs of the birds,
and then he smeared the shavings with wax and sulfur and set fire to them [!].
As soon as the birds were released they all flew straight home to their young
in their nests in the town; the nests were under the eaves of the roofs, which
were thatched with reeds or straw. The thatched roofs caught fire from the
birds, and although each bird could only carry a tiny flame, it quickly became
a great fire; a host of birds set roofs alight all over the town. One house after
another caught fire, and soon the whole town was ablaze. At that all the
people came out of the town, begging for mercy—the very same people who
had been shouting defiant insults at the Greek army and its leader for days on
end.256

Even if this story were not self-evidently bogus, we would have other reasons to

doubt it. To begin with, it is surrounded by two other tales of similar incredibility,

which were also originally drawn from the less than circumspect pages of

Morkinskinna. Blöndal shows conclusively that at least two of the three episodes are

examples of “itinerant folktales,” that is, stories that originated in another tradition

and crop up in many other histories and legends across time and space. The tale of the

incendiary birds is especially prolific. We see it in the Russian Primary Chronicle

with reference to the Russian queen Olga’s (d. 969, married to Igor) capture of

Iskorot; and Saxo Grammaticus recounts an identical story when speaking of the

legendary Hadding. In addition the Armenian chronicler Asochik says that the Emir
256
Magnusson and Palsson, 53.
 113

Ibn Khosrau of Baghdad used such a method on two occasions, the first time with

flaming dogs and the second with flaming doves, and he also attributes such a

technique to Alexander the Great, who reportedly, “captured a castle set on a high

rock ‘through the medium of birds.”257 The story even reappears with Genghis Khan

as its subject. What we are dealing with then is a stock story, elaborating on an

otherwise undetailed chapter of Harald’s career.

In that same vein we are treated to another story, this time in the shape of a

Trojan-horse-like tactic used against another unnamed town in Sicily. Harald, who

was again having some difficulty capturing a town, turns once more to trickery and

deception, faking his own sickness and death and having his men request asylum

within the city to bury their hapless leader. The townsfolk, taking pity on the

Varangians, allow their entrance, unaware that Harald is really alive and dangerous.

So it happens that the Varangians stop at the entrance of the town, jamming the gate

with the coffin, and the escort party rushes in along with reinforcements from camp,

killing everyone and taking “an enormous amount of booty.”258 Once again this

particular plotline surfaces in a variety of different contexts, including Saxo

Grammaticus writing about Froda I of Denmark, Dudo writing about Hasting the

Viking, William of Apulia and Matthew Paris writing about Robert Guiscard (which

may be where the story was picked up from); there is also a classical reference to

such a maneuver in Polyaenus.259

Blöndal argues that the two other stories in this series told by Snorri could

have happened, but this seems like wishful thinking, especially if we remember that

257
Blöndal, 72.
258
Magnusson and Palsson, 56.
259
Blöndal, 73.
 114

Harald would not even have been an independently acting commander at the time.

The first of these more probable stories is one in which Harald orders his men to play

games outside the fort to lure the defenders into a false sense of security until, in an

incredible lapse of judgment, they eventually came out to mock the Varangians,

leaving their gate wide open, at which point Harald’s forces easily storm the keep.

Although Snorri reports that his ancestor, Halldor Snorrason, was there at the time

and told the story himself, we have to be careful to put too much faith in oral

transmission over the centuries. As John Marsden rightly notes, “Halldor’s reminisces

are unlikely to have been preserved intact and uncorrupted through almost two

hundred years of oral transmission, and even then… they represented only a small

proportion of Varangian lore—assuredly including many even taller tales—which

found its way into Icelandic tradition and thus provided Snorri with his reservoir of

source material.”260 There may have been a kernel of truth, for instance, it may have

happened that at another time the Varangians were playing games and a similar

interaction occurred between Halldor and Harald, but that distortions or conflations of

events over time led to the ridiculous story that Snorri finally put down on vellum.

The other incident that Blöndal argues could be factual is the incident where

Harald burrows a hole under the walls, popping out inside to massacre the surprised

citizens, who were caught in the middle of breakfast. Blöndal believes this was such a

common tactic in sieges that it could well have happened, citing the many instances

where classical figures employed similar means, and that therefore it could not be an

itinerant folktale. However, even if it were true that such a tactic was in fact used in

260
Marsden, 106.
 115

other historical sieges like that of Darius I at Chalcedon261 or the Persians in Barke

(Libya) in 513 BC262 and Cyprus in 496 BC263, that does not mean that Snorri could

not have lifted it from those or that it found its way into the oral transmission from an

original source in a classical history. Given the way the four stories are presented, and

Harald’s status as low-ranking mercenary, it seems unlikely that any of the anecdotes

are veridical.

Following the calamities that befell the Byzantines in the Sicilian campaign,

Michael IV recalled a contingent of Varangians (which must have included Harald,

according to Kekaumenos) to assist with the suppression of the Bulgarian revolt. The

revolt kicked off in 1040 under Peter Delianos (also known as Deljan and later, Tsar

Peter), who had escaped from slavery in Constantinople, claimed to be a descendant

of the great Tsar Samuel of Bulgaria (r. 997-1014),264 and incited rebellion in the

European themes of the Empire, making “a declaration of independence.”265 It was

especially easy for Deljan to find sympathy for his cause among the Bulgars, who

were already infuriated by a new policy under the treasurer John the Eunuch (brother

of Michael IV) that required they pay their taxes in cash rather than material goods.266

Deljan met with great initial success, probably owing to the heavy strain the Empire

was under fighting wars on two fronts, but by 1041 Michael had assembled an

impressive imperial army, which managed to change the course of the war back in the

Byzantine’s favor. It is likely that Harald was among the forces gathered by the

261
Blöndal, 73.
262
Herodotus, Histories 4.200.2-3
263
Herodotus, Histories 5.112.2
264
Basil II the Bulgar Slayer defeated Tsar Samuel in 1018 with help from the newly formed
Varangian Guard.
265
Psellus, 110.
266
Marsden, 111.
 116

Emperor in his grand assault on the Bulgarians in 1041, only now he was manglabites

and as such responsible for the personal safety of the emperor, who, despite his

advanced illness, led his army into battle. Michael suffered both from epileptic fits

and chronic edema, which led to swelling, gangrene, and partial paralysis, making his

efforts against the Bulgarians all the more remarkable. Ultimately, the downfall of the

Bulgarians was caused less by the Byzantines than by a fatal schism that developed

between Deljan and Alousianus, who was the former King Aaron of the Bulgars’

second son and co-commander of the rebellion. According to Michael Psellos: “quite

unexpectedly [Alousianus] arrested Dolianus [Deljan], cut off his nose and blinded

his eyes, using a cook’s knife for both operations. Thus the Scythians [Bulgars] once

again became subject to one master.”267 In the aftermath of the division, Alousianus

mounted an “attack against the Romans, but the attack proved unsuccessful and he

had to seek refuge.”268 Thereafter he submitted to secret talks with the emperor in the

summer of 1041, to the effect that he agreed to surrender the entire Bulgarian army

after drawing them up into formation at Prilep in what is today Macedonia as if they

were about to join combat. Psellos offers commentary on the dire state of the

Bulgarians after the treachery:

As for his people, now torn asunder with war on all sides and still without a
leader, after inflicting a crushing defeat, Michael again made them subject to
the Empire from which they had revolted. Then he returned to his palace in
glory with a host of captives, among whom were the most notable men of the
Bulgars and the pretender himself [Deljan], their leader, minus his nose and
deprived of his eyes.269

267
Psellos, 115.
268
Psellos, 115.
269
Ibid.
 117

Psellos himself was an eyewitness of the Emperor’s triumphant return to

Constantinople, which for all its pomp and circumstance could not conceal the fact

that Michael the Paphlagonian was a dying man. Seeing his end, Michael IV took the

tonsure and entered the monastery of St. Cosmas and St. Damian where he expired,

clearing the way for his adopted heir, Michael V, son of a caulker, to be consecrated

Basileus, Emperor of the Byzantines. As John Norwich says of Michael V, “No

Emperor ever had less title to the throne.”270

Harald almost certainly fought against the Bulgars, and Kekaumenos, having

met Harald on that very campaign, would seem to be telling the truth when he says

that the young Varangian served with sufficient distinction to be made

spatharokandidatos, the third highest ranking officer of the ‘Varangians of the City’

(the Varangian Guard proper). There are other references to Harald’s activities in

Bulgaria, however, including a poem by Thjodolf, which refers to Harald by the name

“Bulgar-burner.”271

Bulgaria was Harald’s last major military conflict as a mercenary soldier of

the Byzantine Empire in a career spanning at least “eighteen battles” according to a

poem by Thjodolf (a more realistic claim than the earlier one, which had him

capturing 80 towns).272 It may have been during the latter stages of his service that,

one way or another, he came into possession of the famous Landwaster, or “Land-

ravager,” a banner that he would carry with him into battle for the rest of his life. It

may also have been then that he acquired “a coat of mail named Emma,” which the

“Tale of Sarcastic Halli” informs us was crafted in Byzantium and was “so long that

270
Norwich, 222.
271
Blöndal, 74.
272
Magnusson and Palsson, 58.
 118

it reached down to King Harald’s shoes when he stood upright.”273 For the time being

Harald had a brief respite from warfare when he returned to Constantinople after

Prilep as a member of Michael IV’s elite bodyguard, shortly before he died.

Michael V’s accession signaled a definite decline in the Empire’s fortunes,

and also in Harald’s. Michael Psellos intimates the coming catastrophe when he says,

regarding the death of Michael IV and the succession of Stephen’s son, that “What

had taken place was, in reality, the beginning of mighty disasters in the future, and

what was, to all appearances, the foundation stone of the family’s glory proved really

to be its utter destruction.”274 Michael Psellos provides a particularly reliable account

of the disaster which befell the emperor, because he was an eye-witness to the events

as they unfolded and, as a member of the aristocracy, held privileged access to court

affairs. Indeed Psellus recounts that, “For a long time I had been acting as secretary to

the emperor and had recently been initiated into the ceremonies of Entry to the

Imperial Presence.”275 After his coronation, it did not take long for the power of the

throne to systematically corrupt the normally modest and deferential Michael V. He

gradually distanced himself more and more from the eunuch John and Empress Zoe,

who became the “object of his wrath.”276 He initiated a “complete reversal of policy:

everything had to conform to his wishes.”277 He carried out what was essentially a

coup from the inside and mandated personnel changes at all levels of government,

including the restoration of Georgios Maniakes in a bid by the emperor to regain

273
Clark, 698.
274
Psellus, 101.
275
Psellus, 139.
276
Psellus, 132.
277
Psellus, 130.
 119

Sicily. The reorganization had repercussions that reached all the way to the newly

minted spatharokandidatos, Harald Sigurdsson:

Most of the officials were to be stripped of their customary privileges and the
people were to have their freedom restored; he would then have the support of
the people, who were many, rather than of the nobility, who were few. As for
his personal bodyguard, he filled the corps with new soldiers, Scythian youths
whom he had bought some time previously. Every one of them was a eunuch.
They understood what he required of them and they were well fitted to serve
his desires. Indeed, he never questioned their allegiance, because it was to
himself that they owed their promotion to the highest ranks. Some he
employed in actual guard-duties, while others were engaged in various tasks
that he wished to be done.278

For whatever reason, and it could well have just been imperial paranoia, Michael V

did not trust the Varangian bodyguard, replacing them with a group of young

Scythian eunuchs (potentially of Pecheneg stock) who must have been exponentially

less effective then their Norse predecessors. The Varangians were reassigned to a

position of lesser salary and cachet, namely that of defending the walls of

Constantinople.

In his bid to win total control of the empire, Michael accused Zoe of

attempting to poison him, convicted her, had her hair cut off, and exiled her to a

convent on a nearby island called Prinkipo, on April 18, 1042.279 Psellus suggests that

an enormous social upheaval resulted from Empress Zoe’s exile, saying that among

the general populace, “everyone was concerned over the empress’s conviction…not

even the foreigners and allies whom the emperors are wont to maintain by their

side—I am referring to the Scyths from the Taurus [i.e. Varangians]—were able to

restrain their anger. The indignation, in fact, was universal and all were ready to lay

278
Psellus, 131.
279
Norwich, 223.
 120

down their lives for Zoe.”280 While the rage felt towards the new tyrant among the

masses may have resulted from the feeling that Zoe was the “rightful heir to the

Empire” and the only remaining element of stability in Byzantine court, Varangian

resentment was probably rooted more in the recent move by Michael to push them out

of Imperial service, essentially laying them off en masse and probably refusing any

kind of severance benefits besides free room and board in the Nóumera prison.

Although the sagas are our only source for this, we can be fairly sure that

Harald was actually imprisoned. For one thing, Snorri says that both Halldor

Snorrason and Ulf Ospaksson, two Icelanders, were thrown into the dungeon

together, and the latter would certainly have brought back stories of their tribulations

to their native land that would have entered the oral tradition and filtered down to the

saga-writers, and, without explicitly mentioning it, Kekaumenos does seem to suggest

Harald entered upon a spot of trouble towards the end of his stay. However, Snorri’s

account is highly distorted, which makes sense if we consider the vagaries of oral

transmission over the centuries as the story passed from Halldor down to his

descendants. Snorri has Harald imprisoned right after his return from Palestine, when

really he would have been returning to Bulgaria. Also, it would not have been

immediate, because there was a brief interval when Harald would have still been in

the service of Michael IV in Constantinople before he died. The saga authors (along

with Snorri) are certainly mixed up in their emperors here, because they all say that

Constantine IX Monomachos (Michael V’s successor) was the emperor that, “had

Haraldr seized, bound, and taken to a dungeon,”281 when in fact this must have

280
Psellus, 138.
281
Finlay, 189.
 121

occurred under Michael V, because they have Harald’s escape coincide with the riot

that we know took place because of that emperor’s actions. The source for the

confusion is probably that the author of Morkinskinna, on which the later sagas draw,

was not aware that Michael V ever existed as an intermediary between Monomachos

and Michael IV, because his reign only lasted four months and eleven days,282 and so

mistook one for the other. Snorri says that Harald was imprisoned after he found out

that his nephew Magnus had taken the throne of Denmark, in addition to that of

Norway (which he had ruled since 1035) and resigned his post in order to seek his

destiny as Scandinavian royalty. However, this could not be true, because Magnus

only took over after the Harthacnut died suddenly “as he stood at his drink” on June

8, 1042,283 and we know that the famous riot and Harald’s escape from prison must

have taken place in April 1042 (according to Byzantine sources). Snorri also

mentions a certainly fictitious love triangle between Empress Zoe, Harald, and her

niece Maria. He says that “some Varangians who had been mercenaries in

Constantinople brought north the story that according to well-informed people,

Empress Zoe had wanted to marry Harald herself, and that this was her real complaint

against Harald when he wanted to leave Constantinople, although a different story

was given to the public.”284 We may dismiss this rumor not only on the improbability

of a Greek Empress of advanced age wanting to marry a Norse-speaking barbarian,

but also because Snorri admits the distance of his own sources from the events and

thus their unreliability when he prefaces the statement with a reference to the dubious

chain of oral transmission that ended with his hearing of the tale (i.e. “some

282
Norwich, 226.
283
Jones, 399. Cf. Anglo-Saxon Chronicle
284
Magnusson and Palsson, 60.
 122

Varangians” say they heard it from some “well-informed people”; when the story

itself does not begin even as an eye-witness account we must be weary).

Morkinskinna and Fagrskinna run with the story to a greater degree, but what may be

more instructive are the reasons Zoe gives publicly for Harald’s conviction in each

version.

Fagrskinna says that “the first reason was that [Harald] had kept the gold that

belonged to the king of the Greeks, and not yielded it up according to the laws, and

had taken into his own possession more than the king had granted him; they said that

at the time when he was in command of the king’s army no money had come from the

galleys.”285 Morkinskinna says that, “he kept the gold that belonged to the Byzantine

Emperor and had not made payment according to the law, but had rather taken a

larger portion than the emperor sanctioned. They said that during the time that he

commanded the Byzantine army the galleys in his command had contributed almost

no gold.”286 Snorri is somewhat less precise: “she accused him of having defrauded

the emperor of treasure which had been won in campaigns under Harald’s

command.”287

Blöndal posits several different explanations for Harald’s imprisonment. The

first is that he took part in polutasvarf, or illicit “palace-plunder” after the death of an

emperor on three separate occasions, according to Heimskringla (although

Heimkringla is sure that such activities are sanctioned by the state).288 He could not

have done this three times, given the fact that he only served under Michael IV,

285
Finlay, 188.
286
Andersson and Gade, 145.
287
Magnusson and Palsson, 60.
288
Magnusson and Palsson, 64.
 123

although it is possible he was caught raiding the palace following that emperor’s

death in December 1041. The second explanation, and the one that Blöndal supports,

hangs on an alternative interpretation of the word polutasvarf through a rather

complicated etymology to the effect that Harald was incarcerated because he extorted

money for himself on imperial tax-gathering missions and took more money for

himself than generally allowed, although no such behavior is ever mentioned

anywhere.289 The sagas on the other hand seem to suggest slander from high places,

including Georgios Maniakes, which dredged up past indiscretions in the form of a

1030s-era failure to pay rental fees on his warships. Even if this was the charge

leveled, the fact that the previous emperor found no fault with Harald at the time is

evidence that there were no such transgressions in the first place. Also Georgios

Maniakes was, if we remember, sent to Sicily by Michael V and would have had

bigger problems (as would Zoe, who was herself being slandered by the Emperor)

than to confront than Harald, especially as he had his eye on a future coup d’état.

Instead it is most likely that Harald was simply a victim of the political upheaval that

accompanied the brief reign of Michael V. Harald, Ulf, and Halldor, were all officers

of the bodyguard that Michael V no longer trusted and had just demoted, and it would

have made perfect sense to lock up these now potentially resentful and dangerous

commanders rather than allow the possibility of a Varangian revolt or assassination. It

is possible the Emperor fabricated charges against them, but in reality there would be

no reason why he would have to so; the imprisonment of foreign mercenaries was not

something that would likely stir the public’s ire, though it definitely would excite the

passions of Harald’s regiment.

289
Blöndal, 86.
 124

The sagas tell us that the dungeon (“now called Haraldr’s dungeon”) that the

unfortunate Norsemen land in is a tall roofless structure with a door opening onto the

street on the same site where a chapel dedicated to St. Olaf was later built.290

Morkinskinna is the most embellished account, but all the saga versions tell that

Harald saw a vision of St. Olaf before his internment. Morkinskinna goes on to tell

that there was a dragon in the dungeon that fed on the bodies of prisoners,291 but

Snorri discounts this addition and so should we (although somehow this element

made it into the Danish Gesta Danorum by Saxo Grammaticus) on the grounds that

such “prisoner in snake-tower” stories appear repeatedly as an ‘itinerant folktale’ in

southern European literature, as John Marsden points out.292 The sagas go on to

record that a mysterious Greek noblewoman who had been miraculously healed of an

incurable disease by St. Olaf came to Harald’s aid by order of his half-brother. She

supposedly came with two servants, placed a ladder against the outside wall and

lowered a rope down through the conveniently roofless dungeon. In fact the inmates

were probably kept in the higher security Nóumera prison near the Varangian

barracks and that the escape was facilitated by outside forces of some magnitude, as

we shall see, but by no means divine, and such a lady never existed.

Snorri says succinctly that, once freed, our intrepid protagonists woke the

Varangian regiment then, “armed themselves and made their way to the chamber

where the emperor lay sleeping. They seized the emperor, and put out both his

eyes.”293 Snorri cites two poems, by Thorarin Skeggjason and Thjodolf, which he

290
Finlay, 189.
291
Andersson and Gade, 146.
292
Marsden, 124.
293
Magnusson and Palsson, 61.
 125

uses as evidence for the claim that Harald did in fact blind the emperor (although

Snorri believes this emperor was Monomachus rather than Michael V). Thorarin

poem is as follows: “Harald won glowing gold, but the emperor of Byzantium,

cruelly motivated, lost the sight of his eyes.”294 Now this poem does not in itself

suggest that it was Harald who did the deed, just that Harald became rich while the

emperor was blinded. Be that as it may, Thjodolf’s poem is unequivocal:

The warrior who fed the wolves

Ripped out both the eyes
Of the emperor of Byzantium;
Strife was unleashed again.
The warrior-king of Norway
Marked his cruel revenge
On the brave emperor of the East;
The Greek king had betrayed him.295

Snorri even recognizes how unbelievable it sounds that Harald himself blinded the

Byzantine emperor, and offers further justification, using the same words as the

author of Fagrskinna: “The poets would surely have attributed this act to a duke or

count or some other man of rank if they had known that to be true; but this was the

account brought back by Harald himself and the men who were with him.”296 Also,

our Byzantine sources offer no specification on exactly who the man in responsible

for the blinding really was, although it is quite clear that Michael V and his

Nobilissimus, Constantine, were both blinded in April 1042 and forced into

monasteries.

What the sagas fail to mention is that it was not such a simple matter of

Harald escaping from prison with divine assistance, entering the royal palace, and

294
Magnusson and Palsson, 62.
295
Ibid.
296
Ibid.
 126

ultimately blinding the Michael V. Rather, following Zoe’s exile, the entire city of

Constantinople exploded in a mass uprising, demanding that the emperor step down

and Zoe be reinstated, with her sister Theodora brought back after years in a convent

to rule as co-Empress. Michael V tried to bring Zoe back but realized this alone was

not enough to please the crowd, so he secretly left with Constantine the Nobilissimus

to become a suppliant in a monastery. The revolt was devastation to the city and may

have caused the deaths of 3,000 people along with untold damage to property, which

was looted and burned indiscriminately.297 It is not an understatement then when John

Marsden says that, “20 April in the year 1042 was to go down in the annals with

singular notoriety as the bloodiest day in the long history of the capital.”298 For many

of the participants, the rebellion was probably directed less towards a particular goal

than an expression of general dissatisfaction, but Empress Zoe was the persona

around which the leaders rallied.

Although the carnage alone could have explained Harald’s breakout, the

Patriarch Alexius,299 who Michael V had seen as an obstacle and made a serious

enemy out of, had ordered “the mob to break open the city’s prisons and release their

inmates,” although this was potentially difficult as the guards would still have been

loyal to the emperor.300 Nonetheless, we know from Psellus that the Varangian

regiment, whose barracks was nearby, was involved in the uprising and would have

quickly saw to it that their commanders were freed. We need look no further to

explain the escape; the miraculous works of St. Olaf were probably ahistorical

297
Psellus, 145, note 1.
298
Marsden, 127.
299
The Patriarch was seemingly allowed to slip away from arrest by Varangian captors and
played a role in orchestrating the revolt from a base in the Hagia Sophia. Blöndal, 89.
300
Marsden, 127.
 127

hagiographical additions designed to enhance the Saint’s reputation and that of

Harald by association.

The mob proceeded to locate Michael V’s hiding place at the Studite

Monastery. Michael Psellus gives a detailed eyewitness account of how they then,

without any thought to the hollowed ground of the monastery or any Christian

charity, forcefully dragged the Emperor and Constantine along the streets of

Constantinople towards the palace amidst the insults and jeering of the crowd. The

procession was cut short when they received orders from Theodora that the men were

to be blinded (rather than executed outright as planned), and the sentence was

immediately carried out. If we are to believe the sagas and the poems they contain,

then it must the soliders who arrived with the grim orders must have been Varangians

and Harald must have been their leader. The Greek sources offer nothing to refute

such a claim, as they simply do not specify exactly who it was that carried out the

sentence, besides that they were, “bold, resolute men…[that] waited with hands

athirst for his [Constantine’s] blood,”301 which certainly could well apply to Harald or

any of the hardened warriors under his command. As Blöndal points out, foreign

mercenaries were often chosen for such gruesome tasks specifically because many

Greeks were averse such behavior because of social stigma and ethical

complications.302 An unexplained poem by Valgardr in Fagrskinna also suggests that

Harald was in charge of doling out punishment to those of his unit that remained loyal

to Michael:

The company hanged quickly,

King’s offspring [i.e. kin of kings, Harald], you ordered;
301
Psellus, 149-150.
302
Blöndal, 94.
 128

After that, by your arranging,

Are the Væringjar fewer.303

The fact that the Varangians were able to adjudicate their own cases has already been

shown by the passage in Cedrenus about the rape of a woman by a Varangian in

Western Anatolia, so it is not hard to believe that they would have similar privileges

in this case, especially given the utter chaos of the Byzantine administrative structure

just after the riot.

After things had settled down somewhat, Zoe and Theodora began joint rule,

although Theodora took a subordinate position without much protest. The 64-year-old

Zoe then went on to marry a wealthy aristocrat who had just returned from a seven-

year exile on the island of Lesbos. This man was crowned Emperor Constantine IX

Monomachos on June 12, 1042, and until his death in 1055, “through sheer

irresponsibility…did the Empire more harm than the rest of them [the last four

emperors] put together.”304 The wily Georgios Maniakes took advantage of the

transitions of power and sailed from Sicily to Constantinople, proclaiming himself

emperor, but was mortally wounded in battle against the Imperial Army.

Meanwhile Harald, who probably resumed service in the Varangian Guard

proper, would have learned that summer, after the crowning of Constantine IX that

his nephew Magnus had taken the throne of Denmark after Harthacnut’s death, and

was now master of two lands. Although Snorri’s chronology is clearly askew (he has

Harald leave on the night of the riot, i.e. April 20th, before Harthacnut’s death), he is

surely right to say that Harald’s ambition to take his rightful place as ruler over one of

these was a major motivating factor for his departure. As far as dating, we should
303
Finlay, 189.
304
Norwich, 227.
 129

trust Kekaumenos that Harald attempted to leave during the reign of Constantine IX

Monomachos, because that would be after June 1042 and so after the death of

Harthacnut, giving him time to receive news of that event from Scandinavia.

Although Blöndal says that Harald could not have left after February or March of

1043, because that was when Maniakes was killed in battle and Harald’s presence in

such a battle would have been noted by the skalds,305 there is the distinct probability

that he would have been serving in the city as the emperor’s bodyguard (being

spatharkandidatos) at the time and not in the field with the common mercenaries,

making such a point moot. Regardless, it is still reasonable to assume he tried to leave

as soon as possible after the news reached him, which would have been in the

summer of 1042, especially in view of how precarious his situation in the Empire

must have seemed after his imprisonment and the revolt.

The sagas would like us to believe that Harald rescued the fabled Princess

Maria (one side of the romantic love triangle established by Morkinskinna and

allegedly Zoe’s niece)306 during his escape from Constantinople only to deposit her

safely on shore, just to prove he could it.307 We should of course not believe this,

though we can trust the contemporary Kekaumenos when he says that after asking the

Emperor to leave “his way out narrowed” and Harald was compelled to escape in

secret. Still, we might not disregard other details of his escape provided by the sagas.

There was in fact, “a great iron chain across the Golden Horn, and, at least from the

305
Blöndal, 97.
306
There is no evidence such a woman ever existed.
307
Magnusson and Palsson, 63.
 130

time of Manuel I Comnenus, across the Bosporus, as a defence for the harbor.”308 The

method Snorri gives for Harald’s escape over the chains (i.e. approaching with

momentum and weight and thrust in the stern then switch weight and thrust to bow

when on top of the chain)309 could well be correct, too, and certainly does work in

such situations (as verified in smaller boats by the author), although we are told one

of Harald’s galleys sank during the operation. Certainly Harald would have had to

circumvent the chains somehow, considering that the only realistic method of return

to Russia was by ship and that, according to Kekaumenos, he left covertly. However

he did it, we can be sure that by 1043 at the very latest, the twenty-eight year old

Harald was safely back in Jaroslav’s court at Novgorod, basking in the glow of the

vast riches he had won (or stolen) over the course of his eight year Varangian

adventure.

308
Blöndal, 98. The chain itself can presently be found in the Istanbul Military Museum
(Askeri Müze).
309
Magnusson and Palsson, 63.
 131

X. Magnus the Good and Harald the Ruthless

Harald’s return to Novgorod would have retraced the same route he had used

earlier, sailing along the western shore of the Black Sea and then rowing and

portaging northwards up the river systems into Russia. While Marsden and Blöndal

suggest Harald must been sending his treasure to Kiev and would have gone there to

stay with Jaroslav, as that was the new capital of Russia owing to a recent relocation,

this need not be the case. Jaroslav certainly preferred the court at Novgorod, and

divided his time between the two cities, which together represented the poles of

Kievan Rus. Novgorod was also the Scandinavian center of Russia, where Harald

would have had more friends (like Rognvald Brusason) who could be counted on to

look after the treasure, and it would have been an easier base to rally his troops before

he went on to Scandinavia. According to Snorri, Harald overwintered with Jaroslav

after his departure for Constantinople, married the King’s daughter Elisabeth, and

continued on to Sigtuna in the Summer with a horde of treasure from his Byzantine

employment and from the marriage. A poem attributed to Stuf the Blind shows there

was more on offer in such a marriage alliance than everlasting love, and we can

imagine him making such a decision for practical and political reasons more than

anything:

The warlike king of Norway

Won the match of his desire;
He gained a king’s daughter
And a hoard of gold as well.310

If we take Harald to have left Constantinople in 1042, as the evidence

suggests, then Snorri’s account puts Harald in Scandinavia by 1043. However,

310
Magnusson and Palsson, 64.
 132

because Harald meets Svein Estridsson in Sweden, and Svein only sought refuge in

Sweden following his defeat to his rival King Magnus in battle in 1045,311 we know

that Harald must actually have arrived in Sweden in 1045. This means he stayed for

an additional three years in Novgorod, two of which are entirely unaccounted for, and

any attempt to fill in this apparent lacuna could only ever be pure conjecture.

Magnus was the illegitimate son of Saint Olaf, and as such Harald’s nephew.

He was crowned King of Norway in 1035 following Cnut’s death, when he was still

just a boy of eleven. Agrip says that, when Harthacnut ruled Denmark, he and

Magnus made an agreement that, “the one who lived the longer was to rule both

countries, but each would rule his own kingdom while both lived. Then hostages were

exchanged,”312 and the anonymous Roskilde Chronicle confirms such an

arrangement.313 Harthacnut died first, while in England, and as per their contract,

Magnus inherited the throne of Denmark, which in turn prompted Harald, vying for a

piece of the action, to return to the Scandinavian scene.

In the meantime, however, a new contender for control of Denmark surfaced

in the form of Svein Ulfsson. Svein was the son of Earl Ulf and his mother was the

sister of Cnut the Great. Cnut put Svein in control of Denmark as his regent when he

left to conquer England, and Magnus kept him in this capacity (but with the title of

Earl) when he took over in 1042. However, Svein clearly felt he deserved more

because of his relation to Cnut and declared himself full king of Denmark while

Magnus was away, but Magnus came and deposed him in a series of three battles that

311
Magnusson and Palsson, 65, note 1.
312
Driscoll, 49.
313
Driscoll, 101.
 133

culminated in Magnus’ 1045 victory at Heganess in Jutland, forcing Svein to flee the

country and seek asylum in Sweden with King Onund.314

Svein and Harald were actually related through Harald’s new wife Elisabeth

(which may have sweetened the deal, given the political obligations such a union

entailed). Elisabeth’s grandfather was King Olaf Eiriksson of Sweden (r. 995-1022),

whose sister Astrid was Svein’s mother. Snorri tells us the importance of this

relationship, which held for Harald, in providing Swedish allies: “All the Swedes

were Svein’s friends, for he was related to the greatest family in the land. The Swedes

now all became Harald’s friends and supporters as well. Harald now had strong bonds

of kinship with many important peole.” These bonds of kinship, of course, were no

accident, but the result of shrewd forethought on the part of Harald, who we may

imagine was planning his triumphant homecoming for some time.

Such were the already tendentious circumstances when Harald arrived. The

poets attest to a rough journey through the Baltic between Staraja Ladoga and

Sigtuna. Though Valgard of Voll is cited for a similar verse (“Through storm and

gale, great king, you sailed your plunging vessel; and as the sea-spray was thinning

you sighted at last Sigtuna”)315 Thjodolf is most eloquent:

The oak keel ploughed the ocean

All the way west from Russia;
And afterwards all the Swedes
Gave you support, great king.
Harald’s gold-laden ship,
Her sails stained with sea-spray,
Listed hard to larboard,
Scudding before the tempest.316

314
Magnusson and Palsson, 65, note 1.
315
Magnusson and Palsson, 65.
316
Magnusson and Palsson, 66.
 134

Harald probably set sail after he heard news of Svein’s defeat, seeing an

opportunity to make political inroads towards the Norwegian kingship, so that would

put his journey sometime in the late fall or winter of 1045, or early 1046. Judging by

the harsh conditions of the sea crossing alluded to by the poems, that the journey took

place in a stormier season makes sense. Harald met Svein Ulfsson at Onund’s court

and quickly formed an alliance of convenience: both were determined to win a share

of Magnus’ domains, Svein in Denmark and Harald in Norway. Onund had known

Harald from when he was just a boy, harboring him for a short time after Stiklestad

and before he went off to Russia, and would have felt brotherly love towards him as a

result of Elisabeth, too. It makes sense then why he would assist these two ‘friends of

the Swedes’ as they attempted to dissolve the domain of Onund’s primary

geopolitical rival.

While it is certainly true that Svein, Harald, and Magnus, all had their sights

set on usurping or retaining the kingship of these various countries, we must

remember that at this point in the Middle Ages in Scandinavia, the concept of nation-

state or even “country” as we understand it today was vastly different. The king was

not so much ruler of a unified political entity but ‘first among lords’ in his particular

sphere of influence, and his vassals were expected to finance his lifestyle and war

machine. The king’s control over his territory then was more or less nominal, and the

life of the peasants was largely unaffected by the comings and goings of kings and

overlords. The way Magnus, Harald, and Svein jockeyed for various pieces of the pie

is a perfect example of how they saw, “a ‘kingdom’ as the personal property of its

then ruler, whether by inheritance, donation, or conquest,” as Gwyn Jones says,

 135

“Nation it was not. Nor, in speaking of the kingdom of Norway should we forget how

remote in miles was the north, how remote in spirit the inland provinces, and how

little national sentiment obtained in either.”317

The advent of Harald Sigurdsson in Scandinavia also marked the beginning of

a transformation of the man (who was now 30), from a professional soldier to a

warlord, or from a hired hand to an entrepreneur, to make an anachronistic but

perhaps more easily understood analogy. It was from this point forward then that he

began more readily to exhibit those qualities which would earn him the nickname

Hard-Ruler in later texts. Strangely, until the invasion of England in 1066, it was also

a step back for Harald in terms of warfare, which seems to have reverted to a more

typically Viking style of raiding, looting, and generally irritating people (all of which

revolved around the power and mobility of Viking warship fleets), from the kind of

large-scale set piece battles and sieges more commonly associated with Byzantine

and Russian campaigns. Our sources become more reliable and less confused through

this part of his life, owing to the fact that the events described were closer to home

and would have had more eyewitness accounts close to the authors (at least spatially

if not always temporally).

In the spring of 1046, with “maiden hearts trembling” in Denmark (or so says

Valgard of Voll), Harald and Svein sailed west with a flotilla of Viking longships and

a “large force,” that probably included a good percentage of Swedes. As Snorri says

concisely: “the fleet sailed first to Zealand, where they plundered and burned

317
Jones, 406.
 136

extensively. From there they went on to Fyn Island and landed there and raided.”318

The poets here also make a point of mentioning that the raiders captured and enslaved

many Danish women, emphasizing the utter absence of nationalistic (or

humanitarian) feeling between Svein and Harald. Agrip and Theodoricus,

interestingly, recount no such disputes, probably in an effort to make Harald look

better (it was after a Norwegian-written catalogue of Norwegian kings), instead

saying that Harald was given half of Norway by Magnus, who recognized his claim

without issue.

The story of how Harald came to the throne as the other sources tell it is a

much more sinister looking animal, and also much more accurate, demonstrating once

more Harald’s especially opportunistic brand of realpolitik. His primary motivation in

the raids on Denmark was not to win Denmark (which he had no claim to in the first

place), as was the case with Svein, but rather to coerce Magnus into concessions at

the negotiating table through an effective show of force. Harald wanted to make sure

he was taken seriously, and in this he succeeded. Although Thjodolf makes it sound

as if the two men were in the brink of all out war (“Death-dealing Magnus will sail

his vessels southwards, while Harald’s ocean-dragons are pointing to the north”)319 if

it were not for the interventions of wiser men, in truth Magnus probably did not

require much convincing to come to terms with Harald. After all, Magnus would have

been overstretched and in sore need of cash (which Harald possessed in abundance)

318
Magnusson and Palsson, 67. Geographic Note: Zealand (or Sjælland in Danish) is the
largest and easternmost Danish island where Copenhagen is now (although it had not yet
been founded at that time), across from the Skåne peninsula , which is now the southern tip of
Sweden but which was then part of Denmark. Fyn is the large middle island of the Danish
archipelago.
319
Magnusson and Palsson, 68.
 137

after having recently conducted a sizeable expedition against the Slavic Wends on the

South Baltic coast and even more recently having waged a lengthy campaign against

Svein in his earlier bid for the Danish crown. To underscore the gravity of the

Wendish threat that Magnus put down, we have Theodoricus to tell us that, “the

Wends… descended upon Denmark in unbelievable numbers, covering the face of the

earth like locusts.”320 Snorri has Magnus go so far as to say, “All the wars and huge

levies have so reduced my resources that all the gold and silver I have left is what I

have on my person,” which, even if hyperbole, definitely highlights the man’s

desperation.321

The shady part comes when we learn that, “all this was arranged in the

greatest secrecy”322 so Svein would not be privy to the peace overtures Magnus was

extending to Uncle Harald. As Adam of Bremen hatefully remarks, “To [Svein’s]

hands, it is said, Harold commended himself, swearing an oath of fidelity to the

victory, and received his father’s kingdom in fief as a duchy. But when soon after he

came to his own people and clearly perceived that the Norwegians were true to him

[i.e. Magnus was willing to deal], he was easily persuaded to rebel, and he devastated

all the coastlands of Denmark with fire and sword.”323 While such double-dealing and

treachery was par for the course in the Viking world, we can understand why this

might have made the future rivalry between Harald and Svein that much more

personal.

320
Theodoricus, 37. Theodoricus also tells us, in a brief ethnographic aside, that the Wends
were, “pagan and hostile to God, savage men of the wild who live by pillage [which sounds
like early descriptions of Vikings]. Indeed, they made it their custom to harry Denmark
constantly with plundering raids…”
321
Magnusson and Palsson, 72.
322
Magnusson and Palsson, 68.
323
Adam of Bremen, 124.
 138

Without hesitation, Harald accepted Magnus’ proposal, which dictated that, in

return for cessation of hostilities and an “equal division of their combined wealth” (a

provision that favored the down-and-out Magnus), Magnus would acknowledge

Harald’s claim to “a half-share in the Norwegian kingdom.”324

What follows next is a dialogue-heavy anecdote where the two former allies

have a falling out after Svein (justifiably) insults Harald’s honor by commenting,

without any knowledge of the deal made behind his back, “Some people say, Harald,

that the only pledges you have honored in the past are those you thought would profit

yourself best.”325 Harald then cunningly evades assassination at the hands of Svein’s

henchmen by putting a log in his bed and going to bed elsewhere. After finding the

axe still stuck in the log, Harald concludes its time to go to Norway and make good

on his deal with Magnus. This episode is most likely a work of fiction, showing all

the telltale signs of a folk legend. In may be that this particular story derived from a

separate tradition, which, like Agrip and Theodoricus, eschewed any mention of

treachery or double-dealing at all in order to explain Harald’s defection without it

reflecting poorly on the king.

A poem by Bolverk Arnorsson helps to sum up the peaceful arrangement the

two kings maintained during their joint rule:

The green land of Norway

Came into your power,
Open-handed Harald,
When you gave gold to Magnus.
The pact between you kinsmen
Was kept in peaceful concord,
But strife was now awaiting

324
Ibid.
325
Magnusson and Palsson, 69.
 139

The usurper Svein of Denmark.326

We are informed that Magnus and Harald had separate courts in Norway, and that,

“During the winter they went on circuit through the Uplands [presumably on tribute-

gathering missions], sometimes together and sometimes separately. They travelled all

the way north to Trondheim and the Trondelag.”327 In Jonathan Clements astute

judgment, their efforts to unify Norway amounted to little more than “the extraction

of protection money,” which in general was how such things were done at the time.

Harald would have been well versed in this type of governance from his experiences

with Jaroslav in Russia and possibly in the Guard, and realized the importance of

tribute for more than mere symbolism and personal wealth. The money they raised

over the winter was also crucial to an effective military presence during the summer

campaigning season.

Snorri indicates that the young Magnus and the elder Harald were not always

on the best of terms, offering a few stories of questionable reliability to prove this

point, but we are probably better off trusting his word on the matter at face value.

Harald, after all, would not have been the easiest person to get along with, as we have

seen in his earlier relations with Georgios Maniakes, Halldor Snorrason, Byzantine

authorities, Svein, and even in his early arguments with his half-brother and Magnus’

father, Saint Olaf.328 Still he managed to keep things on even keel at least until

326
Magnusson and Palsson, 73.
327
Magnusson and Palsson, 74.
328
In many of these cases, even if the particular anecdotes are ahistorical, the grain of truth
they preserve is almost certainly Harald’s personality, as the saga-writers were not ones to
attach unfounded negative stories to the glorious kings of old, when it could be helped
(positive-leaning material is another matter, as we can see most distinctly in Olaf’s Saga).
 140

Magnus untimely death in 1047, just two years after Harald’s arrival and only a year

after the two began ruling together.

Before he died, however, Magnus travelled south with Harald and a huge

Norwegian force to vanquish Svein from Denmark, where the latter had succeeded in

establishing himself, having conducted tribute-gathering circuits of his own the

previous winter. It was on this joint Norwegian operation against Svein in Denmark,

which was seemingly proceeding apace (Svein had fled once again into Skåne), that

the 23-year-old Magnus met a sudden and not well-understood demise. Snorri

attributes his death to divine will, which manifested itself as a vision of his saintly

father Olaf, but it is more likely he died of an illness, as Agrip329, Orkenyinga

Saga330, Morkinskinna331 and Fagrskinna332 tell us. The death of Magnus the Good

was universally mourned, and Fagrskinna tells us by way of an epitaph that,

“everyone agrees that there has been no king in Norway as popular as Magnús inn

gó∂i, and so this news brought sorrow to many a man.”333 Surprisingly, there seems

to be no suspicion that Harald was the mastermind behind his nephew’s death,

because not even the hostile Adam of Bremen reports such a rumor, and there is no

suggestion of foul play from any of our other sources either. All this would seem to

absolve Harald, the most suspicious figure in the drama, who stood to gain the whole

kingdom of Norway and Magnus’ claims to Denmark.

329
Driscoll, 55.
330
Palsson and Edwards, 74.
331
Andersson and Gade, 180.
332
Finlay, 199.
333
Finlay, 200.
 141

XII. Hard-Ruler

Unfortunately for Harald, Magnus’ death did not result in the simple transfer

of power he had envisioned. Snorri says that while Magnus was writhing on his

deathbed he, “bequeathed the Danish kingdom to Svein, saying that it was proper that

Harald should rule over Norway and Svein over Denmark.”334 Whether this decision

was rooted in the souring relationship between Magnus and Harald or was simply a

spontaneous impulse of good will towards Svein (as the sagas claim) is difficult to

determine for certain, but the tone of the sources seems to support the former. Agrip

for instance makes the bequeathal a clandestine affair that took place without any

input from Harald: “…while he had lain ill, [Magnus] had sent his half-brother Thorir

to Sveinn Ulfsson; Thorir was not to tell Sveinn that King Magnus had died. But

Sveinn realized that Magnus had died and accepted the great gift joyfully.”335 Harald

of course, denied the veracity of any claims Svein had on the Danish kingdom,

including this latest, which he dismissed as a fabrication. Snorri tells us that Harald,

“regarded Denmark as his lawful inheritance from his nephew King Magnus, no less

than Norway.”336 It is probably Harald’s version that made it into Orkneyinga Saga,

which declines to mention any bequeathal to Svein: “Magnus made a public

declaration, bequeathing the whole realm of Norway to his uncle Harald

Sigurdarson.”337 In reality, who Magnus chose to succeed him didn’t really matter

that much, as Harald and Svein were dead set on continuing their war until the other

capitulated, regardless of their legitimacy in doing so.

334
Magnusson and Palsson, 76.
335
Driscoll, 55.
336
Magnusson and Palsson, 77.
337
Palsson and Edwards, 74.
 142

The fight against Svein over control of Denmark was to occupy nearly the rest

of Harald’s life and achieve no results to speak of besides loss of life and property

damage. Gwyn Jones characterizes Scandinavian foreign relations during the ensuing

“war” for what it really was, “a long and pointless struggle… The Icelandic historians

exerted their full powers of memory, rearrangement, and invention to shed splendor,

even humor, on what is essentially a sorry narrative of coasts raided, farms burned,

husbands killed, and womenfolk carried of. The skalds, too, did their best.”338 This

was not the sort of military campaign Harald would have known from Byzantium;

there were no large armies, no epic sieges, and little heroism. Rather, the style of

warfare harkened back to the very earliest days of recorded Viking activity, only this

time the hostilities were directed at members of their own cultural group. What we

see are two main clusters of intense coastal raiding in the late 1040s and again at the

beginning of the 1060s, finally terminating with a peace treaty that maintained the

preexisting boundaries of both countries.

It is quite possible that, had Harald remained with his army in Denmark after

Magnus died he could have held on to the kingship of both countries. Svein after all

had fled the country after the initial invasion and the Danes had already recognized

Magnus as their king. Indeed, Harald fully intended to take his army to the Viborg

Assembly and proclaim himself king, and would have done so, were it not for

intervention on the part of the influential Einar Paunch-Shaker. Einar had made a nice

living for himself under Magnus, who he helped bring back from Russia back in

1035, and had acquired great wealth and territory under the young King in exchange

338
Jones, 407.
 143

for his support and good counsel.339 For all intents and purposes he had been

operating as an autonomous overlord in the Trondelag, where he had overwhelming

popular support from the farmers, and was not about to submit to Harald, who he saw

as a potential threat to local power. Now that Einar’s benefactor was deceased, his

allegiance to the Norwegian crown swiftly dissolved.

Einar easily persuaded the army that the burial of their popular King Magnus

was a more immediate concern than the conquest of Denmark, and he and the troops

sailed off to Trondheim to intern the body in St. Clement’s Church.340 At that Harald

had no choice but to disband the entire expedition and reluctantly depart for Norway,

where his sole rule was widely acknowledged. It was perhaps then that Harald

decided he would be better off placating the powerful Einar by allowing him to retain

“all the estate dues he had had while King Magnus was alive.”341 It would have been

easy for Einar to win the endorsement of the independent-minded farmers and

noblemen of Trondheim. Besides their historic lack of enthusiasm for centralized

government, the Trondheimers were stubborn pagans that had so far resisted the best

efforts at conversion by the Christianizing kings, as Jonathan Clements points out:

“…although Harald only professed his belief in Christ when it suited him, the earls of

Trondheim were unrepentant pagans, and refused to recognize his authority.”342 The

advent of Harald, a new Christian king who spent much of his formative years in

foreign lands, might even have conjured up feelings that the traditional Norwegian

cultural identity was in danger. That said, it is also true that such issues of religion

339
Marsden, 159-161.
340
Magnusson and Palsson, 78.
341
Magnusson and Palsson, 90.
342
Clements, 201.
 144

were regularly used as a pretext for subversion, which more often than not had more

earthly concerns at their core, and in this case Clements is right to note that, “unrest in

Harald’s Norway had less to do with religion than it did with the unwelcome

redistribution of wealth [i.e. from the noblemen to the king].”343

To rouse support for himself, Einar was also keen to flaunt his power in front

of the king, at one point even arriving at Trondheim, where Harald was in residence

at the time, with a personal army consisting of “nine longships and almost five

hundred men [i.e. 600 in long hundreds].”344 Harald of course was enraged by this act

of open and very public provocation and one his better poems records his sentiment

during this time:

I see sailing through the town

With a host of warlike followers
Generously paunched Einar,
Skilled plougher of the ocean.
The stout chief is hoping
To fill the throne of Norway;
Even kings, I sometimes feel,
Keep smaller courts than his.

Einar of the flailing sword

Will drive me from this country
Unless I first persuade him
To kiss my thin-lipped axe.345

Clearly tensions ran high between the two leaders, and, although it was still a few

years off, the eventual collision between the Paunch-Shaker and the Hard-Ruler

would have been easy to foresee.

While at home consolidating his kingdom, Harald apparently picked up a

second wife, if we are to believe Snorri: “The winter after King Magnus’ death,

343
Ibid.
344
Magnusson and Palsson, 92
345
Ibid.
 145

Harald married Thora, the daughter of Thorberg Anrason. They had two sons; the

elder was called Magnus, and the younger Olaf. King Harald and Queen Elizabeth

had two daughters; one was called Maria, and the other Ingigerd.”346 This second

“marriage” to Thora was important not only in that it finally brought Harald heirs (he

only ever had daughters by Elisabeth), but also because it established a new web of

kinship ties that would have benefitted Harald politically at his stage of his reign,347

as we shall see. Harald’s polygamy might seem strange to us now, and definitely fell

short of the Christian ideal, but all indications are that such relations were an

extremely common and publicly accepted part of life in early medieval Scandinavia.

Magnus the Good was, after all, a bastard child himself, and that didn’t stop him from

becoming king or his father Olaf from being canonized. However, Harald probably

did not marry Thora, but instead kept her as a mistress, because the Church would be

reluctant to knowingly consecrate two marriages without dissolving the first (and

there is no indication Harald ever divorced Elisabeth). Nevertheless, Harald’s sons

Magnus and Olaf would be at no disadvantage politically from their illegitimacy.

Meanwhile, in Skåne, Svein heard the astonishing news that the whole

Norwegian army had evacuated Denmark and swore an oath to, “never flee from

Denmark again,”348 whereupon he went immediately with his forces to the Viborg

346
Magnusson and Palsson, 81.
347
Elisabeth had already proved her political expedience by connecting Harald to the
Swedish court upon his return to Scandinavia and it seems that by the time Harald began his
relationship with Thora his old wife was no longer useful to him. As unromantic and
chauvinistic as such an outlook seems to the modern reader, we must remember that the
institution of marriage during Harald’s time was seen more as a political alliance between
families undertaken for mutual benefit than the eternal bond of two star-crossed lovers. In
fact, Harald’s activities predate even the concept of romantic love, which only began its rise
to prominence in literature of the thirteenth century.
348
Magnusson and Palsson, 79.
 146

Assembly to declare himself King of Denmark. Harald of course would not be so

easily put off, and set sail the very next spring (i.e. 1048) with “half of his full army

in men and ships.”349 The sagas report some petty acts of reprisal against a maiden

that mocked him when he left the previous year, and how Harald extorted ransom

money from their fathers, yet the poets still compose praising verses:

The mocking Danish maidens

Carved useless anchors
Out of their crumbling cheeses;
Norway’s king was angry.
Today these very maidens
Can see the iron anchors
Holding his eager warships;
And none is laughing now.350

Apart from the enormous plunder stolen by his forces, Harald made no gains in

Denmark that summer. In fact, judging by the fact that he was deliberately at half-

power, we may assume his goal was not one of military victory but intimidation. He

was decidedly not attacking strategically important military installations or planning a

long-term occupation. In fact, he may even have purposefully sought out civilians and

defenseless communities for slaves and loot. Such tactics did not require many

resources and if done right could be quite profitable. As an added bonus, the

psychological effects among the Danes that came from burning towns and the

continual insecurity they felt would serve to debase Svein’s authority.

The next summer Harald tried again, like he would every summer after that,

as Snorri says: “In the spring following the expedition that has just been described,

King Harald raised another levy and went back to Denmark to plunder; and he kept

349
Ibid.
350
Magnusson and Palsson, 80.
 147

this up every summer.”351 The expedition of 1049, however, was significant in that it

the two kings almost had a direct confrontation, which presumably would have

decided things between them once and for all. We are told that “King Svein

challenged King Harald to meet him at the Gota River [which then formed the border

between Norway and Denmark]… and fight it out to a finish, or else make a treaty,”

but when Harald arrived, Svein was not there, instead “lying with his fleet in the

south, off Zeland,” waiting for Harald to leave Norway so he could swoop in and

conquer the vacated and defenseless country (or at least do some damage).352 Harald,

seeing the ploy, sent his levies back home, but took his most trusted soldiers south to

the important trading center of Hedeby (in modern province of Schleswig-Holstein,

Germany), which he utterly destroyed. Archaeological evidence confirms that the

town of Hedeby was sacked in 1049.353 On the way back from Hedeby, the

Norwegian ships, laden with heavy treasure, supposedly ambushed in the fog by the

Svein’s fleet and had to dump their cargo into the sea to lighten their ships for speed

and distract their pursuers. This seems like a tall-tale, and when we reflect that it is an

extrapolation on Snorri’s part from just one strophe by Thorleik the Handsome

(which beings with “I heard”),354 it seems even more like the kind of thing invented to

rationalize an unsuccessful raiding expedition.

Although Harald’s foreign affairs continued in this humdrum fashion for

many years, the domestic scene in Norway was much more eventful. To return to

351
Magnusson and Palsson, 81.
352
Magnusson and Palsson, 81-82.
353
Marsden, 164.
354
Magnusson and Palsson, 85. The poem is as follows: “I heard how Svein of Denmark
chased the Norwegian longships across the sea; but Harald escaped the Danish vengeance.
Harald’s hard-won plunder was tossed into the waters of the stormy Jutland sea; he also lost
some vessels.”
 148

Einar Paunch-Shaker, Snorri records that a criminal case was being heard before the

King at his residence in Trondheim, and Einar had an interest in letting the man off.

Rather than argue the case, though, Einar brought his armed retainers and took him

away by force, knowing that the Harald would never have done so at his mere

request. Harald was not pleased with this turn of events and decided to settle matters

with Einar once and for all. Therefore, at a peace meeting arranged by overly hopeful

friends, Einar was ambushed in a dark chamber by Harald’s men. Einar’s son Eindridi

then rushed in with the rest of his armed retainers, but he too was murdered.

Morkinskinna contains a slightly different rendering of the story, which reflects better

on Harald. It says that Einar killed a man at a feast of Harald’s and that the murder

was a just response to that crime,355 but Fagrskinna supports Snorri’s version.

Needless to say, there were political repercussions for such dishonorable conduct,

even if that kind of behavior was stock-in-trade for Harald (all his wealth and power

seems to have been built from it anyway). Snorri captures the souring mood of

Harald’s subjects, “After Einar’s death King Harald was so hated for this murder that

only the lack of a leader to raise the standard prevented the landed men and farmers

from doing battle with the king.”356

As if Harald’s duplicity knew no bounds, Snorri then goes on to relate another

episode, this time involving St. Olaf’s killer, Kalf Anarson. Kalf’s brother Finn

Arnarson had remained loyal to Olaf during Stiklestad and became close to Harald

when he took over. Harald asked him to go to the Trondelag and Uppland regions to

regain the support he had lost from the murder of Einar, but Finn said he would only

355
Andersson and Gade, 210.
356
Magnusson and Palsson, 93.
 149

undertake the mission if Harald allowed Finn’s brother Kalf, who had been in exile in

Orkney because Magnus had threatened his life for having killed Olaf, to return to

Norway with safe-conduct. Harald accepted, and Finn went north. Finn met with

Hakon Ivarsson, who stepped in to fill Einar’s place as local strongman number one

in the Trondelag, negotiated that Hakon would forget about Einar’s murder if he was

given Magnus’ daughter Ragnhild in marriage. The issue came when Ragnhild

refused the proposal after Finn, acting for Harald, had promised her to Hakon. Hakon

then brought the case to Harald, who was expected to rule in Hakon’s favor, as per

their agreement, but Harald did nothing of the sort. Infuriated by Harald’s dishonesty,

Hakon left for Denmark where he became a close counsel of King Svein.357 Hakon

ultimately did not last long at his new post, coming back to Norway out of necessity

after he decapitated Svein’s nephew Asmund, angering many of Svein’s kinsmen

(though it should be said that Svein himself ordered the hit because Asmund, “took to

killing [and] this displeased the king”358). Hakon was accepted back by Harald and

made Trondejarl when Jarl Orm died, at which point Ragnhild was amenable to the

marriage she had earlier shrugged off.359

Although Finn was not happy with the way things went, his brother Kalv was

indeed allowed to return and, “recover all the estates and revenues he had had under

King Magnus the Good.”360 He also committed himself, “to all the duties he had

previously owed to King Magnus, binding himself to perform all services which King

357
Magnusson and Palsson, 94-98.
358
Magnusson and Palsson, 98.
359
Magnusson and Palsson, 100.
360
Ibid.
 150

Harald required of him for the good of the kingdom,”361 and this small proviso would

be his undoing. The next summer, Snorri tells us that Harald put Kalv in charge of a

suicide commando that was ordered to fight against the Danes on the island of Fyn

with no reinforcements from Harald, and it was then that Kalv was killed.362 Given

Harald’s temperament and the fact that Kalv murdered Harald’s half-brother Olaf at

Stiklestad, it is only to be expected that Harald would go back on his word to finally

realize his revenge. At this point Kalv’s brother Finn had enough of Harald’s

treachery, feeling, “that the king himself had not only schemed Kalf’s death, but had

also deliberately deceived Finn into luring his brother Kalf back to Norway into the

king’s power and pledge.”363 Finn then left Norway for Denmark and entered King

Svein’s service as a liegeman. Harald on the other hand, reveled in his own cruelty,

composing this poem upon Finn’s departure:

Now I have caused the deaths

Of thirteen of my enemies;
I kill without compunction,
And remember all my killings.
Treason must be scotched
By fair means or foul
Before it overwhelms me;
Oak-trees grow from acorns.364

These last four lines even suggest a touch of paranoia driving his murderous hand (the

final metaphor in particular sounds like a mandate for preemptive killings), though

we can be sure that he was not crazy to think that there were powerful men who

would have loved to see him dead.

361
Ibid.
362
Magnusson and Palsson, 101-102. Harald was also noted for keeping back his own forces
during the Sicilian campaign in order to deliberately facilitate the defeat of his commander,
Georgios Maniakes.
363
Ibid.
364
Magnusson and Palsson, 102.
 151

All these episodes go a long way to confirming that Harald was a very

unscrupulous man, even by Viking standards, who could never be trusted to keep his

word. Although it may be somewhat euphemistic to call him a political opportunist,

there are certainly aspects of this deep-seated pathos that played a role in advancing

his career, as well. Knocking off the local opposition to his rule and had its benefits

for Norway, as well, which became more centralized and therefore stronger against

the perpetual threat of foreign invasion. Harald’s strong hand also helped keep the lid

on the internecine warfare, which had plagued Norway up until his kingship. Still we

should be hesitant to spin these characteristics in too positive a light, as there were

also other, more savory, paths to power at the time, and Magnus the Good is a good

example of a leader who did not have to be hated by his subjects to succeed.

While he may have employed despicable methods to attain his ends, Harald’s

kingship did make a great deal of progress towards Norwegian statehood (though it

would be a long time still until Norway was anything like a “nation”). In the

economic sphere, Harald played a role in ushering a new era of material wealth to

Norway. Based on archaeological evidence (mainly from buried coin hoards), Else

Roesdahl concludes that, “under Harald Hardradi (1047-1066) coins began to carry

the name of their mint and a viable coin economy came into being.”365 The treasure

Harald brought back from Byzantium included many coins that not only entered

circulation in their own right, but also were copied by Norwegian and Danish mints to

make their own coins. During this time towns flourished or were created, such as

Oslo (now Norway’s capital), which Snorri says Harald founded as, “a market town,”

where he “often resided, because provisions were easy to obtain there and it is an
365
Roesdahl, 114.
 152

important center. And the location was good also, both to protect the land against an

attack of the Danes and to make incursions in Denmark.”366

Furthermore, under his rule Norwegian trade expanded massively.

Kekaumenos’ statement that Harald, “did not grow proud because of the honors given

to him…but rather maintained his loyalty and love for the Romans [i.e. Byzantines]

while he ruled,”367 makes it clear that there was contact between Norway and

Constantinople at this time, and Norwegian merchants certainly would have taken

advantage of the connections Harald had made there and in Russia to turn a neat

profit. We also know that Harald encouraged trade with the Icelanders, as we know

from how he provided them with food aid and refuge during the famine that occurred

there in 1056.368 There is also a curious anecdote in Adam of Bremen’s Gesta

Danorum, which intimates Harald’s involvement with the islands of the North

Atlantic. Besides mentioning that Harald, “plundered all the coastlands of the

Slavs…subjected the Orkney Islands to his rule…[and] extended his blood-stained

sway as far as Iceland369,”370 Adam also reports in his Description of the Islands of

the North, that the, “well-informed prince of the Norwegians, Harold, lately

attempted this sea [beyond Greenland]. After he had explored the expanse of the

Northern Ocean in his ships, there lay before their eyes at length the darksome

bounds of a failing world, and by retracing his steps he barely escaped in safety the

366
Hollander, 621.
367
Kekaumenos, 7.
368
Marsden, 165.
369
There was nothing blood-stained about Harald’s relationship with Iceland; though perhaps
his “sway” was felt there, Iceland was fully independent of Norway at this time. Neither was
Orkney subjugated.
370
Adam of Bremen, 128.
 153

vast pit of the abyss.”371 Of course Harald did not in fact sail to the edge of the Edge

of the Earth (and the passage has eerie similarities to another in Vergil’s Aeneid)372,

but the idea that Harald was at least familiar with the North Atlantic does support the

contention that he had economic interests in the various islands, including those as far

away as Greenland and possibly even the new Vinland settlement.

Several other tales also testify to Harald’s North Atlantic connections, even

though the factual details they report are highly suspect. For instance, in The Saga of

Ref the Sly, a man named Gunnar from Greenland sends gifts to King Harald,

including, “a full-grown and very well-trained polar bear [!]… a board game

skillfully made of walrus ivory… [and] a walrus skull with all its teeth…engraved all

over and… extensively inlaid with gold.”373 In return Harald (who appears here as a

man of prophetic foresight) agreed to provide the Greenlander with outlandishly

specific advice about how to deal with a miscreant on the island named Ref the Sly

(“…go north in two ships, twelve in each… one crew should dig a ditch as long as it

the fortification is wide, north of it, and quite deep enough to reach up to a man’s

armpits, and then they will probably find the arrangement for the stream of

water…”374). The Tale of Audun from the West Fjords from Morkinskinna is yet more

evidence of contact with Greenland. It tells of an Icelandic man named Audun who

travelled to Greenland and, “bought a [live] bear there, a great treasure for which he

371
Adam of Bremen, 220.
372
Vergil, Aeneid VII. 245.
373
George Clark, trans., “The Saga of Ref the Sly” in The Sagas of the Icelanders: A
Selection, ed. Örnólfur Thorsson, (New York: Penguin, 2001), 612.
374
Clark, 613.
 154

traded everything he owned.”375 Audun intended to give the polar bear to King Svein

of Denmark but passed through Norway first, where King Harald heard of the animal

and wanted it for himself, but allowed Audun to pass in peace. Arriving in Denmark

without enough money to make it the Svein’s court (because he had used it all to

purchase the bear), he was forced to sell half of the bear to a man named Aki. Svein

gave Audun a ship and a valuable ring in return for the bear, but Audun wished to

return to Norway after he made a pilgrimage to Rome and stayed once more at

Harald’s court. Audun then thanked the Norwegian King for the safe-conduct and

warm hospitality he had received, despite not giving the bear to Harald, and gave him

the ring he had received from Svein as a gesture of good will.376 Although these

stories are extremely implausible for a number of reasons, not least of all the

logistical nightmare inherent in transporting a live polar bear across the stormy North

Atlantic in an open-cockpit Viking ship, they are still instructive in that they tell us

there was frequent trade and movement between Norway and the North Atlantic

islands in Harald’s time, even if the historical crossings and events have been so

distorted and emended by years of transmission as to appear completely fanciful.

Like his half-brother Olaf before him, Harald made gains in the

Christianization of Norway, albeit not necessarily in ways supported by the papacy.

Snorri tells us Harald was responsible for the completion or construction of St.

Mary’s Church in Nidaross (where he would be buried), the Church of St. Olaf in

Trondheim, and St. Gregory’s Church, which was part of his royal residence on the

375
Anthony Maxwell, trans., “The Tale of Audun from the West Fjords” in The Sagas of the
Icelanders: A Selection, ed. Örnólfur Thorsson, (New York: Penguin, 2001), 717.
376
Maxwell, 717-722.
 155

River Nid.377 There is definitely room to debate the authenticity of Harald’s zeal for

constructing churches and memorials to his sanctified brother, and John Marsden is

probably right to say, “it would be fully characteristic of Harald to have had a more

political motive when every opportunity of association with the saint would more

securely establish himself as a worthy successor in the kingship.”378 Harald also

seems to have called on clergymen from the “Slavonic Europe” to fill in some of his

newly created ecclesiastical posts in Norway, and even sent some along to Iceland.379

Harald adopted a practice from the Byzantine model whereby the king was endowed

with the right to appoint his own bishops, and soon roused the ire of the Western

Church’s regional leaders. This was before the great schism dividing the Orthodox

and Catholic churches, and so reflected one arena of the, “larger quarrel that was

taking place in the 1050s, between the highest authorities of the Western and Eastern

churches…”380 Adam of Bremen outlines the accusations leveled against Harald by

Adalbert, the Archbishop of Hamburg-Bremen at the time:

…the archbishop, inflamed with zeal for God, sent his legates to the king,
rebuking him by letter for his tyrannical presumption. In particular, however,
did the prelate reprimand him about the offerings [to St. Olaf], which it was
not lawful to appropriate to the use of laymen, and about the bishops whom he
had unlawfully consecrated in Gaul or in England, in contempt of the
archbishop himself, who by authority of the Apostolic See should rightly have
consecrated them.381

Whether or not Harald was using the offerings given at his brother’s shrine as

personal spending money is hard determine (though it would not be out of character),

but the second accusation about the improper consecration of bishops was most likely

377
Magnusson and Palsson, 88.
378
Marsden, 166.
379
Blöndal, 100-101.
380
Blöndal, 100.
381
Adam of Bremen, 128-129.
 156

justified. Harald was not pleased to see the legates and threw them out of his court

without further ado, “vociferating that he did not know of any archbishop or authority

in Norway save only Harold himself.” Because the church was not officially

separated then, he can at least be excused for following the Byzantine tradition of

appointment, which he knew best, even if it does seems like yet one more power grab

on his part. Still, Adalbert complained to the Pope when nothing was done to end the

practice, and Rome sent him a scathing letter dated to either 1061 or 1065 ordering

him to defer judgment to the regional archbishopric, as follows:

Because you are still immature in the faith and after a fashion halting in
respect of ecclesiastical discipline, it behooves us, to whom has been
committed the governance of the whole Church, to visit you more frequently
with admonitions of a divine nature. But as it is not at all possible for us to do
this because the way is long and difficult, know that we have immovably
entrusted all these matters to Adalbert, the archbishop of Hamburg, our
vicar.382

Despite such orders from the top, it does not seem that Harald ever changed his ways,

which of course is just in fitting with his stubborn and imperious personality.

By 1061 Harald seems to have been preparing for a more significant invasion

of Denmark, and we are told that over the winter he was in Trondheim building a war

ship that, “was much broader than normal warships; it was of the same size and

proportions as the Long Serpent383… its prow had a dragon’s head and the stern had a

dragon’s tail, and the bows were inlaid with gold. It had thirty-five pairs rowing

benches…”384 John Marsden claims such a ship would have been of the búz type,

382
Adam of Bremen, 129, note a.
383
King Olaf Tryggvason’s Long Serpent, when it was built, was, “the best ship in Norway,
and the most costly.” Hollander, 221.
384
Magnusson and Palsson, 108.
 157

modeled after a merchant ship but modified for combat.385 Following the construction

of his ostentatious vessel, Harald issued a challenge to King Svein for the coming

spring, requesting that they meet in battle at the Gota River, which then formed the

border between Norway and Denmark. When the time came, Harald raised “a full

levy throughout Norway” and sailed south from the River Nid towards the Gota

River.386 The number of poems attributed to Thjodolf that describe the journey and

the subsequent battle suggest that Harald took his favorite poet along with him in his

capital ship, and he provides an eyewitness account of the proceedings. However,

Svein refused to honor the challenge, so Harald sent half his levy home and began

raiding along the Danish coast at half strength. King Svein tracked Harald down,

however, and surprised him at Laholms Fjord with a fleet of “300 ships,” but Harald

roused his men to battle anyway despite his inferior numbers.387 As we are told by the

poet Stein Herdisarson, who one Marshall Ulf Ospaksson’s ship:

Fearlessly, King Harald

Faced his foes in battle;
With a hundred and fifty longships
He awaited the Danish onslaught
Now the king of Denmark
Eager to cross weapons,
Comes plunging over the ocean
With three hundred warships.388

We might hesitate to accept these numbers outright, because they seem too formulaic

(150 equals exactly half of 300), and three hundred probably just signifies something

closer to “a number that is too great to count.” To his credit, Harald was probably at

disadvantage, but perhaps not as great as reported in the sagas.

385
Marsden, 180.
386
Magnusson and Palsson, 108.
387
Magnusson and Palsson, 111.
388
Magnusson and Palsson, 112.
 158

The battle itself was fought on August 9, 1062 at the mouth of the Nissa

River389 in typical Viking style, with, “all the ships in the center of the battle-lines…

roped together,”390 with the combatants using the boats as floating platforms instead

of as implements of war in their own right.391 We learn from Stein Herdisarson that

Harald was in his ship at the back of the fray firing arrows from range for “hours on

end”:

Norway’s king was bending

His bow throughout that night,
Raining a shower of arrows
On the white shields of Denmark.
Bloody spear-points opened
Holes in iron armor
Shields were pierced by arrows
From Harald’s deadly dragon.392

In contrast, Earl Hakon Ivarsson exhibited far greater bravery by circling the main

flotilla in his ship and, “making sorties to wherever the need was greatest.”393 After

an entire day and night of constant fighting, King Harald himself boarded Svein’s

ship and most of the Danish crew jumped into the ocean, including the king. Svein

was able to escape by assuming a common soldier’s identity and tricking Hakon into

letting him go after he crawled aboard the Earl’s ship. All told, Thjodolf says that

Harald cleared seventy Danish ships and forced the Danes into retreat. Harald also

captured Finn Arnason, who was now a nearly blind old man (“warlike Earl Finn

389
The Nissa is located in what is now the province of Halland, Sweden, north of the Skåne
peninsula, and empties into the Kattegat bay. Snorri says, “From the death of King Magnus
[in 1047] until the Battle of the Nissa fifteen years had passed,” putting the battle in 1062.
390
Ibid.
391
Heath, 31.
392
Magnusson and Palsson, 113.
393
Magnusson and Palsson, 114.
 159

Arnason, too proud to flee the fighting, refused to try to escape, and at last was taken

captive,”), but set him ashore on account of his incessant surliness.394

Harald used the story of how Earl Hakon allowed Svein to live (which may

simply have been an invention of his) in order to justify ordering a hit on him,

although his real motivation was probably bitterness at Hakon’s popularity with the

Upplanders, which he saw as a threat to his rule. Hakon then found out his life was

endanger and fled to Sweden395 when Harald came north, but returned to collect taxes

from his subjects as soon as Harald went back south to Oslo. The Upplanders then

refused to pay taxes to King Harald.396 Tension was clearly building between Hakon

and Harald, and Harald was keen to crush this new regional opposition before it

became an even bigger problem. In the meantime, Harald saw fit to end hostilities

with Denmark, finally recognizing that, “the wasteful warfare which had drained the

resources of two nations for a decade and half [sic] had achieved nothing.”397 The

historian Kelly Devries offers another more personal explanation in Harald’s complex

of motivations: “Fatigue, especially in the wake of the non-decisive, extremely costly

battle of Niså, also certainly had set in, even for the seemingly indefatigably bellicose

Haraldr Har∂á∂i. After all, he was also nearing fifty years of age, and thirty-five of

those years had been devoted to warfare.”398 Snorri says that Svein and Harald met in

the spring “two years went by [after the Battle of the Nissa] before King Harald and

394
Magnusson and Palsson, 115.
395
Hakon was also given the lordship of Vermaland by the Swedish King Steinkel, who took
the throne 1056 after King Onund died.
396
Magnusson and Palsson, 122.
397
Marsden, 186.
398
Kelly Devries, The Norwegian Invasion of England in 1066 (Woodbridge: The Boydell
Press, 1999), 66.
 160

King Svein made their treaty,”399 meaning the negotiations must have taken place in

1064. Harald and Svein concluded a peace treaty that preserved the traditional

borders of Denmark and Norway and formalized the preexisting status quo, “for as

long as they both were kings.”400 The two kings then exchanged hostages to ensure

the conditions of the agreement would be kept.

The next “year and a half” was occupied by a dispute (and its aftermath)

between King Harald and the Upplanders, under the leadership of Earl Hakon

Ivarsson.401 Harald learned that Hakon was raising an army of Swedes to challenge

him and decided to take preemptive action, taking a large fleet of smaller, highly

mobile ships upriver to Lake Vanern in Sweden late in the frosty autumn of 1064.

The King’s forces formed up on a high ground and waited for Hakon’s forces to

march up to them. Thjodolf vividly describes the battle in one of his poems:

King Steinkel’s Swedish warriors

Were to help the brave Earl Hakon;
But mighty Harald’s warriors
Sent them straight to Hell.
Hakon fled in panic,
Forsaken by his allies;
Yet some men try to praise him
For running from the battle.402

With the opposition crushed, Harald was once again free to exercise power,

and immediately set to punishing all those that supported his enemies. Snorri records

his frighteningly brutal treatment of his own people that winter:

That winter King Harald went up to Romerike with a large army, and brought
charges against the farmers for withholding their dues and taxes, and
supporting his enemies in rebellion against him. So the king had the farmers

399
Magnusson and Palsson, 129.
400
Magnusson and Palsson, 124.
401
Magnusson and Palsson, 129.
402
Magnusson and Palsson, 127.
 161

seized; some of them he ordered to be maimed, others killed, and most of

them deprived of all their possessions. All those who could escape fled. He
had many districts burned and laid completely to waste… Then King Harald
went up to Heidmark and razed many districts there as well, causing no less
destruction than he had in Romerike. From there he went to Hadaland and out
to Ringerike [Harald’s father was a petty-king here, and this was also Harald’s
birth-place], which he also burned and ravaged. After this the farmers
submitted to the king completely.403

Even Thjodolf, Harald’s most loyal and eloquent poet, was utterly astounded by the

degree of the king’s brutality, saying that, “no poet can with justice describe the royal

vengeance that left the Uplands farmsteads derelict and empty. In eighteen months,

King Harald earned himself renown; his acts will be remembered until the end of

time.”404 Although John Marsden ventures that Harald may have learned such

techniques of tribute extraction from his time in Russia,405 missions of this kind under

Jaroslav would still not have been this bloody (their goal after all was to gather

money, not to totally destroy the productive capacities of the subject peoples). Even if

we were to base our judgment solely on this one extended rampage, we could

unequivocally confirm the appropriateness of his famous epithet, Har∂rá∂i, or “Hard-

Ruler.” We might imagine, too, that the rule of such a tyrant must have been doubly

harsh for the inhabitants of Norway coming on the heels of the relatively mild-

mannered Magnus the Good, whose more decentralized style of leadership was

something to which Norway was much better accustomed.

The widespread dissension among Harald’s own subjects, and particularly the

regional leaders of Norway, such as Earl Hakon, indicates better than anything that

King Harald really was presiding over an authoritarian regime that, in a country

403
Magnusson and Palsson, 128-129
404
Magnusson and Palsson, 129.
405
Marsden, 189.
 162

usually rife with factionalism, was certain to rock the boat. The many improvements

he made to Norway came at the cost of the up-until-then unfamiliar style of “hard-

rule” bent on consolidation of power under leader. Snorri gives us the distinct

impression that he became less and less tolerable as time went on, a feeling that the

saga stories would seem to substantiate. His vivid description speaks volumes about

the man’s character:

King Harald was a very autocratic ruler, and his imperiousness increased as
his position in Norway grew more secure. It came to the point that scarcely
anyone dared to argue with him, or to propose anything which was different
from what he himself wanted. In the words of the poet Thjodolf:

Subjects of King Harald

Must show their subjection
By standing up or sitting
Just as the king wishes
All the people humbly
Bow before this warrior;
The king demands obedience
To all his royal orders.406

At the time however, it was not always the case that “good person” and “good

king” went hand in hand, and what was good for the country in the long-run was not

always the same as what best for the individual subjects in the short-run. In the

insightful assessment of Kelly Devries, “by our modern standards Haraldr Har∂rá∂i

was certainly a despot, but by the standards of the Scandinavian lands of the eleventh

century he was a strong and perhaps even a good warrior-king.”407 So while Adam of

Bremen might have been correct about Harald’s irredeemably tyrannical nature, he

also benefitted his country in a more lasting way than Magnus the Good ever had.

Although both descriptions are correct in their way, in the final analysis we see that
406
Magnusson and Palsson, 91.
407
Devries, 67.
 163

Harald’s most significant contribution came not as the hated authoritarian but as a

progressive figure driving the transition in Norway from the age of chiefs and their

war-bands towards a new era of top-down continental European-style monarchy,

which would come to characterize Scandinavia as a whole more and more as the

medieval period wore on.

 164

XIII. 1066

On January 5, 1066, King Edward the Confessor of England of the House of

Wessex died of illness and was succeeded by Harold Godwinson, the news of which

piqued the interest of several far-flung claimants to the throne of England, with

consequences that would reverberate through history forever. Because Edward died

without sons, would-be conquerors were able to dust off their long neglected and

dubious connections to the English crown to justify a full-scale invasion. Along with

Duke William the Bastard of Normandy, King Harald Sigurdsson of Norway was one

of these pretenders, and it is in this capacity that he is perhaps best known to history.

Harold Godwinson was Edward’s brother-in-law and subregulus (sub-king) and had

been nominated by his predecessor to succeed him. The Witenagemot, or assembly, of

Anglo-Saxon England then formally elected him to the throne, meaning that, under

English law, Harold Godwinson was the rightful and only King of England, all other

claims being rendered moot by the assembly’s decision. However, this was not to

stop the ambitions of the foreign leaders, who were entirely prepared to use force in

the likely event that their legitimacy as contenders was questioned.

Henry of Huntingdon, writing the first edition of his Historia anglorum in

1129, offers a divinely inspired interpretation of the events of 1066: “In the year of

grace 1066, the Lord, the ruler, brought to fulfillment what He had long planned for

the English people: He delivered them up to be destroyed by the violent and cunning

Norman race.”408 In reality, the famous outcome of 1066 was far from predetermined,

and the huge number of contingencies involved in the success of the Norman

408
Henry of Huntingdon, The History of the English People: 1000-1154, trans. Diana
Greenway (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 24.
 165

conquest are made readily apparent by consideration of the much less talked about

Norwegian invasion that immediately preceded it. In fact, if it were not for Harald

Sigurdsson’s unwelcome intrusion on English soil, Harold Godwinson might well

have been able to fend off the Norman forces at Hastings just over three weeks later.

The contemporary historian David Howarth sums up the situation accurately as

essentially a case study in chaos theory:

Here were two rulers with their fleets and armies, William and Harald
Hardrada, each bent on the conquest of England, some three hundred miles
apart, acting quite independently, and neither, so far as anyone can tell,
suspecting for a moment that the other was there: and between them Harold
[Godwinson], who knew about William but did not know where he was, and
who only heard of Harald Hardrada’s menace when a week was already past.
Time and again in these thirty-two frantic days, one can see that if one event
had chanced to happen on day later or one day earlier than it did—if anyone
had hurried even more or paused a little longer—all the later events would
have happened differently, and nothing whatever in the history of England
since would have been the same.409

Harold Godwinson’s father, Godwin Wulfnothsson, had held the title of Earl

of Wessex until his death in 1053, when his son Harold succeeded to the earldom.

Godwin was married to Gyda, who was the Aunt of King Svein Ulfsson of Denmark,

meaning that the Godwinsons were all half Danish. Harold’s younger brother Tostig

took over the earldom of Northumbria after the death of its long-ruling Danish

overlord Siward in 1055. Tostig was not well liked by the Northumbrians, and his

heavy-handed rule was eventually thrown off in 1065 in a popular revolt that led to

his exile. Rather than crush the revolt, reinstall his brother, and risk civil war, Harold,

acting under the authority of King Edward the Confessor, agreed to the

Northumbrians’ proposal that Tostig be exiled to the court of Count Baldwin in

409
David Howarth, 1066: The Year of the Conquest (New York: Penguin, 1977), 130.
 166

Flanders.410 Tostig, naturally, was, “extremely displeased”411 by such mistreatment at

the hands of his very own brother, and probably began scheming to regain his former

glory as soon as he left for the Low Countries.412 Not long after that, Edward the

Confessor died and Tostig’s brother Harold became king of all England.

In the winter of 1065/1066, the sagas inform us that Tostig had begun

searching for allies to support him in a potential invasion of England. Agrip tells us

that Tostig’s motivation for the conquest came from a feeling of being slighted when

he was just as entitled to the kingship as his brother and that, “though his right of

birth was equal to Harold’s he was deprived of everything.”413 In fact, not only was

Tostig the younger the two, meaning his right of birth was not equal to Harold’s, but

the kingship of England was not a hereditary possession,414 but was decided upon by

the Witenagamot. Snorri makes a point of playing up Tostig’s significance, saying

that, “Earl Tostig had authority over all the other earls in England. His brother,

Harold, was always next in precedence to him at court…”415 but in fact there is

nothing in the English sources to support this, rather it was more likely that Harold,

being the older of the two and endowed with the powerful earldom of Wessex after

the death of Godwin, would have taken precedence. Snorri also makes it seem that
410
The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle entry for 1065 says that, “all [Tostig’s] earldom him
unamimously forsook and outlawed, and all who with him lawlessness upheld, because he
robbed God first, and all those bereaved over whom he had power of life and of land. And
then they took to themselves Morkar for earl; and Tosty went then over sea, and his wife with
him, to Baldwin’s land, and they took up their winter residence at St. Omer’s.”
411
Magnusson and Palsson, 134.
412
For a more detailed treatment of Godwin, Harold, and Tostig, prior to the events of 1066
see DeVries, The Norwegian Invasion of England in 1066, 69-192.
413
Driscoll, 57.
414
Harold after all would not have been chosen if that were the case, because the next in the
line of succession was the teenage Edgar, son of Edward Aetheling, son of King Edmund
Ironside (r. 1016), son of King King Ethelred the Unready (r. 978-1013 and 1014-1016).
Howarth, 29.
415
Magnusson and Palsson, 133-134.
 167

Tostig chose to leave England because he grew tired of being subservient to his

brother, when really, as the English sources confirm, he was kicked out by his own

subjects in Northumbria.416 Tostig’s feeling, “that he was no less entitled to the crown

[than his brother]”417 seems entirely misguided (or misreported by the sagas), and his

claim to the English throne essentially comes to nothing but a thinly veiled pretext for

taking power by force.

The Scandinavian sources all say that Tostig asked, “King Svein for his help

and support,” although the English ones are silent on the matter. This makes sense if

we consider that the English writers would have very little knowledge of what was

happening in the courts of Scandinavia at the time. We would almost expect Tostig to

go to King Svein’s court for this purpose given not only how easy a trip it would have

been from Flanders to Denmark, but also that Svein and Tostig were cousins and

Tostig could at least expect hospitality from his relative, if not a contractual

agreement to assist in the conquest of England. Indeed, Tostig found more than just

hospitality, and though Svein refused Tostig’s many entreaties that he follow in the

footsteps of his uncle Cnut, the king did offer him an earldom in Denmark, “which

would make him a chieftain of considerable standing.”418 Evidently this was not good

enough for Tostig, who was not willing to forfeit his designs on the throne of England

for rehabilitation as a nobleman. We might even imagine that Tostig’s plans had

taken on a deeply personal nature and that he became obsessed with his ambitions.

David Howarth even questions Tostig’s sanity,419 although there is no specific

416
Magnusson and Palsson, 135.
417
Magnusson and Palsson, 134.
418
Magnusson and Palsson, 135.
419
Howarth, 111.
 168

evidence to verify such an assertion. Leaving his fragile mental state aside for the

moment, it is clear that Tostig, having failed to win over King Svein as an ally, left on

a sour note, saying, “I shall have to look for friends in less likely quarters; but it may

well be that I shall find a chieftain who is less reluctant than you, sire, to undertake

great enterprises.”420 By this of course he meant Svein’s mortal enemy, King Harald

of Norway.

Tostig then journeyed to Harald’s winter residence in Oslo, hoping for a better

reception. The dialogue provided by Snorri is of course entirely invented, but in all

probability faithfully represented the tone and substance Tostig and Harald’s

discussion. Harald was skeptical at first, especially about the prospect of having

Norwegian troops serving under Tostig, as and English commander. Harald also

questioned Tostig’s reliability saying, “…the English are not entirely to be

trusted.”421 Tostig then brought up Harald’s distant claim to the English throne; a

claim that applied just as well to Svein. As per Magnus and Harthacnut’s agreement

that the one who survived the other should inherit the other’s kingdom(s), Harald’s

nephew Magnus technically inherited the English kingdom as well as the Danish

when Harthacnut died, although, with hands already full in his own territory, he did

nothing to assert this claim. However, when Magnus died, Harald as co-ruler

rightfully inherited the unexploited claim to England (Svein on the other hand could

argue that in bequeathing to him the Danish kingdom, which had been Harthacnut’s,

Magnus was in effect also bequeathing England). As the greedy Harald began to

consider these new revelations, Tostig laid it on even thicker, saying that the two of

420
Magnusson and Palsson, 136.
421
Magnusson and Palsson, 137.
 169

them would encounter widespread support in England, owing to Tostig’s immense

popularity in his home country (although we know the exact opposite was true).

These arguments slowly won over King Harald, who suddenly found in himself, “a

great desire to win this kingdom [of England],” and the two men finally decided, “to

invade England that summer.”422 Marsden contends, despite an absence of evidence,

that one major factor influencing Harald’s decision was the desire for revenge against

the long-dead Cnut, who he would be able to pay back for the travesty of Stiklestad in

some abstract way by conquering England. In fact, Harald probably did not have such

high-minded motives but rather simply caved to his own lust for power and wealth,

which may have been amplified by his lack of success in Denmark, as the sagas

insinuate. Ulf Ospaksson voiced his dissatisfaction with the plan, which in his

estimate downplayed the challenges that England presented in terms of a large

population and the effectiveness of the English king’s Housecarls, who he believed

were, “worth any two of the best men in King Harald’s army.”423 These protestations

were seemingly not enough to dissuade Harald, because he raised a half-levy across

Norway in preparation for the coming invasion, while Tostig went back to Flanders

where he assembled his own forces of Flemish and English sympathizers.

Although it is possible that the meetings with Tostig never occurred, and the

invasion of England was premeditated and primarily dreamt up by Harald himself,424

the weight of the evidence speaks to the contrary. Nearly identical accounts of the

meetings with Tostig can be found in all the Scandinavian sources, including

422
Magnusson and Palsson, 137-138.
423
Magnusson and Palsson, 138.
424
Devries lists a selection of scholars in this camp, including Edward A. Freeman, F.W.
Brooks, William E. Kapelle, and Ian Walker. Devries, 237.
 170

Heimskringla (which has so far been used most extensively), Fagrskinna,425

Morkinskinna,426 Agrip (as mentioned earlier), and Theodoric.427 The meetings are

also mentioned in the Historia Ecclesiastica, which was written by the Anglo-

Norman chronicler Orderic Vitalis in the first half the 12th century.428 While not

actually mentioning a meeting, the ‘C’ manuscript of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle does

suggest prior communication of some form between Harald and Tostig, when it

records that the they combined their forces near the River Tyne, “as they had

previously arranged.”429 Therefore, it seems the silence of the other sources is

probably rooted in ignorance of the proceedings, as they happened in Scandinavia,

and their taciturnity should not be taken as proof that such meetings never took place,

when the other disparate sources attest to them having occurred. The meetings must

have occurred in the four-month window between the death of Edward the Confessor

and when Tostig raided the Isle of Wight, as recorded in the Chronicle. This would

have given Tostig plenty of time to sail from Flanders to Denmark to Norway and

back again, with none of the aforementioned crossings being all that difficult or time-

consuming. Although Marsden believes that Snorri may have acquired detailed

information regarding Harald and Tostig’s meetings via, “his own privileged access

to Norwegian diplomatic circles when he was an honored guest at King Hakon

425
Finlay, 218-220.
426
Andersson and Gade, 261-267.
427
Theodoricus, 45. Theodoric has a much-summarized version of the story: “…he [Harald]
prepared an expedition against England, urged on by Tostig, the brother of King Harold of
England. Tostig promised Haraldr half the kingdom if he drove out his brother, for by
hereditary right Tostig was no less entitled to the throne.”
428
Marsden, 198.
429
Marsden, 199.
 171

Hakonsson’s court in 1218,”430 it seems more likely that the narrative of the meetings

is part of a much older tradition, because it shows up in almost exactly the same form

in the earlier Scandinavian histories (i.e. Agrip, Morkinskinna, and Fagrskinna).

An earlier exploit supposedly undertaken by Harald’s son Magnus has also

sometimes been seen as evidence that Harald had been planning the invasion of

England for some time before Tostig showed up at his court.431 This refers to a

Norwegian raid in the year 1058 that is recorded separately in the Anglo-Saxon

Chronicle, the Irish Annals of Tigernach, and the Annales Cambriae. The Chronicle’s

entry for 1058 is frustratingly laconic: “this year was Earl Elgar banished: but he soon

came in again by force, through Gruffyd’s assistance: and a naval armament came

from Norway. It is tedious to tell how it all fell out,”432 but the other sources do not

do much to unravel the mystery either. The Annales Cambriae have an entry for the

year 1055 that says, “Magnus filius Haraldi, vastavit regionem Anglorum, auxilante

Grifino rege Britonum. [trans: Magnus the son of Harald ravaged the kingdom of the

English as allies of Gruffydd ap Llywelyn, king of the Britons (i.e. Welsh; r. 1055-

1064)].”433 The Annals of Tigernach’s comparable entry for 1058 says only that, “a

fleet led by the son of the king of the Lochland [usually meaning Scandinavia], with

the foreigners of the Orkneys and the Hebrides and Dublin, to seize the kingdom of

England, but to this God did not allow.”434 The Annales Cambriae are the only source

430
Ibid.
431
Gwyn Jones, for instance, see the, “western expedition of 1058 conducted by [Harald’s]
son Magnus” as evidence that Harald was, “keeping his ambitions warm.” Jones, 410.
432
James Ingram, trans., The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (London: Everyman’s Library, 1823),
81.
433
Author’s translation.
434
Gearóid Mac Niocaill, trans., The Annals of Tigernach (Cork: CELT at the University
College Cork, 2010), 399.
 172

that mentions the leader of the Norwegians by name, and gave rise to a popular idea

that Harald’s son Magnus was in charge of a “Norwegian fleet at large in the Irish

Sea”435 that was recruited by the Welsh king Gruffydd ap Llywelyn436 to help in his

struggle against the English and that Magnus’ presence represented an early attempt

by Harald to feel out England’s military capabilities, thereby helping him plan for his

own assault. However, even if it were true that it was Magnus that led this raid, that is

not necessarily evidence that Harald had early ambitions towards England, especially

with the conquest of Denmark still eluding him. Furthermore, there are issues with

the text itself that cast doubt on its reliability. Firstly, the Annales Cambriae say that

the raid took place in 1055, not 1058 like the other two sources, which appear to be

more reliably informed about other incidents of the time in addition to having the

added weight of each other’s testimony. Besides this, Aelfgar, who was Gruffydd’s

ally in this raid according to the other two sources, only gained power as Earl of

Mercia in 1057, meaning he could not possibly have commissioned the Norwegians

in 1055. Secondly, Magnus could not have been born before Harald supposedly

wedded Thora in 1047, meaning in 1055 he would have only been 8 years old, and in

1058 only 11, which is by any standard far too young to command a Viking fleet into

battle. All this points to the entry in the Annales Cambriae being a later redaction

added by an ill-informed and inventive author, while the entries in the Chronicle and

the Annals of Tigernach were probably referring to another prominent Scandinavian

435
Marsden, 200.
436
Gruffydd ap Llywleyn was consistently problematic for the English and his raids were
finally put to an end in 1063 when Harold and Tostig Godwinson, “inflicted such widespread
devastation across Gruffydd’s kingdom of Gwynedd and such grievous suffering upon its
people that they rejected and put to death their own king when he attempted to return to his
ruined domain later the same year.” Marsden, 203.
 173

noblemen (given the ambiguity of the word Lochland, he could even have been from

Orkney or the Hebrides) leading an insignificant raid in 1058, which King Harald had

absolutely no involvement in or knowledge of. In the final analysis then it seems most

likely that Snorri’s account of Harald’s decision to invade England is accurate in its

essentials: Harald did meet Tostig over the winter of 1066 and was convinced by him

to undertake the expedition against England, which he had not given much thought to

before the arrival of the smooth-talking earl.

Tostig, for reasons the sources do not make clear, began a series of raids upon

England as a preface to the main invasion. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle says that soon

after “the long-hair’d star,” believed by modern historians to be Haley’s Comet, shot

across the sky in May 1066, “Earl Tosty from beyond the sea [came] into the Isle of

Wight, with as large a fleet as he could get; and he was there supplied with money

and provisions. Thence he proceeded, and committed outrages everywhere by the sea-

coast where he could land, until he came to Sandwich [in Kent].” The Chronicle goes

on to say that it was at this time that Harold Godwinson first heard news that the

Normans, under William the Bastard,437 were also planning an invasion. In response

to Tostig’s raiding in Sandwich and the news regarding the Normans, Harold

concentrated his forces along the Southern coast in preparation. As soon as Tostig

heard that Harold had mobilized his forces he left for the Humber, where he raided

briefly with as many as “sixty ships,” according to the Chronicle and Henry of

Hutingdon, before the Earls Edwin and Morkar (who had replaced Tostig as Earl of

437
William’s claim to the throne centered on a much-disputed oath, which he said the former
King Edward the Confessor made to him around 1051, that Edward was to hand over the
crown to William when the former died. William’s great-aunt Emma was also Edward’s
mother.
 174

Northumbria) drove him away in a poorly recorded battle that may have cost Tostig a

significant portion of his forces.438 Thereafter he went Scotland where he enjoyed the

hospitality of the Scottish King Malcolm Canmore at Dunfermline for the rest of the

summer. Although we are not told this explicitly, Tostig’s raiding seems too much

like a deliberate strategic maneuver designed to pull Harold away from the later

invasion’s planned landing site to be ignored, and it is likely this was the rationale for

this preemptive wave of attacks. In addition, the supplies and wealth gained from

looting would help to pay his soldiers and provide for his army, while at the same

time Tostig would obtain valuable intelligence as to the defensive capabilities of

Harold Godwinson.

Leading up to the invasion, Snorri records that there were many evil portents

in the form of a trio of ominous dreams involving ogresses and St. Olaf, all of which

predicted disaster. It would be easy to discount these episodes as examples of

dramatic foreshadowing, but it seems that Harald at least had a fair idea of the danger

and perhaps foolhardiness of the mission. As if already knowing how he was going to

his death, Harald, “had his son Magnus proclaimed king, and set him up as regent of

Norway during his absence.”439 He also deposited his lawful wife Elizabeth, his

daughters Maria and Igigered, on the island of Orkney,440 perhaps fearing that in his

absence his detractors in Norway might have targeted his families or wanting them

nearby if he were to take up residence in England. Also, by separating his two sons he

was ensuring that even if Magnus was overthrown in Norway after he himself was

killed in England, at least his other son, Olaf, who Harald brought with him, might

438
Henry of Huntingdon, 25.
439
Magnusson and Palsson, 141.
440
Palsson and Edwards, 77.
 175

still be alive and able to regain the kingdom later from his base in Orkney. These

curious preparations really do seem to point to Harald having made peace with the

low chance of survival that he saw in this endeavor, and yet he was not deterred, and

it is not difficult to imagine that somewhere deep inside the 51-year-old king was

looking forward to a glorious death in battle. The Viking ideal, after all, held renown

and honor in higher esteem than life itself, and it is hard to argue that Harald did not

achieve everlasting fame through his invasion of England in 1066.

Of course, that is not to say that Harald was resigning himself to defeat, only

that he recognized and understood the dangers inherent in such an adventure. Still, he

had every intention of coping with those hazards to the best of his ability and was

prepared to use any means necessary to accomplish the conquest of England—in

short, he would either be victorious or go down swinging. Orderic Vitalis says that

Harald took six months to plan the invasion and collect his army441 before setting off

for England.442 According to Snorri, Harald assembled a fleet of “two hundred ships

[read as 240], apart from supply-ships and smaller craft,”443 before he left Norway,

and gathered even more in Shetland and Orkney, “where his army grew

considerably,” according to Orkneyinga Saga,444 and Snorri tells us that even the two

Earls of Orkney, Pal and Erlend, joined the expedition.445 The Anglo-Saxon

Chronicle, Henry of Huntingdon, and William of Malmesbury, record a force of three

hundred ships, and this lines up fairly well with Snorri’s numbers if the smaller craft

441
Devries, 241.
442
This seems to put the meeting with Tostig around March 1066.
443
Magnusson and Palsson, 139.
444
Palsson and Edwards, 78.
445
Hollander, 647.
 176

were included in the calculation.446 Although Geoffrey Gaimar and John of Worcester

give numbers of over 470 and 500 respectively, these figures could not be right if

Harald was only mustering a half-levy, and are probably just embellishment.447 There

are several estimates as to troop strength, with Miles Campbell conservatively

estimating that with 250 ships of at most 48 soldiers each, Harald could have up to

12,000 troops, but it is quite possible this could have reached as high as 18,000

men.448 Gwyn Jones offers a lower estimate of 9,000 men, and it seems more likely

that, given that Harald was defeated, his troop strength was probably more towards

the lower end and therefore not very much larger than the force brought by

Godwinson to Stamford Bridge.449

Snorri provides the best account of the stops Harald made along the coast of

Britain before landing at the invasion site. His impetus for leaving Orkney would

have been a temporary change from the prevailing wind direction, which favored his

approach towards York and had to be taken advantage of while it lasted. The fluky

winds that autumn also kept, “William the Norman’s invasion fleet bottled up at the

mouth of the Somme,”450 a fact Harald would not have known but certainly

contributed in large part to the outcome of 1066. Harald’s forces first disembarked at

Cleveland where they, “went ashore at once and started plundering, and subjugated

the whole district; there was no resistance. King Harald then made for Scarborough

and fought with the townsmen.”451 These early raids might have been driven by the

446
Devries, 241, note 37.
447
Ibid.
448
Devries, 242.
449
Jones, 410.
450
Marsden, 212.
451
Magnusson and Palsson, 142.
 177

need for supplies or could have had strategic implications as a form of psychological

warfare with the English, but it is impossible to discern any motives from the sources,

which are silent on the subject. The yarn Snorri tells about Harald’s devastation of

Scarborough seems rather fantastic, but there is also no obvious reason to doubt its

authenticity. We are told that Harald, “went up on the cliff which is there and had a

great fire made. And when it blazed high they took long gaff-poles and hurled brands

[burning embers] upon the town. Then one house after the other began to blaze, and

the whole town went up in flames.”452 There are no other sources mentioning this, but

that does not necessarily preclude its possibility given that the majority of Harald’s

pre-York exploits go unrecorded anyway. Also, John Marsden, who hails from

Yorkshire himself, states that this episode survives to this day “as a horror story in

local tradition.”453 Harald seems to have met his first resistance in the form of a small

contingent of regular troops in the town Holderness,454 but he defeated them handily.

Departing from the saga narrative for a moment, which has Harald going

straight on to York, Simeon of Durham and John of Worcester both specifically say

that Harald made landfall at Riccall, “on the left bank of the Ouse, three miles below

the junction of the Ouse and the Wharfe, and ten miles south of York.”455 It was here

in a field along the river that we might suspect Harald unloaded his supplies and

readied his army for battle. The scene would have been startling to anyone in the area.

Howarth aptly reminds us that, “to take a large seagoing fleet so far inland, and in a

452
Hollander, 647.
453
Marsden, 213.
454
Marsden argues that these troops probably represented the personal forces of the local
hold, a kind of small-time lord whose title gave us the place-name Holderness.
455
Magnusson and Palsson, 142, note 1. Jones and Marsden believe that this spot was chosen
to trap a small English fleet that had fled upriver from there.
 178

hostile country, was something nobody but a Viking would have thought of.”456 The

fleet itself, consisting as it did of 300 or so dragon-prowed vessels parked along the

banks of the Ouse, would have stretched miles downriver.

York at that time had roughly fifteen thousand households surrounded by

fortifications, but Marsden is quick to remind us that it was, “still very much a trading

center of similar Scandinavian character to that of Dublin beyond the Irish Sea.”457

This was Tostig’s capital for the many years he was earl of Northumbria, and his

knowledge of the city and its surrounds would have been highly valuable to Harald.

The current Earl of Northumbria, Morcar, and his comrade-in-arms Edwin, Earl of

Mercia, were at the time inside York with their army, which they had assembled

earlier to repel Tostig. After the necessary preparations had been made, Harald began

the march with his army towards York, while the Earls were simultaneously marching

out of York to meet him. According to Simeon of Durham, the two armies finally met

at Fulford Gate on the left bank of the Ouse, two miles south of York, on Wednesday,

September 20, 1066.458

As the Battle of Fulford was about to begin, Snorri says that, “King Harald’s

standard was near the river, where his forces were thickest, but the thinnest and least

reliable part of the line was at the dike. The earls now advanced down the line of the

dike, and the Norwegian flank there gave way; the English went after them, thinking

that the Norwegians would flee.”459 The “dike” was apparently more of a ditch and,

456
Howarth, 132.
457
Marsden, 213.
458
Magnusson and Palsson, 144. The English sources all confirm this date, as well.
459
Magnusson and Palsson, 143. DeVries tells us that, “today Fulford Gate is a densely
inhabited suburb of York, and so it is difficult to see what the topography was on which the
two sides were fighting.” Devries, 255.
 179

“extended into a deep, wide swamp.”460 We are told that the earls charged first and

met with early success, but that Harald made a fierce counterattack that drove the

Anglo-Saxon army back into the swamp, “where the dead piled up so thickly that the

Norwegians could cross the swamp dry-shod.”461

Despite the sagas claims, we know from later evidence that the two earls

survived the battle and readily submitted to Harald along with all their subjects: “all

the townspeople gave their allegiance to King Harald, and gave him as hostages the

sons of all the leading men; Earl Tostig knew about everyone in the town.”462 The

Anglo-Saxon Chronicle says that Harald marched into York the very day of his

victory at Fulford and, “having procured hostages463 and provisions in the city, they

proceeded to their ships, and proclaimed full friendship, on condition that all would

go southward with them, and gain this land [i.e. all of England.]”464 Harald intended

to keep Northumbria as an ally in the larger invasion and so refrained from his

customary burning and pillaging in York, which he might even have considered

making his residence, at least temporarily. The negotiations must have concluded by

Sunday night, because by then Harald was back with his ships contemplating this

fortunate turn of events and planning his next move. The agreement was such that the

hostages would be exchanged at Stamford Bridge, seven miles east of York, the next

day.

460
Marsden, 215.
461
Magnusson and Palsson, 143.
462
Magnusson and Palsson, 145.
463
John of Worcester and Simeon of Durham say that the two sides both gave up 150
hostages, sweetening the deal further for the English.
464
Ingram, 84. Snorri and the English sources differ on matters of timing; Snorri says Harald
waited until Sunday to march into York (although why he would have done so is a mystery),
while the English sources agree that he arrived there on the same day as the battle.
 180

Unbeknownst to King Harald of Norway, King Harold of England had set off

immediately when he heard of the Norwegian landing, marching “by day and night”

with his housecarls and gathering levied troops in every shire he passed through,

according to the Chronicle, until he reached Tadcaster on the 24th, a distance of 200

miles in just over a week (entirely on foot no less).465 Godwinson could not have left

earlier than that, because he only would have been informed of Harald’s invasion

after September 15 or 16, which was, according to DeVries, “the earliest the

Norwegians could have landed at Ricall.”466 In the meantime, the Norwegian King

rather leisurely breakfasted on the morning of the 25th before leaving one third of his

army to guard the ships while the other two thirds followed him to Stamford Bridge

for the hostage exchange. The contingent selected to guard the ships included some of

Harald’s best and most trusted men, including his son Olaf, Marshal Eystein

Thorbegsson, or Orri, and the Earls of Orkney, which may have had implications for

the way the subsequent battle was to go.

Interestingly, it was a legacy of the Romans from a thousand years ago that

made possible Harold Godwinson’s surprising arrival on the 25th of September. As

Jonathan Clements explains, “legions such as XX Valeria Victrix and II Augusta had

kept their troops busy with immense public works,”467 whenever they had downtime

in Roman Britain. The result was an infrastructure of well-built roads running through

465
The Chronicle says regardin Godwinson’s journey: “In the midst of this came Harold,
king of the English, with all his army, on the Sunday, to Tadcaster; where he collected his
fleet. Thence he proceeded on Monday throughout York. But Harald, King of Norway, and
Earl Tosty, with their forces, were gone from their ships beyond York to Stamfordbridge; for
that it was given them to understand, that hostages would be brought to them there from all
the shire.”
466
Devries, 264.
467
Clements, 210.
 181

the major points of the Roman province of Brittania. Each road was, “wide enough to

permit 16 horsemen riding abreast,”468 and it was these very same roads, stretching

from Londinium to Eboracum (York), that Harold Godwinson used to move his army

200 miles in an otherwise unbelievable eight or nine days. Had these not been there or

fallen into disrepair, it would have impossible for him to cover such a distance in the

time available. Harald then, we are universally told, was caught entirely by surprise

when Harold Godwinson’s army appeared on the horizon at Stamford Bridge.

Snorri might be waxing poetic here, but there is no good reason not to take

him at his word, when he says that, on the morning of September 25, “the weather

was exceptionally fine, with warm sunshine; so the troops left their armor behind469

and went ashore with only their shields, helmets, and spears, and girt with swords. A

number of them also had bows and arrows. They were all feeling very carefree.”470

The two thirds of Harald’s army that he brought with him to Stamford Bridge were

clearly not prepared or expecting battle;471 and few would have believed it was even

possible that Harold Godwinson could have gotten up to York as fast as he did. So it

was that Harald at first asked Tostig if the approaching army were friends of his,

coming to pledge their allegiance, but, “the closer the army came, the greater it grew,

and their glittering weapons sparkled like a field of broken ice.”472

468
Ibid.
469
This part seems unlikely, but perhaps they took it off to carry it while they walked to
Stamford Bridge because of the heat of the day.
470
Magnusson and Palsson, 147.
471
The Chronicle says Harald was caught, “unawares,” as does Theodoric (although
Theodoric’s account is festooned with factual errors that makes his testimony highly suspect)
and Agrip says that the English, “came so unexpectedly upon them that most of their troops
were on board their ships, and those on land nearly unarmed but for striking weapons and
weapons of defense.” Driscoll, 57.
472
Ibid.
 182

The Norwegians had set up on the east bank of the River Derwent, while the

English approached from the West. Fatally, the Norwegians had neglected to post

guards on the bridge spanning the river (Stamford Bridge), and Gwyn Jones

reasonably surmises this may have been, “because of their leisurely overconfidence

and subsequent surprise.”473 The sagas, of course, have a very thorough account of

the Battle of Stamford Bridge, but Jones cautions us that although it is a, “magnificent

story, complete with omens, accidents, confrontations, gnomic rejoinders, berserk

fury, and the casting away of armor… story, alas, is all that it is.”474 That said, the

sagas still provide important factual details if we can tease them away from the

melodrama and absurd dialogue that insulate them. In contrast to the Scandinavian

sources, the English ones are relatively brief in their battle narratives, but they all

agree on the basics course of the battle.

After Harald realized that the approaching army was indeed hostile, he made a

fatal strategic error that seems to have cost him the battle. Instead of retreating to

meet the remainder of his forces stationed at Riccall with the ships, where he would

have had the support of many of his best troops and been in a highly defensible

position, he rallied his army, which was not only at two-thirds-strength but also

scattered in disarray on both sides of the river. The “C” version of the Anglo-Saxon

Chronicle, Henry of Huntingdon, and William of Malmesbury all include a striking

episode at the outset of battle, in which, “A single Norwegian, worthy of eternal

fame, resisted on the bridge [Stamford Bridge], and felling more than forty

Englishmen with his trusty axe, he alone held up the entire English army until three

473
Jones, 412.
474
Jones, 412.
 183

o’clock in the afternoon. At length someone came up in a boat and through the

openings of the bridge struck him in the private parts with a spear…”475 While the

oldest of these sources, the Chronicle, does not mention a particular number of men

killed,476 that it includes the story of this epic defense is good evidence that it actually

happened. Devries provides a probable explanation of why this anecdote, which

seems to fit the Scandinavian heroic ideal so well, is so strangely absent in the sagas.

He suggest that, in the scramble, the main body of the army would not have noticed

the stragglers on the bridge who were all slaughtered and therefore would have been

unable to bring back the tale, while the English forces, meeting such stiff resistance

from so few men at the bridge, would have been duly impressed and committed the

event to memory on the spot.477 This man’s efforts bought time for the rest of the

army to assemble in a defensive shield-wall formation and for Harald to send a fast

rider to Riccall to summon reinforcements.

Snorri says that as the commanders were riding around encouraging their

troops for the upcoming engagement, Harald fell off his black horse and took this to

be a portent of disaster. Next we are told that Harold Godwinson himself rode to the

front lines of the Norwegian army, asking for Tostig, who he offered peace and

reinstatement as Earl of Northumbria. Tostig is said to have refused out of loyalty to

King Harald Sigurdsson, to whom Godwinson was only willing to offer, “seven feet

of ground, or as much more as he is taller than other men.”478 Both of these stories

were likely fabricated by the saga-makers. The first sounds too much like a dramatic

475
Henry of Huntingdon, 25.
476
The Chronicle does however confirm that an Englishman came, “under the bridge” and
“pierced [the Norwegian] terribly inwards under the coat of mail.” Ingram, 84.
477
DeVries, 283.
478
Magnusson and Palsson, 150.
 184

device, and is not mentioned in the English sources, not to mention it is unlikely that

such an experienced warrior as Harald would so easily fall off his horse for no reason

at all. The second is even less likely, because King Harold Godwinson would never

have come so close to the army,479 where archers could have easily cut him down. As

to Harald not knowing that it was the King, Godwinson would have been in full royal

battle regalia and so easily identifiable (and an easy target). Furthermore, he

definitely would not have offered Tostig terms after seeing the disadvantage the

Norwegians were at because of their numbers and lack of preparedness, but even if he

did, it is highly uncharacteristic of Tostig, who had no special bond with the King of

Norway, to refuse exactly that post which he had come back to England to regain.

Although there is much debate on the subject of whether the Anglo-Saxon

forces attacked on horseback, as the sagas say, or on foot, it seems as though the

Scandinavian sources have just confused the way the English often arrived on

horseback but dismounted for actual combat with a full cavalry-based strategy.480

Still, it is not definitively clear whether the battle was fought in a novel way (from the

Scandinavian perspective) or in the traditional Viking hand-to-hand style, with

“swords and spears and battle-axes,” as Howarth suggests.481

The sagas give the best description of the Scandinavian formation, which is in

keeping with what we know of Viking Age military tactics. Heimskringla illustrates

for us how the Norwegian482 army was organized:

479
Harald says if he had known, “these men came so close to our lines that this Harold should
not have lived to tell of the deaths of our men.” Ibid.
480
Marsden, 224.
481
Howarth, 139.
482
In fairness, there were some Flemish and English soldiers under Tostig, as well, but this
would only have been a small fraction of the total force.
 185

[The] army formed a long and rather thin line; the wings were bent back until
they met, thus forming a wide circle of even depth all the way round, with
shields overlapping in front and above. The king himself was inside the circle
with his standard and his own retinue of hand-picked men. Earl Tostig was
also stationed inside the circle with his own company, and he had his own
banner. The king said that his own retinue and Earl Tostig’s company would
make sorties to wherever the need was greatest: “our archers are also to stay
here with us. Those in the front rank are to set their spear-shafts into the
ground and turn the points towards the riders’ breasts when they charge us;
and those immediately behind are to set their spears against the horses’
chests.”483

At first, the shield-wall held strong against the repeated assaults of the

English, whose superior numbers are indicated by the fact that the Scandinavians had

employed their trademark defensive maneuver instead of forming up as they did

earlier at Fulford. However, it wasn’t long before the Norwegians, perhaps provoked

to berserk fury by the harassments of the English, broke ranks and charged the

English army. Another explanation, the one given by Snorri, is that the English

pretended to be weaker than they really were in order to lure the Norwegians out from

behind their impenetrable, tortoise-shell-like formation. Finally, Henry of

Huntingdon’s hypothesis is that, “the English superiority in numbers forc[ed] the

Norwegians to give way but not to flee.”484 Still another rationale is offered by the

other versions of Harald’s Saga in Morkinskinna and Fagrskinna, which say that the

Norwegians broke ranks to mount a counter-attack after an especially hard charge

was successfully defended. Whatever it was that actually incited them to abandon the

protection of the shield-wall, they would have immediately realized the tremendous

mistake they had made when, “the English rode down on them from all sides,

483
Magnusson and Palsson, 148.
484
Henry of Huntingdon, 25.
 186

showering spears and arrows on them.”485 Then, whether driven berserk by bloodlust

or because he sensed the tide of battle had irreversibly shifted away from the

Norwegians, Harald Sigurdsson led a charge himself, “fighting two-handed,” so that,

“neither helmets nor coats of mail could withstand, and everyone in his path gave

way before him.”486 Despite Snorri saying that, “the English were on the point of

being routed,”487 it seems in reality the English never lost the advantage, even though

the fighting, which the English sources say lasted all day, was carried on severely

from start to finish.

At some point in the blood-fray after the shield-wall had broken, King Harald

was fatally wounded when an arrow struck his neck. So it was that the ferocious

Harald fell in the midst of glorious battle, surrounded by death and carnage, and we

might imagine that was exactly the way he would have wanted it. The poet Thjodolf,

who was to die by his lord’s side, seems to have composed his last poem after

watching Harald’s death:

Disaster has befallen us;

I say the army has been duped.
There was no cause for Harald
To bring his forces westward.
Mighty Harald is fallen
And we are all imperiled.
Norway’s renowned leader
Has lost his life in England.488

Although Thjodolf was justifiably bitter that he too was to meet his end on

that day in September, the battle itself lasted quite awhile after Harald died, and the

Norwegians heavy casualties testify to their courage even in the face of what they

485
Magnusson and Palsson,152.
486
Ibid.
487
Ibid.
488
Magnusson and Palsson, 152.
 187

knew to be insurmountable adversity. The remaining troops rallied around Tostig and

we are told that it was at this point Marshal Eystein Orri finally arrived with the

reinforcements from Riccall.489 Snorri says that these fresh Norwegians, “fell into

such a battle fury that they did not bother to protect themselves as long as they could

still stand on their feet,”490 even throwing off their armor in the heat of the moment.

Though their charge could well have been disorganized, it is extremely doubtful that

they ever deliberately discarded their armor, after all, even just the time required to

extricate oneself from a coat of mail seems to disallow such a tactically misguided

effort ever taking place. The result of the melee was a bloodbath, with heavy

casualties on both sides, but the Norwegians were utterly destroyed. Snorri tells us

that the very cream of Norwegian society was in that one battle annihilated: “nearly

all the leading Norwegians were killed there.”491 The Norwegians forces kept up the

fight without their leaders until the very bitter end however, and it was only after

Godwinson had, “laid low the whole Norwegian line, either with…arms or by

consuming with fire those they intercepted,”492 that they surrendered and were offered

quarter. The Chronicle makes the rout even more severe, implying that the English

continued their wanton slaughter even after their quarry fled, “until some came to

their ships, some were drowned, some burned to death, and thus variously destroyed;

so that there was little left.”493 Harald’s son Olaf and the earls of Orkney had

apparently stayed on with the ships, possibly because they knew they would never

have come back from Stamford Bridge and Olaf needed to stay alive to carry on the

489
Snorri says this phase of the battle was called, “Orri’s Battle.”
490
Magnusson and Palsson, 153.
491
Magnusson and Palsson, 153.
492
Henry of Huntingdon, 25.
493
Ingram, 84.
 188

royal line. The Chronicle says that Harold Godwinson, “gave quarter to Olave, the

Norwegian king’s son, and to their bishop, and to the earl of the Orkneys, and to all

those that were left in the ships; who then went up to our king [Harold], and took

oaths that they would ever maintain faith and friendship unto this land.”494

Harold Godwinson, as we all know, was not yet able to relax. Immediately

after destroying the Norwegian army and suffering huge casualties of his own, he

received word that the Normans under William the Bastard were invading. The wind

that had brought Harald south from Orkney had switched to a Northerly direction and

William was finally able to sail across the channel with his fleet. Besides the terrible

timing (from Harold’s perspective) of the two nearly simultaneous invasion, the

weather too, “had been an astonishing piece of luck,”495 that ultimately doomed the

English. So Harold Godwinson was compelled to force-march his hurting and

exhausted army over 200 miles (again) to reach Sussex in time to defend England

from another invasion. Given these disadvantageous circumstances, it is not

surprising that the English army went on to lose the famous Battle of Hastings and the

Normans conquered England.

Harald’s attack on Stamford Bridge profoundly affected the ability of

Godwinson’s army to successfully defend against the Normans on October 14 less

than three weeks later. The Norwegian army’s obstinacy in fighting almost to the last

man would have inflicted heavy losses on Godwinson’s elite housecarls and regular

levied troops. The long, exhausting march to London and then on to Hastings, which

came right on the heels of the previous march North and a full day of intense fighting,

494
Ibid.
495
Howarth, 150.
 189

would have further hurt his chances to effectively resist William’s onslaught, which

was undertaken by fresh and comparatively well-rested infantry and cavalry.

We can also see fairly easily, without indulging too much in counterfactuals,

that had certain minute details been just slightly altered, the entire course of that year

would have been radically different. For instance, had Harold Godwinson arrived in

Yorkshire just one day later (or earlier) he would have faced a fully equipped and

much more formidable Norwegian opposition than he in fact did, and it is entirely

within the realm of possibility that Harald would have won that battle. Then of course

he would have had to deal with the Normans in some sense, whether diplomatic or

militarily and the outcome of that confrontation would have been just as impossible to

predict. The scenario would also have been quite different if the wind had at first

favored the Normans and brought the Norwegians to England after Godwinson had

already either fended off or been bowled over by the Normans (or if the two invading

fleets had chosen different times to set sail than they did). In that case Harald would

then have had to fight a worn-out force of either Englishmen or Normans (depending

on the outcome of the first battle) and would have been even more likely to succeed

in his conquest. We might imagine that, had things turned out in such a way, much of

the Western world would be speaking some variation of Norwegian today instead of

English.

Harald’s son Olaf would go on to take the joint throne of Norway along with

his short-lived brother Magnus until 1069, when Magnus died and Olaf became the

sole King. Agrip tells us that, “during no king’s lifetime since Haraldr hárfagri had
 190

Norway seen such prosperity as in [Olaf’s] day.”496 Olaf was remembered, in contrast

to his father, as Olaf Kyrre, “the Peaceful,” and ruled more or less justly during his

long reign, smoothing out the many conflicts that his father had caused with the

church and his own people, until he finally died in 1093. His own son Magnus “Bare-

legs” then took the throne and the dynasty of Harald Sigurdsson was off and running.

But the people had still not forgotten Harald Hardrada, whose body was interned in

the Church of St. Mary in Trondheim, which the king himself had built and it was

their memories that would eventually produce the sagas, which have become such an

important part, not only of Scandinavian history, but also of Scandinavian cultural

identity. His legend of course grew taller over time, but in the main, those who

outlived Harald did a remarkable job preserving the historical character of this

dynamic figure, who so well embodied everything that the Vikings stood for.

496
Driscoll, 59.
 191

Chapter 5: Conclusion

Harald Sigurdsson’s death on the battlefield at Stamford Bridge did not mean

the Viking Age was over. Life in Scandinavia and the Viking colonies abroad

continued just as it always had, more or less unaffected by the events in England.497

Vikings continued to raid and pillage just as their forefathers had for many years

afterwards. So why is it that the historiography unanimously proclaims that Harald

Sigurdsson’s death signaled the end of the Viking Age? The eminent scholar Turville-

Petre, for instance, believes that, “when Haraldr died at Stamford Bridge, the Viking

Age was ended.”498 Similarly, we can find in the Penguin Historical Atlas of the

Vikings by John Haywood, the same unjustified claim: “The death of Harald

Hardrada at Stamford Bridge and the dismal failure of the Danish expeditions to post-

Conquest England effectively mark the end of the Viking Age,”499 or again in Else

Roesdahl’s The Vikings, “If one date has to be chosen to mark the end of the Viking

Age it has to be 1066.”500 The same vague feeling that something important occurred

that ended the Vikings in 1066 seems to have filtered down to the general public and

non-specialists. One introductory Oceanography textbook quite matter-of-factly states

that, “the Vikings (Norse for piracy)501 were highly accomplished seamen who

497
Gwyn Jones says on this point, regarding everyday life on farms and in villages, “Between
750 and 1100 life on the land changed comparatively little… Great lords came and went;
some were good, others were bad; you took up arms for or against them only if you had to.”
Jones, 389.
498
Turville-Petre, 20.
499
John Haywood, The Penguin Historical Atlas of the Vikings (London: Penguin, 1995),
134.
500
Roesdahl, 296.
501
The etymology of the word Viking is in fact still disputed, and might well have derived
instead from the Old Norse word vik meaning bay and in the early verb form might originally
have indicated the undertaking of any expedition overseas, whether for military, economic, or
other reasons.
 192

engaged in extensive exploration, trade, and colonization for nearly three centuries

from about 793 to 1066.”502 There are even popular fiction novels with titles like

Harald Hardrada: the Last Viking by Michael Burr or Harald the Ruthless: The Saga

of the Last Viking Warrior, a children’s book by Andrea Hopkins.

Which brings us to the question that any talk of ‘the end of the Vikings’ must

necessarily answer: What does being a Viking mean? Without a doubt, Vikings were

not just brutal pagan raiders from abroad that looted and burned indiscriminately and

spontaneously, for if this were the case, the “Viking Age” would have ended long

before, perhaps when the first Christian kings took power in Scandinavia or when

continental Europe’s defenses strengthened to the point where river raids were no

longer viable. “Vikingness,” however, is a much richer and more complex concept

than a word like “pirate” suggests. The Vikings were not just raiders; they were also

traders, explorers, settlers, storytellers, ship-builders, farmers, kings, poets, and

occasionally, conquerors. They expanded to colonies in the North Atlantic like the

Faroes, Iceland, Greenland, and even North America; they expanded eastward into

Russia from Sweden; and they expanded into Europe, settling areas of England (the

Danelaw) and Ireland (Dublin), as well as Normandy. In fact, by 1066 all three

claimants to the English throne had some measure of Scandinavian blood. But the

Viking expansion had ceased decades before Harald Sigurdsson’s time; their last

effort at colonization was spent with the ill-fated Vinland settlement, thought to have

been founded around 1000 AD.

502
Keith A. Sverdrup and E. Virginia Armbrust, An Introduction the World’s Oceans, tenth
ed. (New York: McGraw Hill, 2009), 5.
 193

However, though the expansion had stalled, the Vikings continued in these

places, and even continued in their attempts to expand, though they met with failure.

There were several reasons for their lack of success, but most of all, while the

Vikings were preoccupied with stealing people’s money, the rest of the world was

advancing and adapting to the threat posed by the Scandinavians. The territories that

had been such easy targets, like France and Britain, were now adept at repelling raids

quickly as cavalry came into vogue and coastal fortifications were built up. In typical

Viking style, however, the undaunted Scandinavians were not about to quit their ways

in the face of the adversity that had become more and more apparent since the early

tenth century.

There were other large-scale invasions of England both before and after 1066

of equal or greater significance for Scandinavians, who remained for all practical

purposes essentially unaffected by Harald’s defeat. These included the invasion of

Cnut the Great in 1016, which made England into a Viking kingdom, and several

subsequent Danish invasions that occurred in 1069 (when the English had to contend

with a fleet of 240 ships),503 1070, and an aborted one in 1085. All of these incidents

testify to the fact that little changed in the attitudes of the Vikings towards England

and other foreign lands after Stamford Bridge.504 The Vikings had also not let up

raiding by 1066, continuing to pillage and plunder in places like Ireland,505 Scotland,

and even England (in 1075).506 As time went on, Vikings were raiding mostly within

503
Niels Lund, “The Danish Empire and the End of the Viking Age” in The Oxford
Illustrated History of the Vikings, ed. Peter Sawyer (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997),
177.
504
James Graham-Campbell, The Viking World (London: Frances Lincoln, 2001), 35.
505
Gwyn Jones notes that there were still Viking kings in Ireland until the 1170s. Jones, 397.
506
Lund, 178.
 194

Scandinavia itself, as they found it harder and harder to deal with the improved

coastal defenses and central military organizations of medieval Europe, which was

now better equipped to react quickly and effectively to their onslaught. Still, the

attempts at conquest were never successful again after Cnut the Great507 and it does

seem that, at least militarily, the Vikings were going through a period of decline in

the eleventh century, even if the spirit and the drive was still strong.

Harald’s life can be seen as a summation of the Viking ethos, or as Jonathan

Clements says, “Harald’s story… unites many of the separate strands of the Viking

experience.” He interacted with and took part in all that we have just laid out as being

fundamentally Viking: He raided, he looted, he composed poetry, and he traded all

over the Viking world, from Norway to Russia to the Byzantine Empire to England.

Furthermore he acted the part, demonstrating cruelty, ambition, opportunism,

bloodlust, trickery, and obstinacy, as well as courage, wit, and level-headedness when

necessary—in short all the qualities of a legendary Viking hero.

Harald Sigurdsson’s lasting significance to history was felt in a number of

ways. He was the founder of a new dynasty, one that would rule Norway until the

death of Sigurd the Crusader in 1130.508 As king, he unified Norway and suppressed

the regional opposition, stabilizing the country. He also solidified Norway as an

independent, autonomous country, no longer beholden to Denmark. He advanced the

Christianization of Norway, despite formal objections from the Church, and stamped

out paganism in places like Trondheim, which hastened the advent of literacy and

507
This is unless you count the Scandinavian-blooded but French-speaking Normans’
successes in Sicily and Southern Italy.
508
T. K. Derry, A History of Scandinavia: Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Iceland
(Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, 1979), 37.
 195

education. Christianization also furthered the cause of unification through the

institution of a national religion with a preexisting administrative and organizational

structure that would later be used by monarchs for their own ends. Under Harald’s

reign trade blossomed, towns grew or were built, most notably Oslo, which is now

Norway’s capital. Owing to Harald’s experiences abroad and the connections he

maintained there, Norway took on a more international character, with trade links to

faraway lands like the Byzantine Empire, Iceland, Russia, and perhaps even North

America. His greatest contribution to the course of human history, though, was

almost certainly his involvement in the Norwegian invasion of England in 1066. Due

to coincidental timing and fluky winds, Harald Sigurdsson fought the English king at

the Battle of Stamford Bridge on September 25, virtually ensuring the subsequent

defeat of Harold Godwinson’s tired and injured army at the Battle of Hastings just a

few weeks later. And, as any English school child knows, the Battle of Hastings

changed the course of British and world history in dramatic ways, one of which being

that we now speak a Norman-influenced English instead of Norwegian or the more

Germanic tongue of the Anglo-Saxons.

Because he so captures the diversity of what it means to be a Viking at a

moment when Vikings were most widespread and influential, Harald’s career can be

considered representative of the apogee of the Viking Age. However, the decline of

the Vikings, like the decline of Rome, is still very much an essential part of that

period. Viking culture, dispositions, and practices did not just go away when Harald

died. In Sweden, change was happening at an even slower pace and the old pagan

religion had still not yet been eradicated by 1066. John Haywood tells us that
 196

“paganism remained strong; a major cult center continued to flourish at Uppsala, and

it would be another century before the country was thoroughly Christian.”509

Although Denmark had become a unified kingdom somewhat earlier, Sweden was

still separated into the Svear and Götar until around 1172,510 and though Norway was

unified briefly under Harald’s progeny, it would again erupt into civil war when that

line was extinguished.511As Gwyn Jones eloquently puts it, “old habits die hard, the

Danes briefly and the Norwegians till the skirmish at Largs in 1263, would again lead

their lank steeds of [the] ocean into western waters, [and] display the dragon-

head…”512 even if the most inspiring and dynamic figures had already gone.

Thus it is perhaps better to see the eleventh century as a transitional period

and the date of 1066 arbitrary. 1066 may have been a highly significant year in

English history, but had no real lasting impact on Scandinavia, and this is confirmed

by how the Scandinavian sources for the period do not conclude with the eleventh

century but rather portray the Viking Age as a continuum stretching up until the time

of their writing, sometimes as late as the mid 13th century. Especially in places like

Iceland, Orkney, and the Faroes, Viking culture thrived until an even later date, and it

is in these more isolated communities that the spoken language of the Vikings has

survived with minimal changes to this day. Still, a transformation really was

occurring. Christianity was slowly destroying the old beliefs, changes in Europe made

raiding less of an option, settlers in Russia, Normandy, and France were being

absorbed into the local populations, and chiefdoms in Scandinavia were slowly

509
Haywood, 134.
510
Ibid.
511
Derry, 37.
512
Jones, 414.
 197

consolidating into centralized medieval kingdoms ruled by strong kings (like Harald

Sigurdsson) responsible for national military endeavors. However, such changes take

time and it would be a mistake to think that 1066 marks the date when all this was

complete. Unfortunately, even those who realize that the Viking Age is not so cut and

dry as Oceanography 101 might claim still seem to fall into the convenient structure

of 793-1066. For example, although Gwyn Jones is adamant that, “the Viking Age

did not end suddenly, and it may appear an arbitrary fall of the axe which terminates

its story in 1066-1070”513 he still ends his book there. We should instead paint the

Vikings with a broader brush that speaks to the full range of Viking activity,

including that which occurred after the zenith of the Age had passed and its heroes,

like Harald Sigurdsson, had died, and not break off our story at its very climax.

513
Jones, 387.
 198

Bibliography

Adam of Bremen. History of the Archbishops of Hamburg-Bremen. Translated by

Francis J. Tschan. Columbia: Columbia University Press, 2002.

Andersson, Theodore M., and Kari Ellen Gade, translators. Morkinskinna: the
Earliest Icelandic Chronicle of the Norwegian Kings (1030-1157). Ithaca:
Cornell University Press, 2000.

Behringer, Wolfgang. Cultural History of Climate. University Park, PA: Polity Press,
2009.

Blöndal, Sigfús. The Varangians of Byzantium. Translated by Benedikt S. Benedikz.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Byock, Jesse L.. Viking Age Iceland. Boston: Penguin, 2001.

Byock, Jesse L.. Medieval Iceland. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990.

Campbell, James, editor. The Anglo-Saxons. London: Penguin, 1991.

Clark, George, translator. “The Saga of Ref the Sly” in The Sagas of Icelanders. 2nd
ed.
Edited by Örnólfur Thorsson, 595-626. Boston: Penguin Classics, 2001.

Clark, George, translator. “The Tale of Sarcastic Halli” in The Sagas of Icelanders.
2nd ed. Edited by Örnólfur Thorsson, 694-713. Boston: Penguin Classics,
2001.

Clements, Jonathan. A Brief History of the Vikings. New York City: Carroll & Graf,
2005.

D’Amato, Raffaelle. The Varangian Guard. Oxford: Osprey Publishing, 2010.

Derry, T.K.. A History of Scandinavia: Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, and

Iceland. Minneapolis: Univ Of Minnesota Press, 2000.

Devries, Kelly. The Norwegian Invasion of England in 1066. Woodbridge: Boydell &
Brewer, 2003.

Driscoll, M. J., editor and translator. Ágrip Af Nóregskonungasogum. London: Viking

Society for Northern Research, 2008.

Edwards, Paul, and Hermann Palsson, translators. The Book of Settlements:

Landnamabok. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press, 2007.
 199

Finlay, Alison, translator. Fagrskinna: A Catalogue of the Kings Of Norway. Leiden:

Brill, 2004.

Graham-Campbell, James. The Viking World. 3rd ed. London: Frances Lincoln, 2001.

Gunnel, Terry, translator. “The Tale of Halldor Snorrason II” in The Sagas of
Icelanders. 2nd ed. Edited by Örnólfur Thorsson, 685-694. Boston: Penguin
Classics, 2001.

Haywood, John. The Penguin Historical Atlas of the Vikings. Boston: Penguin, 1995.

Heath, Ian. The Vikings. Oxford: Osprey Publishing, 1985.

Heath, Ian. Byzantine Armies 886-1118. Oxford: Osprey Publishing, 1979.

Henry of Huntingdon. . The History of the English People: 1000-1154. Translated by

Diana Greenway. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.

Hollander, Lee (trans). Snorri Sturluson. Heimskringla: History of the Kings of

Norway. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1991.

Howarth, David. 1066: The Year of the Conquest. Boston: Penguin, 1981.

Ingram, James, translator. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. London: Everyman’s Library,

1823.

Jones, Gwyn. A History of the Vikings. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1984.

Jotischky, Andrew, and Caroline Hull. The Penguin Historical Atlas of the Medieval
World. London: Penguin, 2005.

Kekaumenos, N. “Kekaumenos: Logos Nouthetikos, or Oration of Admonition to an

Emperor §§77-88 of the Strategikon,” from Strategikon, translated by W.
North in Sovety i rasskazy Kekavmena. Edited by G.G. Litavrin. 274-298.
Moscow, 1972.

Kunz, Keneva, translator. The Vinland Sagas. London: Penguin, 2008.

Larrington, Carolyne, translator. The Poetic Edda. London: Oxford University Press,
2008.

Magnusson, Magnus, and Hermann Palsson, translators. Snorri Sturluson. King

Harald’s Saga: Harald Hardradi of Norway. London: Penguin, 2005.
 200

Marcus, G. J.. The Conquest of the North Atlantic. Rochester, NY: Boydell Press,
2007.

Marsden, John. Harald Hardrada: the Warriors Way. Gloucestershire: Sutton

Publishing, 2007.

Maxwell Anthony, translator. “The Tale of Audun from the West Fjords” in The
Sagas of Icelanders. 2nd ed. Edited by Örnólfur Thorsson, 717-723. Boston:
Penguin Classics, 2001.

Mac Niocaill, Gearóid, translator. The Annals of Tigernach. Cork: CELT at the
University College Cork, 2010.

Norwich, John Julius. A Short History of Byzantium. New York: Vintage, 1998.

O’Brien, Máire, and Conor Cruise O’Brien. Ireland: A Concise History. London:
Thames and Hudson, 1999.

Örnólfur Thorsson, ed. The Sagas of Icelanders: A Selection. 2nd ed. Boston: Penguin
Classics, 2001.

Page, R.I.. Chronicles of the Vikings: Records, Memorials, and Myths. Toronto:
University of Toronto Press, 1995.

Palsson, Hermann and Paul Edwards, translators. Orkneyinga Saga: The History of
the Earls of Orkney. London: Penguin Classics, 1981.

Psellus, Michael. Fourteen Byzantine Rulers: The Chronographia of Michael Psellus.

Translated by E. R. A. Sewter. London: Penguin, 1996.

Roesdahl, Else. The Vikings. Revised ed. Boston: Penguin , 1999.

Sawyer, Peter. The Oxford Illustrated History of the Vikings. 3rd ed. New York:
Oxford University Press, 2001.

Sawyer, Birgit, and Peter Sawyer. Medieval Scandinavia: From Conversion to

Reformation circa 800-1500. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press,
1993.

Saxo Grammaticus. Saxo Grammaticus: The History of the Danes, Books I-IX: I..
New York: D.S.Brewer, 2008.

Sturluson, Snorri. Edda. Translated by Anthony Faulkes. London: J. M. Dent, 1995.

Seaver, Kirsten A.. The Frozen Echo: Greenland and the Exploration of North
America ca AD 1000-1500. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1996.
 201

Sverdrup, Keith A. and E. Virginia Armbrust. An Introduction to the World’s Oceans.

New York: McGraw Hill, 2008.

Swanton, Michael J., translator. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. New York: Routledge,
1998.

Theodoricus Monachus. An Account of the Ancient History of the Norwegian Kings,

Translated by David and Ian McDougall. London: Viking Society for
Northern Research, 1998.

Turville-Petre, Gabriel. “Haraldr the Hard-Ruler and his Poets,” Lecture. The
Dorothea Coke Memorial Lecture in Northern Studies from University
College London, London. December 1, 1966.

William of Malmesbury. William of Malmesbury’s Chronicle of the Kings of

England: From the Earliest Period to the Reign of King Stephen. Translated
by J. A. Giles. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2004.

Wilson, D.M., editor. The Northern World. London: Thames and Hudson, 1980.

Zenkovksy, Serge A. (ed.). Medieval Russia's Epics, Chronicles, and Tales. New
York: Plume, 1974.