In 994 Olaf invaded England with Sweyn, king of Denmark, and while there he became Christian. He promised Ethelred "that he would never more come to England with war," and he kept his promise.
The year after this visit to England he suddenly appeared in Norway, and was received as king with acclamation. Like Hakon he determined to make his people Christian. With those immediately about him he was successful. "Then fared the king into the north parts, and bade all men take christianizing, but those who gainsaid him he mishandled sorely. Some he slew, some he maimed, some he drave away from the land."
So through all his kingdom Olaf passed, and by persuasion, threats, or at the point of the sword, he forced the whole people to accept the baptism of Christ. And when the haughty Queen Sigrid, whom he wooed as his wife, refused to become a Christian, he struck her in the face with his glove and left her straightway.
"This may well be the bane of thee," she cried, and thereafter Sigrid the Haughty was King Olaf's greatest foe. She married King Sweyn of Denmark and induced him to join with Olaf of Sweden in a war against Norway to avenge her wrongs.
The ships of the allies far outnumbered those of Olaf, but he disdained to flee, and after a desperate struggle off Stralsund the Norwegians were overcome. But rather than fall into the hands of the enemy Olaf leaped into the sea and was drowned. His people, however, could not believe that he was dead. So the legend grew up that he would return again, just as the legend of Arthur grew, and later that of Barbarossa.
Olaf Haroldson or St. Olaf
In 1015 Olaf Haroldson made himself king of Norway by force of the sword; but many of the people received him gladly, for it seemed to them that Olaf Tryggvason had come again, and in popular story many of the exploits of Olaf Tryggvason are ascribed to Olaf Haroldson. Among these is the Christianizing of Norway, and after his death Olaf Haroldson was named St. Olaf, and became the patron saint of Norway. In life, however, he was a vigorous statesman and warrior.
"It was proof of his stern rule that the wardens of the land had the heads of many pirates cut short with keen weapons. . . . They that made armed trespass ofttimes offered gold to the stern king for ransom; but he refused it and commanded their heads to be chopped off with the sword. The blessed king maimed the race of robbers and reivers, thus he cut short theft, he made every chief lose hands and feet, so he bettered the peace of the land. Nor did treason thrive towards the king." (Olaf's dirge).
Knut the Great
For ten years Olaf reigned undisturbed. Then in 1025, when Knut the Great had firmly established his rule over England, he sent messengers to Olaf demanding that he should do homage to him as overlord.
"Then answered King Olaf: 'I have heard it told in ancient tales that Gorm the Dane king was deemed to be a mighty enough king of the people, and he ruled over Denmark alone; but this the Dane kings that have been since deem not enough. And now it has come to this, that Knut rules over Denmark and over England, and, moreover, has broken a mickle deal of Scotland under his sway, yet now he layeth claim to my lawful heritage at my hands. He should wot how to have measure in his grasping in the end; or is he minded alone to rule over all the North-lands? Or does he mean, he alone, to eat all kale in England? Yea, he will have might thereto or ever I bring him my head, or give him any louting soever. Now shall ye tell him these words of mine, that I mean to ward Norway with point and edge whiles my life days last thereto, and not to pay any man scat for my own kingdom."
But Knut was minded to be emperor of the north. He was rich in men and money, so with gold and sword he invaded Norway. All those to whom Olaf's stern rule had caused discontent were easily bribed to join his foes against him, and after a short struggle he left his kingdom to the spoiler, and fled to Russia. Eighteen months later he returned to make a fight for his crown once more; but at the battle of Stiklarstad he was slain. "The Danish men had then in Norway mickle mastery, and the folk of the land were right ill-content thereat."
But on the death of Knut five years later the Norwegians made Olaf's son Magnus king and the connection with Denmark ended.
For nearly a century after this the land was more or less peaceful, then for another century, 1130 to 1240, there followed a period of civil wars, many would-be kings struggling for the crown. In 1240 the last of these claimants was killed, and better times began to dawn for the country. Then when Hakon VI, son of Magnus of Sweden, died, he was succeeded by his son Olaf, and Margaret his widow became regent, until all three Scandinavian kingdoms were united by the Union of Calmar.
CHAPTER XVII
The Feudal System
WHEN in 911 the pirate king, Rollo the Ganger, was transformed into Robert, Duke of Normandy (see Chapter XII) he did homage to his superior, Charles the Simple. Although, as you remember, he refused to kiss the king's feet, in all probability he, or one of his followers for him, knelt before the king, put his hands in these of the king, and vowed to be his man. This is the original meaning of homage, the word being derived from home, the French for man. We have no record of the exact ceremony performed by Rollo. But we know that some such ceremony must have taken place, for the feudal system was already in force in France. By this ceremony Rollo was installed as Duke of Normandy; but the land did not become his in absolute possession. It still belonged, in theory at least, to the king, who bestowed it on Rollo as a fief, and in accepting this fief Rollo became the vassal or servant of the king (vassalis).
To trace the rise of feudalism, or to explain all its various phases and modifications in various countries, would be impossible in a short space. Broadly, feudalism was the name given to a peculiar form of government founded on the holding of land by military service. It was a result of the wild confusion into which all the countries of western Europe were thrown upon the break-up of the Carolingian Empire (see Chapter X), and was developed partly from old Roman custom, partly from new barbarian custom.
The root idea was that all the land in a country belonged to the king, who held it from God alone; but no one man, king although he might be, could farm the land of a whole country. Therefore he gave it to whomsoever he would; but he did not give it outright, nor did he give it without recompense. The king as overlord merely gave to any man he wished to reward the use of the land during his lifetime. In return the subject promised to be faithful to his king, and to help him in his wars. This was done with solemn ceremony. Kneeling before the king the subject placed his hands within those of the king and vowed to be his man. The king then kissed and raised him to his feet, and the act of homage was complete.
Next, with his hand upon some holy relic, or upon the Gospels, the vassal took the oath of fealty, and swore to be true to his overlord. This being done, the king gave his vassal a sod of earth and the branch of a tree as a sign that he was now in possession of the land for which he had done homage. It was only the great vassals or vassals-in-chief who received their land directly from the king. They, in their turn, divided their land, and granted it in fiefs to lesser lords, who did homage not to the king but to them. They again divided their land among still lesser lords. And so it went on, from highest to lowest, from the king who, in theory, possessed all the land down to the poor knight who did homage to some petty lord for a few acres.
Besides undertaking to furnish him with a certain number of soldiers in time of war, the vassal had other obligations towards his lord. The chief of these were the aids. These aids were sums of money which the overlord had the right to ask on four occasions: namely, upon the knighting of his eldest son, upon the marriage of his eldest daughter, upon his departure for a Crusade, and for his own ransom, should he happen to be taken prisoner in battle. The vassal was bound to come when called upon to help his lord with advice.
In theory a vassal was put in possession of a fief for his lifetime only; but, as a matter of fact, fiefs descended from father to son. For when a holder died his eldest son did homage for the fief and swore fealty to his overlord as his father had done before him. If, however, a holder died w
ithout direct heirs, then the fief returned into the possession of the overlord. Or should a vassal fail in his duty, or prove a traitor to his overlord, then the fief was forfeited, and the overlord took possession of it again—if he could.
The chief return which the overlord gave to his vassal for the military help and aids promised by his vassal was protection. And the rapid growth of the feudal system is due greatly to the need of this protection. In the lawless times which followed upon the break-up of Charlemagne's Empire the small landowners were at the mercy of the great. The land was full of marauding barons, and might was right. If a man was not strong enough to defend his life or his goods with his sword, another took it. It was easy enough for the baron, with twenty retainers at his back, to swoop down upon the poor knight who had but five, and having slain him, to take possession of all his goods and lands. So rather than lose both land and life, many of the lesser nobles who had held their lands in the old free way were glad to give them up to some powerful lord, and receive them again as fiefs together with the assurance of protection.
In theory the feudal system was an excellent way of maintaining an army for the benefit of the state with little expense to the state. If the king wished to go to war (and in those days he nearly always wished to go to war against one or other enemy) he called upon his great vassals to supply him with men. They called upon their vassals, they, in turn, upon theirs, and so on down the long line, until the lowest rank was reached, and a goodly company gathered to the royal standard.
In practice the results were by no means so good. In the first place, only the vassals-in-chief paid homage direct to the king. All other vassals paid homage and swore fealty to their own particular lord, duke, or count. The king was far off, he was but a name to many of his so-called subjects. The count or duke was near, he lived among his vassals; they knew him and, in fear or affection, followed him to battle wherever he led them, even against the king himself. In practice thus the great vassals were often stronger than the king, and when they rebelled against his authority he found it hard, or even impossible, to subdue them.
William the Conqueror and the Feudal System
The feudal system made a strong central government impossible, and the lands in which it flourished most became little more than a collection of independent and tumultuous states, each one of which was a miniature kingdom in itself.
In England this state of things was to a great extent avoided by the wisdom of William the Conqueror. He knew that as Duke of Normandy he was as strong, or stronger, in France than the king he owned as overlord. He determined that in England no vassal should be as strong as he. So in rewarding his Norman vassals by giving them English land, he was careful not to give any one of them a large tract in one place. If a vassal's deserts demanded a great reward he received not one large estate but several small ones scattered widely over the country. This made it difficult for a vassal to gather all his men-at-arms together without the fact coming to the king's knowledge. Besides this, William made all vassals swear fealty to himself direct, whether they received their land as vassals-in-chief or held it merely as sub-vassals from some duke or count.
Within his fief every feudal lord was absolute. He had the power of life and of death over his vassals. He was ruler and judge. He made war where and when he chose. For in those days private war was a common right. The pettiest baron might make war on his neighbour if he felt disposed, the only condition being that he must declare war with due ceremony before beginning to fight. This was done by sending a gage, generally a glove, to the enemy.
As war was a common right, every man rich enough not to require to work with his hands was a soldier. No other profession except that of a priest was open to a gentleman. Dignity did not allow the great lords to farm their own lands, and a life of idleness and a love of adventure drove them forth to fight on all and every occasion. So it came about that all the upper classes from the king to the poorest knight were soldiers. They were all gentlemen and idlers save for their profession as soldiers.
Beneath them, and sharply cut off from them, came the workers. They were divided into several classes, the lowest of which were villains and slaves. They were part and parcel with the land. When a fief passed from one overlord to another they passed with it. In life and in death they were tied to the land. They were as much their lord's property as his cattle, and could neither marry nor take any other great step in life without his permission.
Yet the villain was not a slave. He could not leave the land, it is true, but neither could his overlord take from him the small portion of land which had been granted to him, so long as he paid his dues. These dues generally consisted of a certain number of days' labour each year, and a certain proportion of his harvest and cattle. The slave, on the other hand, had no rights. He was absolutely in the hands of his overlord. He could be sold or even slain if his master so pleased.
CHAPTER XVIII
Tournament and Feudal Warfare
BY the feudal system the world was divided into two great classes. The upper class was an aristocracy of soldiers, the lower class comprised all the workers. In both classes there were many grades, but between the richest peasant and the poorest squire there was a great gulf fixed which, in feudal times, it was almost impossible to cross.
Labour was the portion of the lower classes, war was both the profession and the amusement of the upper classes. And if by any chance there was no real war to occupy and amuse them, they played at it and got up mimic battles called tournaments.
These tournaments were generally fought in presence of the king or of some great noble and his ladies. Clad in full armour, as if for actual warfare, but armed with blunted weapons, the combatants rode at each other, each man trying not to kill but to unhorse his opponent. The knight who bore himself best, and brought the greatest number of opponents to the ground, was adjudged the winner, and received a prize.
But often tournaments were of a much more informal character. Indeed, for the youths of those times they took the place of the Saturday afternoon games of cricket or football of to-day. A writer of the twelfth century tells us that the young men of London were in the habit of holding a tournament every Sunday afternoon in Lent.
"A noble train of young men," he says, "take the field after dinner well mounted on horses of the best mettle. The citizens rush out of the gates in shoals, furnished with lances and shields, the younger sort with javelins, pointed, but disarmed of their steel. They ape the feats of war, and act the sham fight, practising the agonistic exercises of that kind. If the king happens to be near the city many courtiers honour them with their presence, together with the juvenile part of the households of the bishops, earls, and barons, such as are not yet dignified with the honour of knighthood, and are desirous of trying their skill. The hope of victory excites to emulation. The generous chargers neigh and champ the bit. At length when the course begins, and the youthful combatants are divided into classes or parties, one body retreats and another pursues, without being able to come up with them, whilst in another quarter the pursuers overtake the foe, unhorse them, and pass them, many a length."
But although tournaments were meant merely as trials of skill, they were often more deadly than real battles, and many a knight, who had passed unscathed through frequent wars, met his death in the lists.
For in the wars of the middle ages the nobles on opposing sides often tried, just as in tournaments, to unhorse and take prisoner their foes rather than slay them. This was not because of any tenderness to the foe, nor because of any desire to save life—for in those days the taking of life sat lightly on a man's conscience; it was merely a matter of business. War was the business of the nobles. It was necessary to make it pay. And although no noble would have stooped to work with his hands he was never averse to making a good bargain. For a living noble a large ransom could always be wrung out of the pockets of his vassals, while for his dead body they would pay nothing.
There was little that was ennobling or
fine about these feudal wars. They were not uprisings against tyranny, they were not struggles for liberty, they were not patriotic. They were simply wars of aggression and greed. A man won possession of his land by his sword. And if by the sword he could not keep it, then another took it from him, and the weakest perished. It was the doctrine of the mailed fist.
Every great noble knew that he must be prepared to resist the attacks of his neighbour, for every neighbour was a possible enemy. So every castle became a fortress, built not for pleasure and beauty but for strength. Generally a high position, difficult of access and easy of defence, was chosen as a site. The buildings were defended by stone battlements of enormous strength and thickness, and surrounded by a moat crossed only by a drawbridge which could be raised at pleasure from within. So strong were they that before gunpowder was invented it was almost impossible to take them except by starving the defenders. In feudal wars, therefore, sieges bulk largely.
Feudal Estates of the Clergy
Many of the abbeys and monasteries, too, were fortresses. Like Durham they were "Half house of God, half castle 'gainst the Scot" or other enemy. The great among the clergy were also great feudal lords, and they were just as eager to increase the domains of their abbeys and monasteries as were the secular lords to add to their manors and estates. We hear of a bishop, who, "not content with the dignity of his office, next anticipated in his mind how he might accomplish great and wonderful things. For he possessed a haughty speaking mouth, with the proudest heart. At last, having collected a band of needy and desperate men, he began his mad career, and became, like Nimrod, a mighty hunter before the Lord, forgetting that his office required him to be, with Peter, a fisher of men. Every day he was joined by troops of adherents, among whom he was conspicuous above all by the head and shoulders, and like some mighty commander he inflamed their desires."
The Story of Europe Page 8