Obedience or equality in Warrior groups and Households.

This text addresses the obedience issue, (i.e. submission,) or equality for two communities in ancient Scandinavia, partly in a warrior retinue and partly within a married couple's household. These may be part of each other, since the married couple could be a chieftain / king with a spouse and a warrior following. As will be apparent, many interpretative difficulties arise. I assume or am inspired by two texts and freely integrate my own reasoning, additions and critical points. This text is born on the bases of my objections. Other content is summarized in summary form or omitted. The two texts are Kim Jardar's book "Vikinger i krig" (Vikings in war) and Stefan Brink's "Lord and Lady - Bryti and Deigja".

The warrior group

(This is quite free after a single excerpt from Kim Jardar's book, as well as freely after other elements such as Stefan Brink's text. The title of Jardar's chapter, here under interest, is the "Vikings military institutions." The introduction of this does not appear to have been given its own sub-title, but we give it one, "Hirden" [see below] according to the content. For reasons, as evidenced by my later opinions in this article, I have chosen to translate this non-title with the "Warrior group" [Hird]. Jardar's book seems to me to treat his subject knowingly and insightfully and can be recommended. It's only here that I have objections.)

Kim Jardar uses the word "hird" for warrior group. This is, as he himself points out, an early-term loan word from Anglo-Saxon's "hîred" to the rough meaning of family / households, which would aim at the members of the hird living / staying in the household of the chieftain or prince just as his or her family and other servants did. This may have been the case for in late Viking era conditions of princes, but the word "hird" can give an anachronistic picture for the Viking era. Interestingly, the/late /Old Norse language seems to had need to introduce a new loan word for the phenomenon (sic!). The word "hird" is therefore, not a pure, Old Norse word!

There was of course a cultural relationship between the Scandinavians of the Viking Age and the rest of the Germanic people in Europe, which in part could allow cultural analogy among them based on linguistic views on various related and common words. Nevertheless, one must consider a certain significant cultural boundary that prevailed between them, most commonly referred to in religious terms: Christianity versus the earlier religion. What is meant is, therefore, where on a scale of subservience that a warrior would have stood in respect of his "chieftain", probably in manifest submission in the general European society, but in equality in the Scandinavian. This is what I intend to highlight in the following.

The English word "Lord", (Anglosax. hlaf-weard = bread keeper,) suggests a high degree of commandment, literally the one who guards the food and distributes, at their discretion, to their retinue their "daily bread". The English word "lady", (Anglosax. hlaf-dæghe or fnord. 'hleif-deigja' "bread bakeress", suggests the supreme Roman family father, “Pater Familias.” This view has, with the same Christianity, been spread northwards in Europe.) In the later Roman empire, the family father had an absolute judicial jurisdiction over his family. This resulted in a remarkable comparison of wife, children and household slaves in lawful terms. One could certainly sell his slave, but not the wife or the children. The Latin word for boy, “puer,” could also mean “slave.”

The general Old Norse word for "warrior group, warrior retinue" (was a “lið” = team, neuter.) The word is well founded in many sources, e.g. the poetic Edda. No “hird” is found in eddish or skaldic sources. The near-sounding word "hirðir" means 'shepherd', one who watches his 'herd'. There was also the word "dróttinn", leader or prince over the "drótt", that is to say, his men or followers. The Norse word "dróttning" meant married woman in general and of higher status, not necessarily just queen in our present Nordic sense. After the introduction of Christianity, the "dróttinn" could also refer to "God" or "Christ." In Latin sources, a warrior group is called "commitatus" f.ex. in Tacitus' “Germania.” We now avoid the word “hird,” but use the word “warrior group.” We want to avoid the accompanying Anglo-Saxon meaning of dependency.

When did such warrior groups arise? Really well before the Viking era, as Tacitus already mentions the companions or 'commitati'. At the beginning of the Viking era, it appears that in single attack raids there have been about one or two ships with each 25 to 40 men depending on the ship's size. These could have been looked after by chieftains. What does the word “höfðingi” (chieftain) mean? Literally the head-man, principal, by “höfuð = head” and the ending -ing, carrier of the property. Now, in skaldic poetry, there is a plethora of words for sw “Furste", lat. “Princeps” ("first"), of which only the concept of “höfðingi” (sw hövding) has survived into modern Nordic languages. So, the main meaning is “the first one.” Did a chief, a ruler or councillor of people in a land district need to have ruled a ship? By no means. This can also be about local and private initiatives. The one who steers a ship is called “stýrismaðr” or with the modern Swedish word “styrman”, (steersman,) never “höfðingi” and of course not, sea-captain.

The word “lið” is used as late as in the 1000's for the “Þingalið” (Tingalid) of the Danish King “Canute the Great,” (or “Knut den Store” as we call him). When he had secured his conquest of England, he retained the best warriors in his Tingalid, according to the foundation, that he retained those with the best weapons and the most beautiful weapons. Warriors with such weapons were those who had been the most skilled and had participated in most of the war-booties and, by virtue of their courage and fighting ability, were awarded the best or better war-booty weapons. The other men of war he sent home to Denmark. The Tingalid seems to have been a kind of extended bodyguard, close to the king and something that, with later Nordic language use, should have been called a “hird.” The designation is, however, here a “lið!”

What do we know about the internal organization of a Viking warrior group or Viking army? Not very much. There has been a leader. "The Great Army" of the Anglo-Saxon chronicle, which during the eighties and seventies of the 9th century and later became stuck for many years in different parts of England with wintering, was later split into various groups under its original, named leaders. We can probably call these chieftains. There is a late-written “Fornaldarsaga” (ancient history saga) about Ragnar Lodbrok and his sons, extremely moderately reliable and with legendary elements. Nevertheless, Ragnar appears to have belonged to a branch of the "Danish royal family", as far as can be gleaned from different sources. Some of his sons can albeit shakily be matched from English sources by named Viking leaders in England during the 9th century.

According to” Égils saga Skallagrímssonar,” Egil and his brother, together with his followers, have been hired by the English king during the second half of the 900's in a battle against the Scots in northern England. Egil's brother died in the battle, and Egil feels guilty and in extreme bad temper. He receives a gold ring from the king, given in such a way that the king slides outwards the ring on around his sword, and Egil catches the ring with his sword tip and lets it slide down. All over the burning long-fire. The procedure is most similar to a ritual and traces of such are elsewhere in the sources.

Out of his stormy inner temper, Egil, as something of a kind of thanks, recites a “Lausavísa” in the form of a very striking and haunting “dróttkvætt” stanza, describing this gift, but with the kennings of death metaphors, with the swords like gallows and their hands like gripping claws of a beast and a sense of unsatisfiable cure for his great loss. What we imply above is thus authenticity. It is very difficult to believe that a Christian author/writer out of touch with a true story, would have been able to imagine skaldic art and surrounding text from nothing, during the 13th century. Some believe that the writer was called Snorri Sturluson.

The English king is said to have appointed Egil's brother as leader of one of his flanks. Neither Egil's brother nor Egil can be regarded as chieftains in the sense of ruler of the people in a possible district at home. Egil was never a “goði,” so he did not belong to the things-organization in Iceland. Both of them were seen as "freebooters". Renowned and experienced warriors, yes. Chieftains, hardly.

We now take a look at the warrior group beyond the chieftain. There is only one other executive described in a "lið", which is mentioned in various sources in the 800's to 900's and this is the marksman, "Merkismaðr". We can translate the word with “Banner Carrier,” (the one who carried the leader´s banner.) A case of such a mark, referred to in the sources, is the “Hrafnsmerki”, (eng the Raven Mark.) The marksman obviously held a glorious, very exposed position, preferably in the middle of the battle near the chief. One would want, as soon as possible, to cut the "head" of the opposing army: it is the "höfðingi" we are talking about. If the chief fell, then the group split up afterwards. The loyalty ties were broken. Only in the very last part of the Viking Age there are signs that an "heir” could "inherit" the group. According to Kim Jardar, there are also some evidence in the sources that mark management could mean signalling with different meanings: raise the mark, keep it low, hold it to the left or to the right etc.

Ingrid Ystgård, at an archaeological conference in Oslo in December 2014, held a lecture on "Warrior flock and army" and distinguishes three different kinds of war groups during the Iron Age.

1 * Flock. This is a group of warriors who battle for honour and booty, each man for his own sake and at a certain point of time and bringing their own weapons. The “Flock” would more characterize the older Iron Age. One case could be the booty of war in Illerup Ådal (300-400's) in southern Jutland. In each case, the exquisitely equipped "officers" all had their individual equipment (and were mounted as opposed to the "foot people").

2 * Retinue, the warrior group. This also fights for honour and booty, but is persistent over time. In addition, there is a mutual, unifying loyalty, likewise to the leader. One can have a uniform type of weaponry, however, owned by the individual. You could partly talk about professional warriors. The group would be the most common during the Viking era.

3 * Army and in its extension the modern army. The army would fight for a territory, perhaps its own, invoked by a "society" and perhaps by law. (This applies not only to a modern army but also to the former Roman army). At the earliest in the Nordic laws, at or after the transition to medieval times, the duty of the people of the Nordic countries appears to be the defence war. Only later there is talk about an attack war. We are talking about all the peasants here, ("the people", Old Norse “Múgr,” compare the Swedish concept of “Allmoge,” = all the people or sometimes all peasants), dedicated to securing their farming and livestock. These chores needed always to be secured in earlier times, so the time for war was always in the summer, between sowing and harvesting; during the winter you never fought. An army, called up or standing, requires an agricultural surplus, because the army must always be able to get food and equipment. Throughout all times, the maintenance is the Achilles heel of an army.

In the oldest army, the earliest stipulation was a uniform type of arms, (with alternatives: one battle/ax was less expensive to manufacture than a sword; in addition to spears, shields and so and so many arrows, as well as a bow), owned and manufactured by the peasant / recruited or nominated peasant representative himself. Later, after many centuries, the society or state provided the military equipment, along with a strict "cadaver discipline", an offer to be just a small gear in a vast machinery. The former warriors' ideals – glory, honour and booty - were thus blown away. Ideals, whatever their nature, must still exist to induce a human being to sacrifice his life and well-being, that is to say to fight for victory even in a modern army. In present days, f. ex. for the nation or for democracy.

We should separate "liðit" from both the Viking Age so called "army", like this from a later army or a modern army. The word 'her', (army), is also of ancient origin, “herfangi” (war booty), sw 'härnad' (warfare), sw 'härkläder' (armour) or sw 'härpil' (a message stick, sent around among the people calling for battle), and so on. We can imagine that a "viking army" was composed of a number of groups/retinues, such as the "Great Army" mentioned above, which had established itself in England for many years. It split into several retinues at one time and was filled with new followers from the North as new warriors were attracted to it. Saxo Grammaticus tells us how a large number of warriors from far and wide and from every possible location gathered into the two "armies" before the semi-mythical Bråvalla battle during late Vendel (Merovingian) times.

We return to the Viking-era "liðit", (that is to say retinue.) The members thus stood in a loyalty bond with each other, certainly also in a contest against each other, such as may plague a group without a clear leadership structure. The new "member", (i.e. “lið” member), as a young, avid and unmarried “drengr,” (young man) needed to be adapted to the other members and maybe tested. The new one would have had to swear an oath of faithfulness to the leader. Such an oath is not preserved from the Viking Age. Other oaths, on the other hand, are preserved. In Gretti's saga there is a 'gridsed', that is to say a "holy" oath about not deliberately hurting a competitor in sports games/weapons games. In addition, granted freedom to walk away afterwards, in peace, no matter who you were (Gretti was then lawless, a legal prey for anyone). A thing's oath is also preserved to just speak the truth in a lawsuit or defence at the thing. This is preserved in fragments of the so-called “Ulfljóts law”, established in 930 for the establishment of the Allthing in Iceland.

It is said here to speak the truth and to sue or defend oneself in a proper way, and this so far "as the falcon flies in a favourable spring wind", et al. The meaning is thus generally "everywhere". The writing-down of this formula also includes so far "as heathen men performs 'blót' and Christian men go to church". This supposed later addition of Christians who walk to church only proves the essentially non-Christian content.

Concerning a possible pledge of oath, as the last point, we need to take up the concept of the Varangian guard, (according to other sources Old Norse “Væringjar”, sw "väringar" or "varjager", eng “Varangians”), pointing to the Rhus in general, or sometimes "Swedes" or Gotlanders, especially in the Varangian guard of the East-Roman Emperors in Constantinople.) Other northerners seem to get a splash too. The later Norwegian king Haraldr Harðráði has been there as well as a Finnbogi Hinn Rammi according to his story, “Finnboga Saga Ramma,” as well as an Eyvindr in “Hrafnkel's saga.” Before you could be taken up in the Varangian guard, you had to swear an oath. This is mentioned in the “Heiðarvíga Saga”, the story of the famous “Fight on the heath” in 1015. (This is the first battle that could be called an army battle in Iceland.) The Orthodox-Christian East-Roman Emperors trusted the oaths of the sometimes pagan Norwegians and Swedes and held them as their bodyguards. It is believed that the concept of “Væring" goes back to the goddess “Vár,” who according to Snorri, was the goddess of the marriage agreement. A sworn oath was something very serious.

What was then a regular member of the "liðit" called? Probably inter alia just the above-mentioned "drengr", the young, unmarried man, preferably of good descent, but above all personally capable, (as one's family characteristics and one's own were thought to be one and the same). Another term is "húskarl", (literally a house-carle.) On the Turinge runestone (Sö 338) in Södermanland in Sweden you can find the following interesting text:

“Ketill ok Bjôrn þeir reistu stein þenna at Þorstein, fôður sinn, Ônundr at bróður sinn ok húskarlar eptir(?) jafna, Ketiley at bónda sinn. Brœðr váru þeir beztra manna, á landi ok í liði úti, heldu sína húskarla ve[l]. Hann fell í orrostu austr í Gôrðum, liðs forungi, landmanna beztr.” =

"Ketil and Björn they raised this stone to Thorstein, their father. Ønundr to his brother and the house-carles after (?) their Equal. Ketiley to her husband. The brothers were the best of men, in the country and in the army group outbound, they held their house-carles well, he fell in battle east in Garða, (Gardariki, swe Gårdarike), the first of the retinue, among farmers the best."

The most critical is what "ok húskarlar eptir jafna" means. Eptir controls the accusative, so the house-carles went along and raised the stone after / a / jafni, m., "an equal", which clearly refers to Thorsteinn. The word “jafn,” (swe “jämn”, means “even”), “jafnan” (swe “för jämnan” means “always.”) It seems difficult to rule out the conclusion that the house-carles saw themselves as equal to Thorsteinn, their “even”, swe "jämne,” (i.e. their leader.) Cf. also the more documented words “nafn” (swe “namn”, eng “name") and “nafni” (swe “namne,” eng "with the same name".) We move on with the concept of “House-carles.” The term is also used for hired or employed labour of farmers, living on the farm itself in the Icelandic family sagas. If necessary, they needed to help defend the farm against assaults. The difference between such “húskarlar” and the “húskarlar” in a chief's warrior-lið is not necessarily so great. The word “húskarlar” is also documented for King Olaf Digre`s armed forces in the battle at Stiklestad. In order to further highlight the measure of equality and mutual loyalty between a leader and his companion, we will show yet another runestone, the Danish DR 3, Haddeby 3 in South Jutland:

“: suin : kunukR : sati : / stin : uftiR : skarþa / sin : himþiga : ias : uas : / : farin : uestr : ion : nu : [next stone-side] : uarþ : tauþr : at : hiþa:bu Sveinn konungr setti stein eptir Skarða, sinn heimþega, er var farinn vestr, en nú varð dauðr at Heiðabý.” =

“King Svein set a stone after Skarð, his heimþegi, who had gone west, but now he was dead at Heiðabý.”

Obviously, it is unclear what a “Heimþegi” is, but the text clearly shows that the king (even a king!) put up a stone after his companion of some kind. The leader, at least if he was young, was expected to be the first in combat, weapons games and sports games. His warriors were not expected to be worse than their leader. The leader was thus (and must be,) the foremost among equals. (Cf. the Latin expression “Primus inter Pares”). If the leader is older, past the flower of his power physically, then at least he must be well advised. The Old Norse verb “ráða” (sw “råda”) had three simultaneous meanings: “advise, to give advice; as well as realize, see clearly, have insight; and also, to guide, lead, rule.”

It is stated that the leader fought for his honour and victory, while the warriors also fought for the leader. There must have been very clear rules for collecting all the war booty and then distributing them after performance in the battle. We now want to further capture some of the equality of mind in the Norse warrior group and we pick up the French chronicler Dudo, who around 1020 described the famous utterances between a group of Franks and a group of vikings in the 800's. The Franks wanted to be led to the Vikings leader and asked for this leader, but the Vikings replied that "we have no leaders, because among us we are all equal." This total nonsense response, as it seemed to the Franks, was so utterly strange to them that it came into a chronicle. Many other collisions of outlooks have made it into these chronicles, which illustrate how vastly different the Nordic peoples thought, in comparison to the Christian Franks, and later on became part of so-called "Good Viking Stories".

One other example was the ceremony when “Gengu-Hrólfr” (sw “Gånge-Rolf”, fr “Rollo,”) (most probably from Norway,) would get Normandy in investiture in exchange for keeping away other vikings from there. One item in the ceremony included showing his obedience towards the Frankish Emperor by bending down and kissing the Emperor's foot. Gengu-Hrólfr stated that "I never think I will bow to anyone and never I'll kiss someone's foot." Despite the fact that Normandy and marriage with the king's daughter were in the scales, his honorary demands were higher. But for the Franks, Normandy heavily weighed as protection against other Vikings' coastal attacks, so they lay tight. In the end, he commanded one of his men to perform the ceremony. In his honour, apparently, neither he did bow to anyone, so he went to the standing Emperor, lifted his foot to the height and clenched the kiss, while the Emperor fell back to the floor with a bang, under "hysterical" giggles and vast laughing in the entire church.

An example of the equality between a king and his followers is furthermore the depiction of the Norwegian king Hákon Áðalsteinsfóstri's (in the mid-900's) regular joining in sports, wrestling and weapons games with the members of his retinue. In addition to the “gríðs” vows, not intentionally seeking to harm the contestants, the king had no special protection at all and it would seem that his person was not substitutable, but he stood before his oath-sworn equals.

In spite of this Nordic equality, the outer forms of the Nordic house-carles resemble the Anglo-Saxon "hîred" (meaning family / household), with similar pan-Germanic phenomena, that the house-carles lived in the leader's household. The difference is the decentralization of the Nordic societies with the kinship as the innermost foundation with the absolute “Peace-bond,” (i.e. the loyalty bond). The warrior group is a secondary peace bond. If the kin calls, then the participation in the secondary bond must be interrupted or terminated. Everyone, even the leaders of a warrior group, was bred within a true peace bond and understood such things. A house-carle could therefore be required and obliged to take on an intricate revenge story for his kin (see, for example, “Heiðarvíga saga”) or a funeral and inheritance and leave his place in the warrior group to fulfil this higher calling.

The war retinue's secondary peace bond followed the pattern of all other peace bonds, which were secondary to the primary peace bond, that of kin. We have for instance marriage between two different kin-groups, alliances, common friendship, social partners, other partnerships, (for example for trade purposes), etc. All of these required an agreement, possibly an oath and not least gift exchanges. The gift demanded a return gift and this, of course, could also be a return deed, such as loyalty in deeds or, for that matter, a skaldic poem. Of the leader or chieftain, hospitality and generosity were expected, which of course required assets, which limited the ability to keep the companionship (and the size of the following: loyalty and non-commanding). Olaf Digre shall have brought a following of 100 of “his own húscarls” on the road to Stiklestad.

Unlike the primary peace bond, the kin, the secondary bonds could be broken, if there was reason. In for instance a marriage both the man and the woman could call for a divorce. In the Icelandic sagas it is often found that Icelanders take service at the courts of Norwegian kings, earls or chiefs, but as far as I know, never that the home trip was denied when the kin or "home" called. Besides, then the King often gave a farewell gift.

The Anglo-Saxon hired, with the same Germanic roots, had run a long influence from Christianity and its Roman idea residues with top-down, patriarchal structure as a consequence. Hence, the Anglo-Saxon warlord, the “Lord,” with the meaning of "bread keeper", "bread distributor". With the entrance to the Middle Ages, we received the "hird" in the Nordic countries, along with all Germanic unified kingdoms under Christian kings, who were “helped” by the Christian church to quench decentralizations and eventually the kinships/families. By virtue of increasing writing and reading power with written sources, we learn more about "the hird". This information, of course, refer to the dawn of the Middle Ages in the first place.

Kim Jardar says that, under certain conditions, a warrior could leave the hird, when it was time for the warrior to form a family. He could then have inherited a farm, cleared a new one or become a countryman on a farm belonging to the leader. About the equivalent in “Garðaríki” (swe “Gårdarike”, i.e. present Russia), formed according to the Eastern Scandinavian model and under Swedish leadership, the so-called “Druzina”, the warrior is said to be able to leave the court when he so wished. In the light of the fact that the retinue in pure Viking times as mentioned above constituted a secondary peace bond, it would just seem to be the expression of medieval changes depending on time and place.

Kim Jardar restates a hird-oath from the “Norwegian Hird Law” from the 13th century, meaning that this could have been true during the Viking era. So that the new member, ("hirdmedlemmen" according to Jardar,) would have sworn at the grip of the chief's sword, which the latter had over his knees. ("I do not remember that the kings' sagas ever mentioned this." It is a long time since I read the Norwegian kings' sagas, according to Heimskringla with their focus on the fanatical Christian mission-kings, Tryggvason and Haraldsson so keen on the conversion of pagans. They deal with the time before and after these up to Snorri Sturluson's contemporaries). The oath of the 1200's is described as follows:

“The Oath should contain, who you were, of what family you came and what great things you had done. Besides that, what punishments you could expect if you swore falsely. The Oath was ended with the sword ceremony, (held in front of witnesses to everything done and said at the ceremony, so the prince would not fear the new one's answer), where the oath-swearer held the sword's handle of the oath-taker.”

We, as reporters of this text section, simply do not believe for a second that this would have been about, (pre-Christian,) Viking times; this is definitely of the Christian Middle Ages. It is about the leader in God's place to judge if the new hird member swore falsely or not, thus the prince-sword/death as a symbol. In addition, in the old society, it is to your own kindred, which you owe absolute faith to, not any outsider king, Christian or not. This said about trying to interpret if pure medieval texts could be based on so called "pagan" conditions.

(These sections on conditions in the Middle Ages are summarized, read the book.) From at least the late 1000's, there is a more noticeable internal structure at the court. The Danish “Vederloven” (“Law of Remuneration”), which would stem from the first half of the 1000's (under Knut the Great), states among other things a ranking among the hird-members at the prince's table in the hall.

In Norwegian-Icelandic sources we are talking about a “stallari” (swe 'stallare' at the court, who stood over the banner bearer and was the spokesman for the hird before the king, his counsellor (and possibly deputy commander). Here is the beginning of a real distinction between King and commanding for the first time. This would not have been possible during the Iron Age, when it was the King/Leader, who in his person was "victorious", “victoryful” that is to say “the Bearer of the luck of war.” But during a long time, the kings still participated in the wars, but were surrounded by a war-council.

In line with increasing unification of realms and institutionalization, the hird did not dissolve at the death of a king, but was "inherited" by the new, elected king. Many hird-members never came back to a farm as a "länderman" ('countryman') (i.e. nobility), but remained as table-fast hird-members. Under these, there were people who were responsible for guarding, message bearing and tax collection, (another Medieval “great” Christian idea). They are said to have been called the "guests" because nobody wanted them to visit. As the Middle Ages rolled on, the hird eventually became converted to the "government" and nobility of the princes became a kind of "state apparatus". As warriors, instead, then ordinary peasants served. Already at the Battle of Stamford Bridge in England in 1066, the Norwegian Haraldr Harðráði Sigurðarson, (swe “Harald Hårdråde”, eng “Harald Hardwoods”) consisted largely of peasants. Harald fell early, but despite this, his "army" continued to fight. From the Viking point of view, it really should have left off.

Kim Jardar also mentions parenthetically "professional soldiers in Birka", (i.e. professional warriors. We have seen, according to the above, Ingrid Ystgård's definition of the warrior retinue, that this could be of professional character). Just beside Birka, on a small mountain, next to the city's fortification, is a place called "Borg", with breathtaking views overlooking and watching Lake Mälaren’s fjords, that has its own ring wall and where there is the remnant of a 19 x 9 m long-house with its own kitchen and smithy and a larger number of weapons finds. This seems to have been home to a warrior group or retinue and is commonly called "The Garrison". According to other sources, a number of (rectangular) lamellae have been found, which could be reconstructed from other finds to form a central Asian-style lamella coat of mail, dated about 950. Scholars have found scattered finds from between “the Garrison” and the so called “Svartjorden” area) (i.e. the “Black Earth” urban area,) as well as from some graves that point to the use of complicated composite arches, shorter but with the strength for longer and more accurate arrowshots. In addition to this, hourglass quivers into which the arrows are put with the tip up. This is a Magyaric-type gear dedicated to special horse-mounted archery. (Actually, rather strange.) This in addition to the usual archery, of which there are plenty of remnants.

The Germanic or Nordic household

We now want to investigate conditions within a retinue (and later in a household) during pure Viking times in terms of obedience or equality. We first need to familiarize ourselves with the different types of source material, which is available for a relatively sparing in sources period of time, such as the Viking era: archaeological finds and rune-stone texts, which are contemporary and intracultural. The skaldic poems of the skalds become, in principle, something of a contemporary and intracultural nature through its rigorous metrics and historical contexts. Contemporary are Christian external sources, which, however, are not intracultural. Later Old Norse texts, which can be said to be intracultural, i.e. the Old Icelandic literature, but are not contemporary.

Now we have another independent source of knowledge: “the Linguistic Area.” In many cases, through the inherited word of different Germanic (and possibly other) languages, (with possibly sliding meanings,) one can sometimes even drill deeper down in history. You do not need to have all the preserved texts about what interests you, just enough texts to be able to reconstruct your inherited words and their true meanings.

The Swedish scientist Stefan Brink (2008), linguist and place name researcher, has written an essay about “Lord and Lady - Bryti and Deigja.” From this text, we have already seen how the word “Lord” (“Bread Guardian”) is exclusively an Anglo-Saxon word, which is not found in other Germanic languages, and in Anglo-Saxon language use, other interesting words in 'hlaf' are also found, probably indicating an ages-old institution. These are in addition to the “Lord and Lady” ("Lev-Dejan," Female bread baker”) “hlaf-brytta” m., “hlaf-æta” m. and “hlaf-gang” m. So, in addition to the “Bread keeper” and “Bread baker”, we also have a “Bread breaker”, a “Loaf-breaker”, who breaks and probably distributes the bread to a “Loaf-eater”, that is one who is entitled to eat of the bread. The collective of “Hlaf-etan” is the 'Bread gang', i.e. those belonging to the household. (With unmistakably the male “Lord” as head over it all and all the bread-eaters in the household). What I want to access with this rendering is a far-driven interpretation of Anglo-Saxon obedience, rather than of equality.

Brink first thought that the "bread" institution originated from the Germanic warrior's household, his retinue, comitatus or the group around a chief or king in his hall and that hlaf ran as an image for food aimed at the great hall celebrations with gifts and covenants, with gives the time of the “hlaf” institution from the 700th to the 1000's. After further research, he found that the European war society had another more developed terminology and that the “hlaf” institution, bread gang, must be older. There is not much left to choose from now. The bread gang must go back to the former Germanic household, which according to some research would have much in common with the Roman family. We have this loan word of family in Germanic languages.

Now, as Brink points out, bread and bread guardians are mentioned on a proto-Nordic runestone from Østfold in Norway, the famous Tune-stone, from around 400 and one of the longest in proto-Nordic. The text begins with "ek wiwaR after woduride witandahalaiban worahto [runoR]", which can be translated as: 'I Wiwar, after WoduridaR bread donor wrote [runes].”” Halaiban in Witanda-h (a) laiban” is clearly a counterpart to a hypothetical Old Norse “*hleiforðr = hlaf-weard,” (lord.) The proto-Nordic “*witanda” is akin to “*witan”, ('to care' as well as 'to know'.) A semantically similar word is found in ancient German “Brotherro”, ('Bread Master.') During the Viking era and later, in the Nordic countries there were “Deygja,” (swe 'deja' of 'deig' n, eng “dough,”) in some Norwegian landscape laws, (compare “Hlaf-dæghe,” i.e. Bread bakeress > English 'lady') or Old Norse 'Hleif-deygja' and the “Bryti” (half of 'Hlaf-brytta') on Swedish and Danish runestones (from the late Viking Age).

Briefly a little about 'Familia' or 'Domus', the basic unit of the old Roman society. The all-deciding head of the Roman family was the “Pater Familias” or “Dominus” (eng “Master”; compare with eng “dominate”). The word “Familia” is clearly derived from the word “Famulus,” a common word for 'Slave', borrowed very early in Roman history from the neighbouring Oskians from which prisoners or slaves were taken. The word “Familia” originally meant 'a bunch of slaves' and came to denote both persons and possessions. An Apuleius wrote in the 100's that "fifteen free men constitute a people, fifteen slaves one family and fifteen prisoners a prison."

According to Brink the researcher David Herlihy summarizes: 'The word family in its original sense meant an authoritarian and hierarchical order based on, but not limited to, marriage and parentship... Authority but not relationship and not even marriage formed the essence of the old family concept.' “Pater Familias” had, according to Roman law, the father's full power, “Patria Potestas,” which was complete, including “Ius Necis,” the right to kill his family members, whenever he wanted, for whatever reason.

Well, but what had for instance happened in the North if a husband killed his wife? Immediate kin disputes and revenge chains, (one did not marry within the kinship but marriage was a union between kinships). If now, instead, the husband roughly insulted his wife? She had immediately divorced him and most probably, then the same kin disputes and revenge chains would have happened. Similar to killing of the children, which counted to both parents, but in a divorce children followed the father, as they were of his “Aett” (eng “Kindred” or “Clan”). Thralls as non-free people stood outside the kinships. So, Roman law is very different indeed from the laws of the Northern peoples.

As mentioned above, the kinship was the primary peace bond and the warrior retinue and the marriage were a secondary peace bond. (A peace bond means that members cannot force each other by force.) What applies is therefore for both rather equality than obedience. A Roman “Pater Familias” cannot take his place in a Viking family or warrior group. Germanics are not Romans in principle, although they, along with Northerners from more southerly parts of Scandinavia, participated in Rome's army during Roman times as well as in the assaults of the Migration time on the West-Roman Empire. Obviously, both the old Germanic tribes and the Norse peoples had received strong impressions from Rome.

Also, the Catholic Church which, during its struggle of survival against all the competing Christianity forms and other religions, had to organize itself according to Rome's example. It was also strongly patriarchal and became centralized with the bishop as the “Pater Familias” over his church. It also took up the Roman legal order of the individual's criminal liability, (not the kinship's), which suited its religious goal of the salvation of the individual soul. After the fall of West-Rome, Catholicism slowly but steadily conquered northwestern Europe. The Frankish empire accepted Catholicism, (with Roman legacy) around the year 500, and England did so in the year 650. With these societal and religious changes on the continent, the old ties with the "Fellow Germanics" broke down and during the turn of the century, the Nordic region became instead highly culturally isolated, as is clearly evident in archeology. We also have an increasing malcomprehension between Germanic languages.

This means that transfers/interpretations from medieval Christian phenomena to Nordic conditions for early Viking times becomes extremely difficult, despite some language likenesses. It is basically about totally different social systems, despite a certain original cultural identity. The Anglo-Saxon “Breadguard” will therefore not be transferable to the Nordic region. It may be mentioned that the Nordic region appears to have had its own food tradition in the form of the “Veizla,” the common blót-meal. According to both the Kings' sagas and the Guta saga, the people brought their own food and drink. So, this is not the continental and English "bread distribution principle" but instead the Nordic "we all contribute together principle".

As we have seen above, the Anglo-Saxon term “Hîred” means roughly “family/household.” This has been borrowed into Nordic languages as "Hird" in the Christian early Middle Ages. The root is 'hi', the same as in the Swedish or the Old Norse “hjon, hjón” or “hjún” n. The word could then designate both spouses and household workers. We will dig into its basic meaning in order to highlight our general question of obedience or equality in the Norse household.

Nowadays, in the present time, the word is rather denigratory: swe 'tjänstehjon', eng “petty servants”, swe 'fattighushjon', eng “denizens of a home for the poor” or swe 'dårhushjon,' eng ”asylum-lunatics”. But what did the word “hjón” or “hjún” n. mean in the Viking age? In the plural it meant “the married couple, husband and wife.” In the singular "one belonging to the household". For example, “Griðkona var hit þriðja hjón”, The grid woman was the third hjón”. “Grið” n. means in singular “Home, Hearth” and in plural “Peace, Cease-fire.” Another meaning of “hjón” in singular is “Servant” as in '”Rézt hann þar at hjóni', (“He got himself a position as servant there.”) Compare the terms “Hjóna-band” n. = “Marriage”, “Hjóna-skilnaðr” m. = “Divorce”, “Hjóna-lið” n. = “A group of servants,” “Hjóna-tak” = “To hire a servant.” Note also that a “Hjón” is not the same as a “þræll” m. = “Slave!” so, what is really the basic meaning of the term “Hjón”? At the center stands the married couple, “the man AND the woman,” the husband and the wife, 'Frejyr and Freya' who are the later titles of these Vanir deities, with the meaning of “Master and Mistress”. The married couple binds to itself the other meanings of the word. Notice now that the husband and wife etymologically do this together, while the “Lord” is already etymologically ruling over the “Lady”, the guardian over the bakeress. So, the Norse word “Hjón” is in neuter, because it simply must be in neuter, if something refers to both a masculine and a feminine person, a husband and a spouse. They are both equal! Q.E.D. – Quad erat Demonstrandum! - Which was to be proved! We conclude by adding another heavy argument, a stone-weight one. We pick up the Hassmyra stone in Västmanland (Vs 24) in Sweden with its beautiful aftermath for a deceased wife:

“buonti × kuþr × hulmkoetr × lit × resa × ufteR × oþintisu × kunu ×

seno × kumbr × hifrya × til × hasuimura × iki betr × þon × byi

raþr roþbalir × risti × runi × þisa × sikmuntaR × uaR. . .sestR × kuþ”=

“The good farmer Holmgautr let raise [a stone] for Óðindísa, his wife: Comes a housewife (oN Húsfreja) to Hassmyra not better, that the estate ruled. Rödballe (a known late Viking Age runecarver) carved these runes. To Sigmund was ... sister good.”

Here we probably have the word-compilation of the “Hefrøya” 'wife in the family, the household'. In Old Norse texts, the word “Húsfreyja” occurs a number of times. As already mentioned above, the god names Freyr and Freyja come from a stem that means ruling. Freyja may as well be interpreted as the Mistress. But housewife/húsfreyja then? Yes, this has been discussed. We may perhaps "take advice" from the very stone, which has the verb "ráða" with its previously stated three meanings: “advise; realize; rule.” The meanings of the word “ráða” are likely to stem directly from the principle of “peace bond.” Through insightful advice you can "rule" over your equals. See the answer to "who is leader" to the warriors above according to Dudo. There is definitely no Roman ”Pater Familias” here.

Finally, it should be noted that Stefan Brink in his later book "The Slaves of the Vikings" among other themes deals with the problem of “Lord and Lady” again. The “Lord”, the bread guardian, he now perceives as a younger phenomenon on the basis of main farm operations within a feudal agrarian system in full farmlands in England and France with seed as staple food. He finds no counterpart in the Nordic countries. The “Bryti” from Anglo-Saxon “Hlaf-bryttja" ('Bread Breaker') he perceives as a loan in late Viking times or early Middle Ages. The word appears on runestones meaning a senior official, perhaps a superintendent, but then himself becomes victimised to an unfree position in later landscape laws.

Reference List

Lord and Lady – Bryti and Deigja. Some Historical and Etymological Aspects of Family, Patronage and Slavery in Early Scandinavia and Anglo-Saxon England by Stefan Brink. Illustrated. London, The Viking Society for Northern Research. University College London, 2008. ISBN 978-0903521-77-2

Medieval Households by David Herlihy. 2 Line illustrations, 3 Halftones, 9 Tables. Harvard, Harvard University Press, 1985. ISBN 978-0674563-76-6

Vikinger i krig av Vegard Vike, Kim Hjardar. Illustratör Anders Kvåle Rue. Oslo, Spartacus forlag, 2017. ISBN 978-8243011-39-7

This article is also available in Swedish with the title:

Lydnad eller jämställdhet i krigarföljen och hushåll.