authun

If you say vikings fought on their own lands, who do you suppose they were fighting if not each other?

Harald Bluetooth was involved in a number of foreign enterprises within Scandinavia. In 961 he travelled to Norway and declared Harald Greycloak, a king in western Norway, to be his vassal. Greycloak eventually was tricked into going to Denmark where he was assasinated. Bluetooths adventures against the Swedes were less successful, twice being defeated by the Jomsvikings, under the prince Styrbjörn.

Harald Bluetooth is credited with unifying Denmark in about 958 but until then it had seen warfare from at least the 2nd century. One only has to look at the weapons sacrifices at Nydam, Thorsbjerg, Illerup, Vimose, Villestofte etc. One only has to look at the great changes that occurred around 550 AD when there is a shift from tribal units to units where power became based around individual centres to see that there were always groups competing against each other. You can forget any romantic notions of a feeling of 'fellow danes, norwegians and swedes'. They fought as much against each other in Scandinavia as they did in Ireland:

"The complement of eight score ships of fair-haired foreigners came to Snám Aignech, to do battle with the dark foreigners; they fought for three days and three nights, but the dark foreigners got the upper hand and the others abandoned their ships to them. Stain took flight, and escaped, and Iercne fell beheaded."

The viking period in England starts with the raid on Lindisfarne in 793 AD when Sigfred is named as a King in Denmark, not of Denmark. This is some 200 years before Sweyn Forkbeard and some 230 years before Canute.

The Great Danish Army commanded by Halfdan Ragnarsson and Ivar the Boneless landed in England in 865.

starkodder

Yes, the danes/norwegians/swedes did indeed fight each other during many hundreds of years, before, during and after the viking era and indeed long before any larger kingdoms had evolved. Numbers varied, from one-ships raids up to hundreds where whole kingdoms were involved.

The only "counter-attack" that I have read about is an anecdotal raid by "scots" on the western coast of Sweden, who lost the battle. If this story is based on reality and who these scots really were I don´t know. It could perhaps have been Norwegian vikings from Scotland.

starkodder

Here is more information on the Scots:

Greby Gravfält (Barrow Cemetery) | Sweden | The Modern Antiquarian.com

Edgewaters

The Anglo-Saxons weren't really able to counterattack, but of course, England wasn't the only place under attack - and some of the others were able to threaten the Vikings on their home soil.

Classic example would be the Frankish kingdom, which clobbered all of the Danes neighbours and then started looking in their direction. The Danes hastily threw up earthworks and palisades along their entire southern border, a defensive line known as the Danevirke which you can still see today.

authun

It took the might of the Holy Roman Empire well over thirty years to subdue the Saxons and they weren't in a position to attack the Danes. In fact when Charlemagne agreed the river Eider as the border with the danish king Godfried at the end of the 8th cent. the viking attacks on England and the Frankish empire began. The Danevirke was built to protect the portage route from Hedeby to Hollingstedt, which controlled the Baltic - North Sea trade and the Oxenweg which controlled the overland route between Scandinavia and central europe. Everything had to pass through this 19km strip of land. The Franks also had to protect their eastern flank against the Wends with the building of the Limes Saxoniae in south jutland

beorna

The regnum francorum, not the HRE.

Edgewaters

Not in a position to attack? They DID attack. Shortly after the Danevirke was built, Louis the Pious invaded Jutland and stormed right over the defenses. The campaign was ultimately unsuccesful but nevertheless - the Danevirke was built in anticipation of an attack from the Franks/HRE which really did happen not that long after.

authun

What I meant by 'not in a position to attack' was that after their subjugation of the Saxons, Charlemagne was not in a position to follow on and attempt to subjugate the Danes.

The Danewerk was started sometime around 650 AD and the Hauptwall finished around 737 AD according to the dating. So it is much older than the the events that you describe. Godfred added to the defences in a second building phase by the addition of the Kograben, if indeed that is the new construction mentioned in the frankish annals for 808. It may have been built later by Harold Bluetooth.

Louis' incursions are a completely different matter and in support of Harald Klak's claim to the disputed danish throne held by the sons of Godfred. The first attempt in 815 merely resulted in looting with Harald returning to Saxony. The second attempt in 819 met with some success with Harald forming an agreement to share the throne with 2 of Godfred's 4 sons in 821. This is hardly a situation that can be described as the Franks storming over the defences. The protagonists are Danes, Obrodites and Saxons aided by Louis, as reported in the frankish annals "aid was given to Heriold against them."

Edgewaters

There is hardly a war in the Middle Ages (or, for that matter, in the Roman period) where the invader didn't have a puppet heir in the wings, waiting to take the throne.

Whether or not they achieved their aims has nothing to do with whether they physically stormed the Danevirke or not. They did that. Their armies broke through it. It doesn't matter if all they did was loot. Frankish armies invaded, broke through the Danevirke.

authun

Yes, thanks. I was jumping the starter's pistol.