This article was downloaded by: [Uniwersytet Warszawski]
On: 24 January 2014, At: 05:01
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Scandinavian Journal of History

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/shis20

Building the Legend of the Battle of
Svoldr

Jakub Morawiec & Przemys

ław Urbańczyk

Published online: 06 Jun 2012.

To cite this article: Jakub Morawiec & Przemys

ław Urbańczyk (2012) Building the

Legend of the Battle of Svoldr, Scandinavian Journal of History, 37:3, 279-295, DOI:

10.1080/03468755.2012.679073

To link to this article:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03468755.2012.679073

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-

and-conditions

Jakub Morawiec
Przemysław Urba ´

nczyk

BUILDING THE LEGEND OF THE BATTLE

OF SVOLDR

The battle that was fought somewhere on the waters of the Øresund in the year 1000 was
undoubtedly important for the political history of early medieval Scandinavia. The battle
has been reported in numerous Scandinavian and other sources. The aim of this article is
to investigate factors that were decisive for building the legendary aspects of the battle and
its presentation in the Old Norse narratives. Despite a long historiographic tradition there
are still issues to discuss: the precise location of the naval encounter, the treachery of Earl
Sigvaldi of Jómsborg, the involvement of Slavs in the battle and the rumours about Óláfr’s
survival. The long discussion about the battle reveals how the need to create a legend of
Óláfr Tryggvason imposed particular motifs that were incorporated in the stories in order to
strengthen his image as a distinguished and saintly king and warrior.

Keywords Battle of Svoldr, Óláfr Tryggvason, Denmark, Norway, Sweden

The battle that was fought somewhere on the waters of the Øresund in the year 1000 was
one of the turning points in the early political history of medieval Scandinavia. The coali-
tion of Sveinn Tjúguskegg (Sven Forkbeard), the king of Denmark, Óláfr sænski (Óláfr
Skötkonung), the king of Sweden, and the Norwegian earl, Earl Eiríkr of Hlaðir (Erik
Ladejarl), won over the Norwegian king, Óláfr Tryggvason. This reinforced Sveinn’s
dominant position in the region. Interestingly, almost immediately there emerged and
started to grow a legend concerning the circumstances of the battle and the persons
involved. Narratives preserved in chronicles and sagas focus mainly on the heroic deeds
of the defeated Óláfr Tryggvason while downplaying the role of the victorious parties –
mainly Sveinn Tjúguskegg.

The circumstances and the course of the battle have been analysed elsewhere.

1

The

aim of this article is to investigate the legendary aspects of the battle and its presentation
in the Old Norse narratives: the precise location of the naval encounter, the treachery of
Earl Sigvaldi of Jómsborg, the involvement of Slavs in the battle and the rumours about
Óláfr’s survival.

The battle is reported in numerous sources, some written shortly after the

event, others more than three centuries later. Two skaldic poems are of particu-

Scandinavian Journal of History Vol. 37, No. 3. July 2012, pp. 279–295
ISSN 0346-8755 print/ISSN 1502-7716 online © 2012 the Historical Associations
of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden
http://www.tandfonline.com

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03468755.2012.679073

Downloaded by [Uniwersytet Warszawski] at 05:01 24 January 2014

280

SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF HISTORY

lar importance here – Hallfreðr Óttarsson’s ‘Óláfsdrápa, erfidrápa’

2

and Halldórr

ókristni’s ‘Eiríksflokkr’.

3

Hallfreðr’s drápa is a memorial poem that commemorates

Óláfr Tryggvason, while Halldórr’s flokkr praises Óláfr’s archenemy, Earl Eiríkr of
Hlaðir. Thus, intriguingly, the poems represent the opposing parties. They were proba-
bly composed only a few years after the event and therefore they offer the most reliable
insight available. Adam of Bremen apparently gained relevant information mainly from
the Danish court of Sveinn Ulfsson.

4

Obviously, the battle is widely and thoroughly described by the later Icelandic–

Norwegian historiography, such as Ari Þorgilsson’s Íslendingabók (1122–33),

5

the synop-

tic histories written in the second half of the 12th century (Ágrip af Nóregskonungaso˛gum,
Historia Norwegie, Theodoricus the Monk’s Historia de Antiquitate Regum Norwagiensium),

6

sagas written in the 12th and 13th centuries (Oddr Snorrason’s Saga Óláfrs Tryggvasonar,
Óláfrs saga Tryggvasonar en mesta), which refer exclusively to Óláfr Tryggvason,

7

and other

kings’ sagas (Fagrskinna and Heimskringla).

8

Their authors relied on both earlier accounts

(skaldic poetry, Adam of Bremen) and persisting oral tradition.

∗

The military encounter was an effect of Óláfr Tryggvason’s attack on Denmark which
had probably been provoked by Earl Eirík’s activity. He had gathered military forces
in Sweden to join Sveinn Tjúguskegg’s army. In fact the king of Denmark and his sup-
porters were probably planning an overseas expedition to England. Anyway, when Óláfr
encountered a concentration of Danish–Swedish–Norwegian naval forces he decided to
openly face them. Such a decision may be explained either as an underestimation of the
enemy’s forces or as an instinctive reaction on the part of the honour-driven king.

The first attack was by the Danes, who most likely did not manage to stop the

Norwegian boats sailing south. This was later interpreted as Sveinn’s defeat. After the
following attack Óláfr’s fleet, which was much smaller, was finally surrounded. He con-
tinued to try to break through the enemy lines, but failed to do so due to a fierce attack
by Earl Eirík’s ships which supported the Danes. The decisive stage began with the suc-
cessful boarding of the famous royal ship, the Long Serpent (Ormrinn langi), which was
defended personally by Óláfr surrounded by his hirð. Finally, the boat was taken and he,
probably trying to get on another boat,

9

drowned in the waters of the Øresund.

10

As a result, Sveinn Tjúguskegg reinforced his domination in the region and could

safely focus on his preparations for the planned attacks on England.

11

The battle’s impor-

tance is broadly reflected in medieval Scandinavian historiography which, however,
focuses on the deeds of the defeated King Óláfr, who soon became an object of a saint-
like adoration. Therefore, in the Old Norse narratives legendary aspects dominated the
overall picture of the battle.

Location of the battle

Even the poems composed soon after the battle are not precise enough regarding the
geographical details. Hallfreðr Óttarsson in Óláfsdrápa erfidrápa mentions only that Óláfr
and his opponents fought ‘in a wide sound near an island’ (á víðu Holms sundi).

12

Halldórr

ókristni (Haldórr the Unchristian) similarly says that they fought ‘near an island’ (at
holmi) where there was ‘a very fierce fjord’ (Fjo˛rð

. . . heldr i harðan).

13

Adam of Bremen

specifies: ‘hoc factum est inter Sconiam et Seland, ubi solent reges navalli bello configere. Est

Downloaded by [Uniwersytet Warszawski] at 05:01 24 January 2014

BUILDING THE LEGEND OF THE BATTLE OF SVOLDR

281

autem brevis traiectus Baltici maris apud Halsingburg, in quo loco Seland a Sconia videri posit’
(the encounter took place between Scania and Zealand, where kings usually go forth
to war at sea; in the short crossing of the Baltic Sea at Helsingborg, where Zealand
can be seen from Scania).

14

As was argued elsewhere, Adam’s and the skalds’ reports

supplement each other and point to Øresund.

15

Later accounts do not agree on the location. Ágrip and Historia Norwegie mention

Zealand and follow closely Adam of Bremen’s account. Others, from Theodoricus
the Monk’s chronicle to Oddr Snorrason’s saga, Fagrskinna and Snorri Sturluson’s
Heimskringla to Ólafs saga Tryggvasonar en mesta, place the battle in the neighbourhood
of an island called Svoldr.

16

This discrepancy is reflected in modern scholarship. Lauritz Weibull, while critically

assessing the sagas, was certain that Adam of Bremen was the first to precisely locate the
battlefield.

17

Other scholars (for example, Alexander Bugge,

18

Finnur Jónsson,

19

Leon

Koczy

20

and Svend Ellehøj

21

) gave priority to the sagas and believed that the battle was

fought at Svoldr, although they were not sure what this name referred to and where the
place was.

22

Oskar Eggert, having compared all saga accounts, came to the conclusion

that there was a river of this name and that the battle took place on the waters between
the town of Barhöft and the island of Hiddensee.

23

Ove Moberg, however, defended

Weibull’s arguments and concluded that if participant Slavic troops came from far away
(as the skalds wrote), the location of the battle in Øresund was more likely.

24

Weibull’s and Moberg’s concepts were challenged by Walter Baetke,

25

who argued

that Adam of Bremen contradicted the skaldic accounts and therefore should be
rejected.

26

Baetke’s criticism referred also to the way in which Icelandic and Norwegian

authors relied on Adam’s opinion. Relying only on Skúli Þorsteinsson’s stanza, he con-
cluded that the battle took place at Svoldr.

27

Gerard Labuda opposed Baetke’s thesis and

argued in favour of Adam of Bremen’s account.

28

He blamed Oddr Snorrason for trans-

ferring the theatre of war from Øresund to Svoldr and claimed that the later authors
automatically based their texts on Oddr.

29

Labuda also noticed that the skalds’ accounts

are not uniform and they were clarified only by Adam.

30

Today the battle is usually

located at Svoldr even if the name’s meaning is unclear.

31

Despite this long-lasting polemic, a careful reading of the medieval sources may still

disclose information which has not yet been noticed. The sagas which refer to Svoldr do
not say precisely where it was located. Oddr and the Fagrskinna locate the island far from
the Slavic coast and close to Scania. However, Theodoricus clearly states that Svoldr was
on the coast of Vindland. Other accounts allow for a similar interpretation – certainly
not the only one.

Another problem is the original meaning of the very name, which occurs in skaldic

poetry, for example, in a stanza which is said to come from a flokkr attributed to Skúli
Þorsteinsson:

Fylgðak Frísa dolgi
(fekk ungr) þars spjo˛r sungu
nú fiðr o˛ld at eldumk,
aldrbót) ok Sigvalda,
þás til móts við mœti
malmþings í dyn hjalma

Downloaded by [Uniwersytet Warszawski] at 05:01 24 January 2014

282

SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF HISTORY

sunnr fyr Svo˛lðrar mynni
sárlauk roðinn bo˛rum.

32

[I followed the enemy of the Frisians (Eiríkr) and Sigvaldi, where the spears sang –
in my youth I earned fame; now can one see that I grow older –, when we carried
the bloody sword in the battle, to the south of the mouth of Svoldr]

Here Svoldr clearly refers to a river, a fjord or a bay. We find a similar expression
(Svo˛lðrar mynni) in Hallar-Stein’s Rekstefja, at least in the version preserved in Óláfs saga
Tryggvasonar en mesta.

33

None of the skalds did locate the river precisely but the author

of Knytlinga saga did so while describing Danish invasions on the Slavic coast of the Baltic
Sea. This led Oskar Eggert to the conclusion that the name Svoldr referred to both a bay
and a river.

34

Consequently, he suggested Grabow and its mouth as the most likely place

where the original Svoldr could be located.

35

Interestingly, the later tradition (Oddr Snorrason’s Ólafs saga, Fagrskinna, Snorri

Sturluson’s Heimskringla and Ólafs saga Tryggvasonar en mesta) included Skúli’s stanza,
which has not however been included in the discussion on the gathering of Óláfr
Tryggvason’s opponents at Svoldr. Thus, it may be assumed that Skúli’s stanza was not
intended to confirm this particular information. Nevertheless, all the above-mentioned
accounts quote it only when describing Earl Sigvaldi’s deeds (see below).

Moreover, none of the saga authors corroborated their accounts of the gathering of

Óláfr Tryggvason’s enemies at Svoldr by using Skúli’s stanza. Perhaps they believed the
information was well known and commonly considered reliable. However, according
to Skúli’s account, and perhaps Hallar-Stein’s as well, Svoldr was the name of a river,
whereas the above-mentioned accounts refer to an island.

Alison Finlay correctly blames the imprecision of the Icelandic authors’ knowl-

edge for this lack of geographic agreement.

36

However, the reason might have been

that medieval authors prioritized other sources of information. They focused on the
fact that the battle was fought near an island (Hallfreðr Óttarsson, Halldórr ókristni)
and assumed that Earl Sigvaldi participated in the described events. This assumption
resulted from identifying Earl Eiríkr with the person whom Skúli described as ‘enemy
of the Frisians’ (Frísa dolgi).

37

According to the stanza, he was accompanied by Earl

Sigvaldi, who was known for his hostility towards Óláfr Tryggvason. Moreover, it was
probably commonly known what Egils saga maintains, that Skúli took part in the battle
at Eirík’s side, onboard the earl’s flagship, the Bard.

38

Gunnlaugs saga ormstungu confirms

that Skúli was a member of the earl’s hirð.

39

Then it was quite easy to infer that the conflict must have been the battle of the

year 1000 and that the participant was Sigvaldi, the earl of Jómsborg and, finally, that it
took place at Svoldr. The fact that the river changed into an island not only shows the
geographic ignorance suggested by Finlay but also a particular way of selecting informa-
tion; that is, the authors were less precise when expressing things they thought to be of
limited importance.

The above observations show that the saga authors drew freely on skaldic tradi-

tion. However, a question arises whether we should, as, for example, Gerard Labuda
suggested,

40

blame the author of the first saga of Óláfr Tryggvason for the transformation

from a river-name to the name of an island.

Downloaded by [Uniwersytet Warszawski] at 05:01 24 January 2014

BUILDING THE LEGEND OF THE BATTLE OF SVOLDR

283

Recently, there has been a tendency to emphasize the significance of the oral tra-

dition which was still important at the time when sagas were written.

41

Examples of

Eyrbyggja saga and Vápnfirðinga saga are particularly significant in this context.

42

Before

the idea of recording the memory of the battle appeared, popular knowledge about Óláfr
Tryggvason, his life and deeds, might have resulted in particular visions subsequently
recorded by the skalds. Later accounts, which originated in the 13th and 14th centuries,
show that Skúli Þorsteinsson’s stanza was not the only available source of information
about the place of the battle.

There is an obvious discrepancy between various skalds. For Hallfreðr Óttarsson

and Halldórr ókristni the battle was fought near an island the name of which they do not
mention. Skúli Þorsteinsson does not mention an island but he refers to an encounter
which took place south of a river which is named but not located precisely. This indicates
that even the relatively early tradition is unreliable regarding the location where the
battle took place. Consequently, the sagas must be even less reliable in this matter. More
promising is the concordance of the contemporary skalds and Adam of Bremen, who all
indicate the waters of Øresund as the location of the battle. Both Hallfreðr and Halldórr
should be treated as reliable contemporary witnesses, especially the latter, who took
part in the encounter.

The treacherous Earl Sigvaldi

Another question concerning the battle is Earl Sigvaldi’s participation,

43

which all the

later texts, from Oddr’s saga to Ólafs saga Tryggvasonar en mesta, present in a similar
manner. According to this standardized story, Sigvaldi was persuaded to join by the
Danes. When Óláfr arrived in Vindland (the land of Slavs), the earl managed to convince
him that rumours about his betrayal had not been true. However, after gaining the king’s
trust the earl led him directly into a trap. All sagas agree that Sigvaldi did not personally
participate in the battle. Only Snorri Sturluson claims that Sigvaldi and his people joined
the fight after Óláfr’s death, when the result of the encounter was predictable. Thus, the
saga authors purposefully created an image of yet another opponent who in a deceitful
and treacherous way contributed to the downfall of the king of Norway.

They used selected skaldic testimonies (the second stanza of Halldórr ókristni’s

Eiríksflokkr, the second stanza of Skúli Þórsteinsson’s Poem of Svoldr and one of Stefnir
Þorgilsson’s detached poems, lausavísur) to corroborate such a vision. In fact, particular
saga authors used the first piece completely freely and with no reflection on its con-
tent, which obviously does not refer to Sigvaldi. Only Snorri Sturlusson and, following
him, the author of Ólafs saga Tryggvasonar en mesta, had no doubts about such identifica-
tion while other authors seem to believe that Halldórr had someone else in mind – for
example the account of Fagrskinna.

In the second part (helming) of this stanza the skald introduced a mysterious earl

of Scanians (jarl Sko˛nunga). Most saga authors identified him as Earl Sigvaldi while the
majority of modern scholars suggested rather Norwegian Earl Eirikr. However, it is also
possible that the name jarl Sko˛nunga refers to the Danish king, Sveinn Tjúguskegg. Such
an interpretation may be supported by a similar expression of the Danish rulers’ author-
ity in Scania found elsewhere in the skaldic corpus. Moreover, it also fits the context
and composition of the whole poem and allows its most likely original meaning to be
grasped.

44

Downloaded by [Uniwersytet Warszawski] at 05:01 24 January 2014

284

SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF HISTORY

The saga authors also quote the second stanza of Skúli Þórsteinsson’s Poem of Svoldr

45

as yet another proof that Earl Sigvaldi personally participated in the events of the year
1000. Both Oddr Snorrason and the author of the Fagrskinna thought that four leaders
(two kings and two earls) took part in the battle and thus ignored the presence of the
Swedish ruler. According to them, ‘little is known of Sigvaldi with relation to this battle’
(er Sigvalda lítt við orrostuna getit) but they referred to Skúli’s stanza as sufficient proof
that Sigvaldi was there (segir í sinum flokki, at Sigvaldi var þar).

Snorri Sturluson and the author of Ólafs saga Tryggvasonar en mesta shared this

opinion and also considered the earl of Jómsborg to have played an important
role. However, surprisingly, they used the Skúli Þórsteinsson’s stanza to prove that
the earl did not participate in the battle but hid near the island, even though
the second stanza of the Poem of Svoldr is rather unambiguous and refers to two
leaders (one of whom was Sigvaldi) who took part in some military encounter.
Perhaps, this particular interpretation by Snorri Sturluson (the author of Ólafs saga
Tryggvasonar en mesta relied in this matter on Heimskringla) resulted from his con-
viction that Óláfr Tryggvason fought against two kings and one earl, who was the
third person listed in the third stanza of the Hallfreðr’s erfidrápa (also quoted by
Snorri).

Thus, once again, the saga authors freely used the skald’s accounts. Heimskringla

clearly shows the way the skald’s authority is used by Snorri Sturluson, who claims
that Sigvaldi did not participate in the battle but was waiting in hiding near the island.
In support he writes: ‘so says Skúli Þórsteinsson who was with Earl Eirikr’ (svá segir Skúli
Þórsteinsson, hann var þá með Eiríki jarli). Undoubtedly, he also identified the earl of Hlaðir,
as Sigvaldi’s companion is described by Skúli as the ‘Frisians’ enemy’ (Frísa dolgr).

Modern scholars mostly agree that in fact the skald was referring to Earl Eiríkr.

46

However, whether the name Frísa dolgr refers to Earl Eiríkr or not is a matter of sec-
ondary importance, because Skúli’s poem is a flokkr made up of stanzas which are only
loosely connected with each other. They refer to mercenary activities undertaken by
the skald himself. Thus, although the saga authors must have been determined to see in
Skúli Þórsteinsson’s description a report from Óláfr Tryggvason’s last battle, the stanza
cannot be used to confirm Sigvaldi’s participation.

Some authors associate Sigvaldi with the events of the year 1000 also on the basis of

one of the lausavísur attributed to Stefnir Þorgilsson:

Munkat nefna
(nær munk stefna:
niðrbjúgt es nef
á níðingi),
þanns Svein konung
sveik ór landi
ok Tryggva son
á tálar dró.

47

[I will not name the one (although I aim accurately: the nose of a scoundrel is
crooked downward), who deprived King Sveinn of his country and deceived the
son of Tryggvi (Óláfr)].

Downloaded by [Uniwersytet Warszawski] at 05:01 24 January 2014

BUILDING THE LEGEND OF THE BATTLE OF SVOLDR

285

Although this stanza (a lampoon in a poetic convention of the defamatory poetry,

níðvísur) does not mention Sigvaldi directly, saga authors quoted it with no doubts as
to whom the skald meant by this unnamed negative character. According to Ólafs saga
Tryggvasonar en mesta, after Óláfr’s death Stefnir was in deep mourning like the king’s
other friends Not wanting to stay in Norway, he made his way to Rome. On his return
via Denmark Stefnir met Earl Sigvaldi and recited his stanza. The earl realized that the
poem was about him and he had the skald killed. Thus, the saga authors freely used
Stefnir’s account because they understood the skald’s words in different ways. However,
they all believed that the stanza referred to Sigvaldi, even though he is not identified by
name. This allowed them to create a new motif for Sigvaldi’s treacherous participation
in the battle of Øresund.

Some modern scholars have also shared such an interpretation. Walter Baetke

attempted to prove that Oddr Snorrason, knowing the account of Jómsvikinga saga,
applied the theme of Sigvaldi’s betrayal as a motif similar to Judas (the hooked nose)
betraying Jesus. Theodore Andersson argues that any final judgements concerning the
stanza’s reliability should be verified by comparison with the Kristni saga,

48

where an

excerpt from Stefnir’s poem also appears. Andersson emphasizes that the skald wanted
to achieve a maximum negative effect (typical of the niðvísur genre) and to offend as
much as possible the addressee of the stanza – supposedly Sigvaldi, whose cruel reaction
is described in the sagas.

49

A closer analysis the stanza opens even more interpretations. Some sagas suggest

that the remark about the king of Denmark refers directly to the events described by
Jómsvikinga saga. Their authors believed that Sigvaldi captured Sveinn and took him to
Jómsborg and, therefore, he must have been the same person who subsequently led
the king of Norway into a trap. In other words the saga authors believed that Stefnir’s
stanzas referred to two separate events: the capture of Sveinn and the plot against Óláfr
Tryggvason.

We cannot, however, preclude that the Stefnir’s stanza (Svein konung sveik ór landi

ok Tryggva son á tálar dró) refers to a single event concerning both Sveinn Tjúguskegg
and Óláfr Tryggvason. If this is the case, the former interpretation of the sagas must be
rejected because the king of Norway did not participate in kidnapping Sveinn, nor did
the king of Denmark lose his kingdom when the trap for Óláfr Tryggvason was being
arranged. Such a perspective, supported by other examples of skaldic poetry (e.g., the
fifth stanza of Hallfreðr Óttarsson’s Ólafsdrápa), leads to the conclusion that Stefnir’s
stanza may refer to events which took place sometime before 995, when, after the
Swedish invasion, the Danish King Sveinn lost power and authority in his patrimony and
had to escape overseas.

50

Probably at that time Óláfr Tryggvason was militarily involved

on Sveinn Tjúguskegg’s side because later they united their forces in England, which is
recorded in the Anglo-Saxon sources.

Once again, Stefnir Þorgilsson’s lausavísa, based on the sagas’ over-interpretations,

does not confirm Sigvaldi’s involvement in the events of the year 1000, but it
was eagerly used to multiply forces which opposed their hero, which explained
why the king’s extraordinary military prowess had not led him to an expected
victory.

Downloaded by [Uniwersytet Warszawski] at 05:01 24 January 2014

286

SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF HISTORY

Involvement of Slavs in the Øresund encounter

The legendary aspects of the tradition also include the problem of the Slavs’ participa-
tion that seems to be confirmed by the seventh stanza of Halldórr ókristni’s Eiríksflokkr
which mentions Slavic ships (Vinda skeiðr).

51

For his part Hallfreðr Óttarsson calls Óláfr

Tryggvason ‘Slayer of the Slavs’ (Vinda myrði).

52

Therefore, it seems very plausible that

there were some Slavs among those who fought in Øresund.

53

Their possible support for

Sveinn Tjúguskegg may be deduced from the presence of Slavic settlements in southern
Sweden and eastern Denmark, which is proved by both archaeological evidence and by
specific toponyms.

54

The same stanzas were used by later saga authors who composed a new story of

the battle, where Óláfr Tryggvason was encouraged by his wife Þyra, Sveinn’s sister, to
regain her property in the Slavic lands. Therefore, he was ready to lead an army to the
south despite his worries about a hostile attitude of the king of Denmark. He sailed to
Jómsborg to see Earl Sigvaldi and his wife Ástrið, Búrizleif’s daughter. All the accounts
emphasize that the king of Norway was warmly welcomed in Vindland by Búrizleifr
(Bolesław Chrobry), and that he met Óláfr Tryggvason’s expectations. However, during
his stay there Óláfr was unexpectedly deserted by most of his warriors who returned
home.

Happily, Óláfr Tryggvason received military support. The synoptic versions men-

tion generally Slavic assistance while Oddr Snorrason and the author of Fagrskinna point
directly at Ástrið as the one who provided these troops. However, Snorri and after him
the author of Ólafs saga Tryggvasonar en mesta claim that the military support was pro-
vided by Earl Sigvaldi. He gave Óláfr 11 ships and the crew of one of them consisted
of Búrizleif’s daughter’s people. Most accounts, except the synoptic histories, state that
the king of Norway left Vindland with a fleet of 71 ships.

Thus, the saga authors associated the Slavs with Óláfr Tryggvason, just like many

scholars today. Leon Koczy suggested that they were probably Pomeranians from the area
of the Oder.

55

Bugge and Ellehøj presented similar views,

56

while Labuda concluded that

they came from the Obodrites, Wagrians or Rugians and fought at Sveinn Tjúguskegg’s
side.

57

In fact the most reliable skaldic poetry confirmed the Slavic hirð participation in the

battle against Óláfr Tryggvason but we cannot connect them with Bolesław Chrobry.
It was rather their normal obligation to militarily support their Danish sovereign.

The stress put by numerous authors on the presence of Slavs should be analysed in

relation to the creation of the legend. It is also interesting that early historiography on
two key battles of Hjørungavåg and of Øresund connects them both with Jómsborg.

Rumours about Óláfr’s survival

The Slavic connection re-emerges in the legend recorded by almost all later sagas and
chronicles, which mention rumours suggesting that Óláfr Tryggvason did not fall during
the battle but managed to escape with the help of his Slavic friends. He was to live
later either in Vindland or somewhere in the south of Europe, or even in Jerusalem.
Interestingly, all authors express their doubts about these rumours – like the author of
Ágrip af Nóregskonungaso˛gum who stated: ‘Some suppose he [Óláfr Tryggvason] got away
in a boat and say that he was seen afterwards in a monastery in the Holy Land, but others

Downloaded by [Uniwersytet Warszawski] at 05:01 24 January 2014

BUILDING THE LEGEND OF THE BATTLE OF SVOLDR

287

think that he fell overboard. But whatever ended his life, it is likely that God has the
soul.’

58

The author of Historia Norwegie was also familiar with the rumours, as can be seen

from the comment that ‘when the battle was over they found him neither alive nor dead,
and because of this some say that, being in armour, he sank under the waves’. There are
others who claim to have seen him long afterwards in a certain monastery. Nevertheless,
his observations are full of cold realism:

But how he may have been brought through the perils of the sea to the firm ground
of the shore – by his own swimming or by a skiff’s conveyance or by spirits angelic
and attendant – or whether he drowned is, I believe, unknown to all our contempo-
raries. Therefore let us more honestly leave the subject by omitting what is indefinite
rather than offer a false opinion on an uncertain fact.

59

Authors of kings’ sagas share a similar view. However, for Oddr Snorrason the most

important point was that the king ended up in heaven and that God appreciated his
contribution in spreading the true faith.

60

In Fagrskinna the author clearly states that the

king’s friends did not take these rumours seriously and did not believe them.

61

Similarly,

Snorri Sturluson in Heimskringla concludes that ‘no matter how it was, King Óláfr
Tryggvason never came back to Norway’.

62

Interestingly, according to these rumours,

Óláfr Tryggvason was saved by Slavs as a consequence of his previous stay in Vindland as
the husband of Búrizleif’s daughter, Geira.

63

Regardless of whether the king of Norway settled as a monk in some monastery

or his further dealings were unknown, a religious aspect of these rumours is visible.
Óláfr Tryggvason is presented almost like a biblical prophet, not to say Christ himself,
as the one who was not recognized by his own people – in this case his Norwegian
subjects (including his army companions). Slavs in general, and Búrizleifr or Ástrið
in particular, play a role of those few who acknowledged Óláfr Tryggvason’s mission
and constantly supported him. For the saga authors his miraculous survival well supple-
mented descriptions of his last moments on board the Long Serpent. In both cases the
divine intervention was decisive for what happened to the king. We can assume that such
rumours circulated broadly and that they originated shortly after the battle.

Thus, several stanzas of Hallfreðr Óttarsson’s Óláfrsdrápa erfidrápa (no. 20–25) refer

to similar rumours spread just after the battle, which suggested that Óláfr Tryggvason
was still alive in hiding and waiting for the suitable moment to return to his Norwegian
kingdom and regain his power. In the first of these stanzas the skald alludes to feelings of
hope and uncertainty shared by supporters of the fallen king: ‘I do not know whether I
should speak about the warrior as he is dead or maybe as alive, because I have been told
both as it was true; the king was certainly wounded; nothing is heard of him anymore.’

64

In the next stanza he admits that it is difficult to trust the rumours and that they give
the king’s supporters false hope: ‘we found it comforting, although people lied, that the
king was alive’.

65

Further on Hallfreðr admits, with resignation: ‘I believe, that brave

in his deeds king of Norwegians is dead.’

66

Interestingly, he does not mention a Slavic

connection. Nor does he suggest Óláfr’s monastic retreat.

Thus, it seems that the details regarding the king’s stay either in Vinland or in a

monastery in Jerusalem were added to the story much later, maybe by the saga authors

Downloaded by [Uniwersytet Warszawski] at 05:01 24 January 2014

288

SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF HISTORY

themselves. Their aim would have been to strengthen the image of the saintly king whose
whole life, as well as his death, was marked by God’s will and grace.

∗

The above analysis of the old-Norse historiography shows how an event constitutive
for three Scandinavian national traditions has been more or less consciously manipu-
lated according to geopolitical positions represented by various medieval authors. The
Norwegian–Icelandic tradition quite naturally tended to promote a story where original
and invented elements were merged in order to prove the greatness and saintly heroism
of the fallen king – the Christianizer.

Interestingly, this tradition derives from the originally different points of view repre-

sented by two contemporaneous witnesses and preserved in skaldic accounts: Halfreðr
Ottarson’s Óláfrsdrápa erfidrápa and Halldórr ókristni’s Eiríksflokkr. Hallfredr wrote a
commemoration of the great king while Halldórr the Unbaptized (ókristni) quite natu-
rally praised the last pagan ruler of Norway, Eiríkr earl of Hlaðir. This well illustrates
the situation typical of the Viking Age when not some abstract national patriotism but a
political loyalty to a concrete leader determined personal position and, hence, the con-
tent of historical comments. Concentrated on the positive presentation of their favourite
heroes both authors omitted details, which would be interesting for reconstructing the
historical settings. Later authors supplemented some more detailed information but it is
difficult today to discern which recorded the generally available memory about the real
events and which was simply invented for the sake of propaganda.

Hallfreðr offers an excellent insight into the political climate in Norway just after the

battle, when news about Óláfr Tryggvason’s death was surely disastrous for his support-
ers and the new political situation posed a serious personal danger for them. Hallfreðr
himself seems to be a good representative of those who, by accepting Christianity and a
new, uncompromising royal policy, could suspect that Earl Eiríkr of Hlaðir, a new ruler
in the country and Óláfr Tryggvason’s arch enemy, would take revenge on all those who
had supported the fallen king. Awareness of the potential threat and grief over the dead
leader gave an impulse to false speculations and hopes that maybe not everything had
been lost, and that, as no one had seen the king’s dead body, he was still alive and would
come back. Those who belonged to the royal court and the retinue were probably espe-
cially willing to trust and spread such rumours. However, Hallfreðr expressed his doubts
regarding Óláfr’s fate.

The long discussion about the battle’s location reveals how the need to create a

legend of Óláfr Tryggvason imposed particular motifs incorporated in the stories to
strengthen the image of Óláfr as a distinguished saintly king and warrior who enjoyed
God’s grace and died as a martyr. This was the main message to convey and not the
precise location of the battle. Therefore, the saga authors paid almost no attention to
the fact that Svoldr, which had been originally a river, later turned into an island in the
absence of precise geographic information.

Building a heroic picture of the missionary king also included the multiplication of

enemies he had to fight during the decisive battle. Thus, Earl Sigvaldi’s active participa-
tion at the Danish king’s side was accepted even if there was no reliable confirmation
of such fact. An in-depth analysis of the sagas and chronicles indicates that also the
suggested connection of both Jómsborg and Slavs with the events of the year 1000 is
probably a historiographic construction.

Downloaded by [Uniwersytet Warszawski] at 05:01 24 January 2014

BUILDING THE LEGEND OF THE BATTLE OF SVOLDR

289

Óláfr Tryggvason’s last battle was a perfect opportunity for saga authors to achieve

the goal of proving that he was a model ruler and a Christian and that he deserved to
be considered almost a saint as well as a brave ruler-warrior (particularly emphasized by
Oddr Snorrason). The memory of the king’s connections with the Slavs was also used
and redefined to add a dramatic touch to the battle of Svoldr. Óláfr’s frequent visits to
the Slavic coast (including Wolin

/Jómsborg), as an invader and/or a mercenary,

67

must

have been so important for his popularity that they were recorded by his contemporaries
and later used to develop his legend.

We may only speculate that this was a long-lasting effect of the atmosphere cre-

ated by those who counted on Óláfr Tryggvason’s appointment as the patron saint of
Norway. These hopes failed when 30 years later Óláfr Haraldsson also fell in a battle.
And the latter appeared to be an even more suitable candidate for sainthood as he was
killed at Stiklestad by pagans and, what is crucial, his dead body was recovered and
could serve as a physical foundation for strengthening the rule of Christian monarchs
over a Christian country. However, emotions connected to Óláfr Tryggvason survived,
recorded in written and oral tradition.

Another interesting aspect of the descriptions of the battle of Svoldr is the lack of

references to one of the anti-Óláfr allies. Early storytellers ignore the participation of
a Swedish fleet in the battle, which only confirms that it was the Danish–Norwegian
struggle for domination over Scandinavia that was the focus of their attention. However,
this omission may also reflect the actually passive position of Óláfr sænski (the Swedish),
whose political interest was to weaken both of his powerful neighbours. Therefore, just
like his father, he looked for an alliance with the overseas Poland where he also sought
support for his attempts to convert the Swedes. It is interesting to compare the above-
presented visions recorded in Icelandic–Norwegian sources with the tradition which
took shape in Denmark, even if the latter is comparatively late. It is understandable that
in the Icelandic–Norwegian tradition Olafr’s party is presented as more courageous and
bold than the victorious Danes and Swedes, while Danish traditions tried to diminish the
heroism of the defeated.

In Book X of his Gesta Danorum, Saxo Grammaticus limits his account to the direct

confrontation between Sveinn Tjúguskegg and Óláfr Tryggvason.

68

He does not mention

Earl Eiríkr at all and only once indirectly recalls Óláfr sænski, adding that Sveinn’s party
was reinforced by his stepson.

69

In this version, Óláfr’s luck in battles totally depended

on the excellent archer Enarus and his lucky bow.

70

Sveinn, ‘terrified of the weapon and

alarmed by this one warrior than by the whole lot of the enemy’,

71

ordered his men to

destroy the bow, ‘hoping for a less hazardous battle’.

72

And, in fact, the destruction of

the bow was decisive as shortly afterwards ‘Óláfr killed himself by leaping to the bottom
of the sea under the weight of his armour’.

73

Thus, Saxo focused his account on the direct circumstances of the battle. He recalls

Óláfr Tryggvason’s unsuccessful attempts to marry Sveinn’s daughter Thyra and the
Swedish queen Sygritha, who eventually became Sveinn’s wife.

74

‘She was hostile to

Óláfr’ because once when he had invited her to his ship ‘some tricksters’ pulled a
footbridge away when she was climbing on board, so ‘she was pitched headlong into
the water’.

75

Saxo, in his account, seems rather to stress a contemptuous image of

Norwegians and their king than to praise Sveinn for the victory. Norwegians were
defeated because they were ‘schooled in deceit and derision’ and Óláfr Tryggvason fell

Downloaded by [Uniwersytet Warszawski] at 05:01 24 January 2014

290

SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF HISTORY

in the battle which resulted in Sveinn’s subjection of Norway because he ‘calculated not
on his strength but on his luck’.

Whichever of the early historiographic positions we accept there is no doubt that

the battle of Øresund was important for the history of the North. The Danish king
regained political control over Norway, even if it was directly ruled by his protégée,
Earl Eiríkr, and strengthened Sveinn’s dominant position in Scandinavia. Nevertheless,
for later saga authors the most important consequence of the military encounter was
the death of the missionary Norwegian king and this perspective influenced the shape of
their descriptions of the battle and its circumstances which underwent gradual mythol-
ogization – similar to the even more legendary battle of Brávellir. A series of imagined
events formed the legend of Óláfr who fell as a martyr in the battle lost because of a
betrayal. Such a version made the defeated Óláfr morally victorious while the winners
proved weak and inferior. To achieve such a result it was necessary for the saga authors
not only to use the skaldic inheritance but also to reshape the presentation of the course
of events.

Notes

1

Morawiec, ‘Kilka uwag’, 17–31.

2

Jónsson, Den norsk-islandske Skjaldedigtning, 170–3; Morawiec, Skipt es á gumna
giptu’, 262.

3

Jónsson, Den norsk-islandske Skjaldedigtning, 193–5.

4

Adami Gesta Hammaburgensis, book II, chapter 40.

5

Ari Þorgilsson, ‘Íslendingabók’, 17–18.

6

Theodorici Monachi, chapter 14; Ágrip af Nóregskonungaso˛gum, chapter 20; Historia
Norwegie, chapter 17.

7

Oddr Snorrason, Saga Óláfs Tryggvasonar, chapters 62–73; Óláfs saga Tryggvasonar en
mesta, chapters 241–55.

8

Fagrskinna. Nóregs kononga tal, 116–31; Snorri Sturluson, Heimskringla, 343–68.

9

According to the sagas, Óláfr ordered the ships to be tied together at the beginning
of the battle.

10

Morawiec, ‘Kilka uwag’, 30–1; Morawiec, Vikings among the Slavs, 243–5.

11

See Howard, Swein Forkbeard’s Invasions.

12

Jónsson, Den norsk-islandske Skjaldedigtning, 154. See Morawiec, ‘Kilka uwag’, 21.

13

Jónsson, Den norsk-islandske Skjaldedigtning, 193. See Morawiec, ‘Kilka uwag’, 23.

14

Adami Gesta Hammaburgensis, book II, chapters 40, 100.

15

See Labuda, Fragmenty dziejów Słowia´nszczyzny zachodniej, 28.

16

See Morawiec, Vikings among the Slavs, 245–9.

17

Weibull, Kritiska undersökningar i Nordens historia, 110–11.

18

Bugge, ‘Sandhed og digt’, especially 30–4.

19

Jónsson, ‘Hvor faldt Olaf Tryggvason?’

20

Koczy, Polska i Skandynawia za pierwszych Piastów, 89–90.

21

Ellehøj, ‘Olav Tryggvesons fald og Venderne’, 3.

22

Bugge, ‘Sandhed og digt’, 34.

23

Eggert, ‘Die Wendenzüge’, 119.

24

Moberg, ‘Slaget vid Svolder eller slaget i Öresund?’

Downloaded by [Uniwersytet Warszawski] at 05:01 24 January 2014

BUILDING THE LEGEND OF THE BATTLE OF SVOLDR

291

25

Baetke, ‘Christliches Lehngut in der Sagareligion’, 59–135.

26

Ibid., 73, 76.

27

Ibid., 99.

28

Labuda, Fragmenty dziejów Słowia´nszczyzny zachodniej, 235–47.

29

Ibid., 243.

30

Ibid., 246–7.

31

According to Else Roesdahl this is the name of some unknown location on
Danish waters, see Roesdahl, ‘Denmark – A Thousand Years Ago’, 351. See also
Finlay, ‘History and Fantasy’, 253. One should, in contrast, definitely reject Bengt
Holmström’s opinion that the battle took place at the mouth of river Göta, see
Holmström, ‘Kring Skotkonungs landmäre’.

32

Jónsson, Den norsk-islandske Skjaldedigtning, 283.

33

Óláfs saga Tryggvasonar en mesta, 253.

34

Eggert, ‘Die Wendenzüge’, 113.

35

Ibid., 121.

36

Fagrskinna, a Catalogue of the Kings of Norway, 166, note 301.

37

See Baetke, ‘Christliches Lehngut in der Sagareligiono˛, 92–3; Labuda, Fragmenty
dziejów Słowia´nszczyzny zachodniej, 244, note 34 (with further references).

38

Egils saga Skallagrimsonar, 300: ‘Skúli var lengi í víking; hann var stafnbúi Eiríks jarls
á Járnbarðanum, þá er Óláfr konungr Tryggvason fell’. As the author of the saga
mentions, it seems crucial that Skúli was for a long time busy with Viking raids.
However, there is no reference to Svoldr or to Skúli’s stanza in the narrative when
Olaf Tryggvason’s battle is mentioned.

39

‘Gunnlaugs saga ormstungu’, 68: ‘Skúli Þorsteinsson var þá með jarli ok var hirðmaðr
hans ok vel metinn’.

40

Labuda, Fragmenty dziejów Słowia´nszczyzny zachodniej, 243.

41

See Danielsson, Hrafnkels saga; Danielsson, Sagorna om Norges kungar; Sigurðsson, The
Medieval Icelandic Saga; and Andersson, The Growth of the Medieval Icelandic Sagas.

42

O’Donoghue, Skaldic Verse and the Poetics of Saga Narrative, 78–93; Sigurðsson, The
Medieval Icelandic Saga, 128–84, 248.

43

This motif has also been analysed elsewhere, see Morawiec, ‘Jarl Sigvaldi’, 69–89.

44

Morawiec, Vikings among the Slavs, 283–8.

45

Jónsson, Den norsk-islandske Skjaldedigtning, 283.

46

Weibull, Kritiska undersökningar i Nordens historia, 127; Moberg, ‘Slaget’,
4–5; Koczy, Polska i Skandynawia, 101; Baetke, ‘Christliches Lehngut in der
Sagareligiono˛, 92–5; Labuda, Fragmenty dziejów Słowia´nszczyzny zachodniej, 244–5.
Labuda is wrong in maintaining that the quoted stanza is a part of a poem
devoted to Earl Eirík; Labuda, Fragmenty dziejów Słowia´nszczyzny zachodniej, 245,
note 34.

47

Jónsson, Den norsk-islandske Skjaldedigtning, 146.

48

Andersson, ‘Introduction’, 21.

49

Ibid., 23.

50

Adami Gesta Hammaburgensis, book II, chapters 30, 91–2.

51

Jónsson, Den norsk-islandske Skjaldedigtning, 194.

52

Ibid., 151. See also Morawiec, ‘Vinða myrðir, Vindum hattr’.

53

Labuda, Fragmenty dziejów Słowia´nszczyzny zachodniej, 258; Morawiec, ‘Kilka
uwag’, 28.

54

Housted, Stednavne af slavisk oprindelse.

Downloaded by [Uniwersytet Warszawski] at 05:01 24 January 2014

292

SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF HISTORY

55

Koczy, Polska i Skandynawia, 96–9.

56

Bugge, ‘Sandhed og digt’, 31–2; Ellehøj, ‘Olav Tryggvesons fald’, 6–14.

57

Labuda, Fragmenty dziejów Słowia´nszczyzny zachodniej, 252–3, 258–9.

58

Ágrip af Nóregskonungaso˛gum, chapters 20, 34.

59

Historia Norwegie, chapters 17, 100.

60

Oddr Snorrason, Saga Óláfs Tryggvasonar, chapters 74, 233.

61

Fagrskinna. Nóregs kononga tal, 131.

62

Snorri Sturluson, Heimskringla, 368.

63

See Morawiec, ‘Olaf Tryggvason i Jomsborg’; Morawiec, Vikings among the Slavs,
169–90.

64

Jónsson, Den norsk-islandske Skjaldedigtning, 154.

65

Ibid., 155.

66

Ibid.

67

See Morawiec, ‘Olaf Tryggvason i Jomsborg’.

68

Saxonis Grammatici Gesta Danorum, book X, chapter XII.

69

Ibid., 283.

70

Enarus should be identified with Einarr þambaskelfir, a Norwegian who, according
to various kings’ sagas, served several Norwegian kings: Óláfr Tryggvason, Óláfr
Haraldsson, Magnus góði and Haraldr harðráði. Einarr was famous not only as a great
warrior (being only 18 years of age when he fought at Svoldr as a crew member
of the Long Serpent) but also a politician and the king’s advisor. According to the
sagas, he was responsible for bringing Magnus góði to Norway and making him a king.
On Einarr, see Uspienskij, ‘From the History of the Obscene’ (further references
there).

71

Saxonis Gesta Danorum, book X, chapter XII, 284: ‘tormenti monstro territus, plus
metus in unico stipite quam tota hostium classe reponeret’.

72

Ibid., 284: ‘violata arcus fortuna tutius bellum gerere cupiens’.

73

Ibid., 284: ‘ut autem Olavus hostium manus arbitrario fato praecurreret mortemque
sibi ipse conscisceret, armis onustus praecipiti saltu profundum petiit’.

74

Ibid., 282.

75

Ibid., 283.

References

Adami Gesta Hammaburgensis Ecclesiae Pontificum. Ed. Bernhard Schmeidler. MGH Scriptores

Rerum Germanicarum in usum scholarum. Hannover: Hahnsche Buchhandlung,
1917.

Ágrip af Nóregskonungaso˛gum. A Twelfth-century Synoptic History of the Kings of Norway. Ed.

and trans. Matthew J. Driscoll. London: Viking Society for Northern Research,
1995.

Andersson, Theodore M. ‘Introduction’. In The Saga of Olaf Tryggvason by Oddr Snorrason, ed.

Theodore M. Andersson, 1–30. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2003.

———. The Growth of the Medieval Icelandic Sagas (1180–1280). Ithaca: Cornell University

Press, 2006.

Ari Þorgilsson. ‘Íslendingabók’. In Íslenzk fornrit, vol. 1, ed. Jakob Benediktsson, 1–28.

Reykjavík: Hið íslenzka fornritafélag, 1968.

Downloaded by [Uniwersytet Warszawski] at 05:01 24 January 2014

BUILDING THE LEGEND OF THE BATTLE OF SVOLDR

293

Baetke, Walther. ‘Christliches Lehngut in der Sagareligion – Das Svoldrproblem. Zwei

Beiträge zur Sagakritik’. Berichte über die Verhandlungen der sächsischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften zu Leipzig 98, no. 6 (1951): 59–135.

Bugge, Alexander. ‘Sandhed og digt om Olav Tryggvason’. Aarbøger for nordisk Oldkyndighet

og Historie 25 (1910): 1–34.

Danielsson, Tommy. Hrafnkels saga eller fallet med den undflyende traditionen. Hedemora:

Gidlund, 2002.

———. Sagorna om Norges kungar. Från Magnús góði till Magnús Erlingsson. Hedemora:

Gidlund, 2002.

Eggert, Oskar. ‘Die Wendenzüge Waldemars I. und Knuts VI. von Dänemark nach

Pommern und Mecklenburg’. Baltische Studien, new series, 29 (1927): 1–151.

Egils saga skallagrimsonar. Íslenzk fornrit. Vol. 2. Ed. Sigurður Nordal. Reykjavík: Hið íslenzka

fornritafélag, 1933.

Ellehøj, Svend. ‘Olav Tryggvesons fald og Venderne’. Historisk tidsskrift (Danish) 11, no. 4

(1953): 1–55.

Fagrskinna. Nóregs kononga tal, ed. Finnur Jónsson. Copenhagen: Samfund til udgivelse af

gammel nordisk litteratur, 1902–3.

Fagrskinna, a Catalogue of the Kings of Norway. A Translation with Introduction and Notes, ed.

Alison Finlay. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2004.

Fidjestøl, Bjarne. Det norrøne fyrstedigte. Øvre Ervik: Alvheim & Eide, 1980.
Finlay, Alison. ‘History and Fantasy in Jómsvikinga saga’. In The Fantastic in Old

Norse

/Icelandic Literature, Papers of the 13th International Saga Conference, ed. John

McKinnell, David Ashurst, and Donata Kick, 248–57. Durham: Centre for Medieval
and Renaissance Studies, Durham University, 2006.

‘Gunnlaugs saga ormstungu’. In Íslenzk fornrit, vol. 3, ed. Sigurður Nordal and Guðni

Jónson, 49–107. Reykjavík: Hið íslenzka fornritafélag, 1938.

Historia Norwegie, ed. Inger Ekrem and Lars Boje Mortensen. Copenhagen: Museum

Tusculanum Press, 2003.

Holmström, Bengt. ‘Kring Skotkonungs landmäre’. In Scandinavia and Christian Europe, Papers

of the 12th International Saga Conference, ed. Rudolf Simek and Judith Meurer, 238–43.
Bonn: Universität Bonn, 2003.

Housted, Friederike, W. Stednavne af slavisk oprindelse på Lolland, Falster og Møn. Copenhagen:

Reitzel, 1994.

Howard, Ian. Swein Forkbeard’s Invasions and the Danish Conquest of England 991–1017.

Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2003.

Jónsson, Finnur. ‘Hvor faldt Olaf Tryggvason?’ Historisk Tidsskrift (Danish) 8, no. 3

(1910–12): 184–94.

———. Den norsk-islandske Skjaldedigtning. Vol. B1, Rettet tekst. Copenhagen and Kristania:

Gyldendal and Nordisk forlag, 1912–15.

Koczy, Leon. Polska i Skandynawia za pierwszych Piastów. Pozna´n: Pozna´nskie Towarzystwo

Przyjaciół Nauk, 1934.

Labuda, Gerard. Fragmenty dziejów Słowia´nszczyzny zachodniej. Vol. 2. Pozna´n: Wydawnictwo

Pozna´nskie, 1964.

Moberg, Ove. ‘Slaget vid Svolder eller slaget i Öresund? – Lokalisieringen av Olav

Tryggvasons sista strid’. Historisk tidskrift (Norwegian) 22 (1940): 1–24.

Morawiec, Jakub. ‘Kilka uwag o okoliczno´sciach i skutkach bitwy w Øresundzie’.

´Sredniowiecze polskie i powszechne 3 (2004): 17–31.

Downloaded by [Uniwersytet Warszawski] at 05:01 24 January 2014

294

SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF HISTORY

———. ‘Vinða myrðir, Vindum hattr. Najazdy skandynawskich hovdingów na ziemie

Słowian w ´swietle wierszy skaldów’. Przegl ˛

ad Historyczny 96 (2005): 525–41.

———. ‘Skipt es á gumna giptu. Hallfreðr Óttarsson vandræðaskáld i jego poezja na tle

przełomowych wydarze´n w Norwegii ko´nca X i pocz ˛

atku XI wieku’. Studia Historyczne

50 (2007): 259–78.

———. Vikings among the Slavs. Jomsborg and the Jomsvikings in Old Norse Tradition. Studia

Medievalia Septentrionalia B. 17. Wien: Fassbaender, 2009.

———. ‘Jarl Sigvaldi and the Battle at Svoldr in the Saga Tradition’. Folia Scandinavica

Posnaniensa 10 (2009): 69–89.

———. ‘Olaf Tryggvason i Jomsborg – Pomi˛edzy legend ˛

a a historyczn ˛

a rzeczywisto´sci ˛

a’.

´Sredniowiecze Polskie i Powszechne 1, no. 5 (2009): 19–40.

Oddr Snorrason. Saga Óláfs Tryggvasonar. Ed. Finnur Jónsson. Copenhagen: Gad, 1932.
O’Donoghue, Heather. Skaldic Verse and the Poetics of Saga Narrative. Oxford: Oxford

University Press, 2005.

Óláfs saga Tryggvasonar en mesta. Vol. 2. Ed. Ólafur Halldórsson. Editiones Arnamagnæanæ

A, 2. Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1960.

Roesdahl, Else. ‘Denmark – A Thousand Years Ago’. In Europe around the Year 1000, ed.

Przemysław Urba´nczyk, 351–66. Warsaw: DiG, 2001.

Saxonis Grammatici Gesta Danorum. Vol. 1. Ed. Jørgen Olrik and Henrik Ræder. Copenhagen:

Levin

/Munskgaard, 1931.

Sigurðsson, Gísli. The Medieval Icelandic Saga and Oral Tradition: A Discourse on Method.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004.

Snorri Sturluson. Heimskringla. Vol. I. Íslenzk fornrit. Vol. 26, 4th ed. Ed. Bjarni

Aðalbjarnarson. Reykjavík: Hið íslenzka fornritafélag, 2002.

Theodorici Monachi Historia de antiquitate regum Norwagiensum. Monumenta Historica

Norvegiæ, Latinske kildeskrifter. Ed. Gustav Storm. Kristania: Brøgger, 1880.

Uspienskij, Fjodor. ‘From the History of the Obscene: Evident and Concealed Meanings of

the Nickname Þambarskelfir’. In á austrvega. Saga and East Scandinavia Preprint Papers
of the 14th Saga Conference, Uppsala 9th–15th August 2009, ed. Agneta Ney, Henrik
Wiliams, and Fredrik Charpentier Ljungqvist, 975–82. Gävle: Gävle University
Press, 2009.

Weibull, Lauritz. Kritiska undersökningar i Nordens historia omkrimg år w1000. Lund: Gleerup,

1911.

Jakub Morawiec, Ph.D. His fields of research are the history of medieval Scandinavia

and Poland, and Old Norse literature. His numerous publications include: Viking among the

Slavs. Jomsborg and Jomsvikings in Old Norse Tradition (Vienna, 2009), Between Paganism

and Christianity in the North, co-edited with L. P. Slupecki (Rzeszów, 2009), and a Polish

translation of Hallfreðar saga (Wrocław, 2011). Address: Institute of History, University of

Silesia ul. Bankowa 11, 40-007 Katowice, Poland. [email: [e-mail]]

Przemysław Urba ´

nczyk is Professor at the Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski University in

Warsaw. His fields of research are archaeology and the history of the Middle Ages in

Poland, Central Europe, Scandinavia and the North Atlantic region; the theory of archae-

ological research; the methods of archaeological excavation; and the history of archaeol-

ogy. His over 300 publications include Medieval Arctic Norway (Warsaw, 1992), Zdobywcy

Północnego Atlantyku [Conquerors of the North Atlantic] (Wrocław, 2004); Franks,

Downloaded by [Uniwersytet Warszawski] at 05:01 24 January 2014

BUILDING THE LEGEND OF THE BATTLE OF SVOLDR

295

Northmen and Slavs. Identities and State Formation in Early Medieval Europe, co-edited

with I. Garipzanov and P. Geary (Turnhout, 2008); Hybrid Spaces. Medieval Finnmark and

the Archaeology of Multi-Room Houses, co-edited with B. Olsen and C. Amundsen (Oslo,

2011). Address: Institute of Archaeology, Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski University in Warsaw,

ul. Wóycickiego 1

/3 bl. 23, 01-938 Warsaw, Poland. [email: [e-mail]]

Downloaded by [Uniwersytet Warszawski] at 05:01 24 January 2014