Cross and Scepter (34 page)

From now on, Nordic politics would be a struggle between two dynastic alliances, the old Nordic dynasties, represented by Magnus, HÃ¥kon and Margrete, and their descendants, and the
Mecklenburgers, who traced their claim through the 1321 marriage between Magnus's sister and the duke of Mecklenburg. Territorially, this meant an alliance between Denmark, Norway, and some of the western landscapes of Sweden against the rest of Sweden and Mecklenburg, with both sides seeking various allies outside the Nordic countries and both in fact trying to gain control of all three kingdoms. After Valdemar's death in 1375, HÃ¥kon and Margrete's son Olav (Danish, Oluf) was elected in Denmark, with Margrete as regent, in competition with Albrecht of Mecklenburg. When Olav died at the age of seventeen in 1387, Margrete replaced him with her sister's son Erik, son of the duke of Pomerania, who is usually referred to as Erik of Pomerania in Scandinavian historiography.

Whereas Denmark overcame its internal conflicts during the fourteenth century, there was frequent discord between the monarchy and the aristocracy in Sweden. The first Scandinavian union, between Norway and Sweden, was the result of a united aristocratic opposition against King Birger, who had murdered his brothers, and led to government by an aristocratic council of the realm in both countries during Magnus's minority (1319–1331). Having taken over the government of the two kingdoms himself, Magnus eventually met with aristocratic opposition in both of them, first in Norway, and then, and more seriously, in Sweden. It is open to discussion to what extent we are dealing here with a radical opposition between monarchy and aristocracy or with reactions to a temporary financial crisis, as in Sweden in the 1350s, or dissatisfaction on the part of particular groups or individuals, as in Norway in the 1330s and '40s. In any case, it is clear that the Swedish aristocracy in the second half of the fourteenth century had strong and well-defined interests and was able to defend them against the king.

The dynastic conflict in 1357–1359, when King Magnus' eldest son Erik rebelled against his father, may possibly be interpreted as a result of aristocratic discontent with the king, for which the
young Erik—aged eighteen—was only an instrument. This discontent persisted after Erik's sudden death in 1359 and King Magnus's replacement by Albrecht of Mecklenburg in 1364. Albrecht gave Swedish
len
to nobles from Mecklenburg, which provoked the Swedish aristocracy. In 1371, however, the aristocracy exploited an attempt by Magnus' son HÃ¥kon to bring back the old dynasty and forced Albrecht to leave control of the
len
to the council of the realm. Albrecht now became king in name only, but in 1386, he saw an opportunity to regain power. The occasion for this was the death of the most powerful man in Sweden, Bo Jonsson Grip, who held the largest number of
len
in the country. Albrecht attempted to take control of them and distribute them to his adherents. Although Bo had made an elaborate testament calculated to keep the
len
for his relatives and other Swedish aristocrats, Albrecht found an ally in Bo's widow, who was from Mecklenburg, while at the same time concluding an alliance with a number of German princes. This made the Swedish aristocracy turn to Margrete and conclude an alliance with her in Dalaborg early in 1388. Here they not only elected her their ruler, but also accepted royal control of the
len
, although on the condition that they be given to Swedes. To some extent, they thus agreed in what they had rebelled against Albrecht to prevent. They found themselves in a difficult situation and chose the lesser evil.

A Danish army invaded Sweden, defeated Albrecht, and took him captive in the battle of Åsle in 1389. The war continued with the Mecklenburgers still in control of Stockholm and their allies plundering the coasts of the Scandinavian countries, until a temporary peace was concluded in 1395, which became permanent three years later, resulting in Margrete gaining control of Stockholm and Albrecht in effect giving up his claim on the Swedish throne. A union of the three Scandinavian countries was established in Kalmar in 1397.

The Kalmar Union

The Kalmar Union has been the subject of much discussion among Scandinavian historians. The national revival in the nineteenth century led to a negative view of the union in Sweden and Norway: it was a Danish project aimed at conquering the neighboring countries. This view received scholarly sanction from the Danish historian Kristian Erslev, who did not seek a specifically Danish interpretation of the union, but on the basis of his examination of the sources concluded that this was the most likely interpretation. Erslev was challenged by the Swedish historian Erik Lönnroth in 1934. According to Lönnroth, the lines of division during the conflicts over the Kalmar Union were not between nations but between monarchy and aristocracy, represented by political ideologies—the monarchical
regimen regale
(royal government) versus the aristocratic
regimen politicum
(government by the people). This was expressed already in the founding documents of the union and remained the main issue throughout the union period.

Two documents have been preserved from the meeting in Kalmar, usually referred to as the Coronation Charter and the Union letter. In the former, a number of prelates and noblemen, listed according to rank, regardless of country, acclaim Erik as king of all three countries, without adding any specific provisions about the form that the government should take or the relationship between the countries. This charter is issued on parchment and with pendant seals, in the manner of formal charters. The second document gives detailed provisions for a permanent union between the three countries. It is written on paper and issued by seventeen men, only ten of whom impressed their seals on it, but it refers to more formal charters to be issued in the future. The relationship between the two documents and the interpretation of the Union letter have been the subject of considerable controversy.
Some scholars regard the latter as only a draft, while others claim that it was regarded as valid in at least some circles and point to some later evidence in support of this position. According to the national interpretation, the Union letter was an attempt by Margrete to link the three kingdoms more strongly together. Lönnroth disagreed, regarding the Coronation Charter as the expression of
regimen regale
and the Union letter as the expression of
regimen politicum
. Margrete did not want to include in the Charter any hard and fast rules about the government, which Lönnroth interprets as an expression of
regimen regale,
giving the ruler maximum freedom, whereas the aristocracy wanted a union that would grant greater influence to the council of the realm and limit royal power. As Margrete did not want the latter, she managed to prevent the Union letter from being formally issued. Lönnroth dismissed the importance of national considerations, regarding the relationship between monarchy and aristocracy as the only issue.

Although Lönnroth may be right in perceiving different attitudes toward the monarchy in the two documents, he most probably exaggerates this difference. The opposition between
regimen regale
and
regimen politicum
was hardly as pronounced as Lönnroth assumes and, more to the point, it is difficult to find a consistent and well-developed theory of the former in the terse and vague wording of the Coronation Charter. Moreover, whatever the importance of constitutional matters, the documents show a clear contrast between a loose union, consisting only in the election of a common king, and a tight union, intended to last forever and with specific conditions, including the obligation that each country aid the others in war. It may well have been a divisive issue, either alone or together with the opposition between monarchy and aristocracy. It may also be objected that most of the men who issued the Union letter are known to have been Margrete's adherents. There is today growing sentiment against Lönnroth's
interpretation for rejecting the national issue, not only in his interpretation of the Kalmar documents but also in his account of the following period.

The fundamental factors explaining the Kalmar Union are the dynastic development and the revival of the Danish monarchy. When the marriage between HÃ¥kon and Margrete resulted in a son who was heir to all the Scandinavian kingdoms, it became obvious policy for the Danish monarchy to seek his election in all of them, and, after his death, to secure a replacement for him. There was a good chance that this policy would succeed, for Margrete and her father Valdemar IV had revived the Danish monarchy and reconquered or otherwise regained lost provinces, rights, and estates, including a substantial part of the royal lands appropriated by members of the aristocracy in the previous period. Moreover, although such a policy may not have been entirely in the interests of the Danish aristocracy, neither was the previous interregnum or the mortgage of the country to the king's German creditors. In addition, both Valdemar and Margrete, particularly the latter, were skillful and efficient rulers, who contrived to gain support through the right mixture of promises, threats, concessions, and privileges. When Denmark, the strongest of the three Scandinavian countries, had overcome its internal weakness and, for the first time since the Viking Age, defined the other Scandinavian countries as its main field of interest, a Scandinavian union seemed a likely result. There was at the time much to be said in favor of such a union, for the Mecklenburgers were in alliance with German pirates who plundered the coasts of all three countries.

The Struggle over the Kalmar Union, 1434–1523

The poor people who lived in Dalarna suffered much from their bailiff. He tormented them greatly and forced them to
pay most of what they had in taxes. He let peasants be hanged up in smoke—so much did he hurt them. Their women did he treat very badly. They were harnessed to hay-loads, to drag them, and thus fell into such misery that they gave birth to dead children.

With these words, the verse chronicle of Engelbrekt Engelbrektsson explains the origins of the rebellion that broke out in Sweden in 1434. The people of Dalarna, the iron-producing highland region in northern Sweden, complained about their bailiff, the Danish nobleman Jøsse Eriksen, and Engelbrekt, a man of the lower nobility, brought their complaints before the king and the council of the realm. When this proved in vain, he became the leader of a rebellion and in a short time gained control over most of Sweden. After some hesitation, the aristocracy joined the rebels, and together they deposed King Erik, first in Denmark and Sweden (1439) and finally in Norway (1442).

The chronicle gives a vivid picture of the dramatic course of events, presenting Engelbrekt as a great hero and celebrating his and his followers' triumph over the tyrannical bailiffs and his success in forcing the reluctant Swedish aristocracy to join the rebellion. We see Engelbrekt entering Vadstena, where a number of councilors and leading men are assembled, proclaiming, “All of you should now join the kingdom if you want to live longer. I now intend to win the freedom of the realm.” When they refuse, Engelbrekt grasps one of the bishops around the throat and threatens to throw him and his colleagues to the rebel army outside, after which he dictates a letter of deposition to the king, which he forces the assembled lords to seal. Jøsse Eriksson's fate is described with considerable glee in the somewhat later
Karl's Chronicle
:

In the hall of the convent Jøsse was taken
And dragged down the stairs after his feet
He was hauled like a beast for slaughter
And his neck beat against the steps.
He was tied to the sledge like a pig
…
They placed him on the nearest stock
And cut his head from his body.

In traditional Swedish historiography, as expressed in Erik Gustaf Gejer's early-nineteenth-century interpretation, Engelbrekt was the great hero who saved his country from Danish tyranny and took the first steps towards the dissolution of the Kalmar Union. This interpretation also receives considerable support from the many and vivid verse chronicles of the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries, which depict Margrete and her successors as tyrants and their Swedish opponents as heroes fighting for the freedom of their country. As already mentioned, Erik Lönnroth rejected this interpretation in an influential book, published in 1934, five hundred years after Engelbrekt's rebellion. He dismissed the stories of Jøsse Eriksson as propaganda and identified the real reason for the Swedish rebellion as King Erik's war against Lübeck, which created problems for the export of iron from Dalarna. Thus, for Lönnroth, far from being a national hero, Engelbrekt becomes an instrument for German mercantile interests in Sweden—a role not likely to endear him to the liberal circles in 1930s Sweden to which Lönnroth belonged! Above all, Lönnroth attached greater importance to the role of the aristocracy in reacting against King Erik's authoritarian regime, thereby pointing to class interests rather than national sentiment. He found support for his constitutionalist interpretation of the conflict in the fact that Erik was deposed by the Danish as well as the Swedish aristocracy and that the union was reestablished afterwards, through the election of Christoffer of Bavaria, Erik's sister's son, as king in Denmark in 1440, in Sweden in 1441, and in Norway in 1442.