Gone Medieval - Eric Bloodaxe

Episode Date: April 1, 2025

Eric Bloodaxe was an epic Viking Warrior, and he could certainly cut down his enemies, but was he as 'great' in reality as his romantic bad-boy legend?Dr. Eleanor Janega is joined by historian John Sadler to discuss Eric Bloodaxe's brutal rise to power, his early displays of violent ambition, and how he earned his infamous nickname during a bloody raid in Scotland. They also revel in the sagas and historical records that shape Eric's legend, shedding light on the turbulent politics of medieval Scandinavia and England.More Gone Medieval episodes on the Vikings:https://shows.acast.com/gone-medieval/episodes/viking-travelshttps://shows.acast.com/gone-medieval/episodes/how-to-live-like-a-vikingGone Medieval is presented by Dr. Eleanor Janega. It was edited by Jo Troy, the producer is Rob Weinberg. The senior producer is Anne-Marie Luff.All music used is courtesy of Epidemic Sounds.Gone Medieval is a History Hit podcast.Sign up to History Hit for hundreds of hours of original documentaries, with a new release every week and ad-free podcasts. Sign up at https://www.historyhit.com/subscribe. You can take part in our listener survey here: https://insights.historyhit.com/history-hit-podcast-always-on Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From long-loss Viking ships and kings buried in unexpected places to tales of murder, power, faith, and the lives of ordinary people across medieval Europe and beyond. Join me, Matt Lewis, Dr. Eleanor Jarniger, and some of the world's leading historians as we bring history's most fascinating stories to life, only on history hit. With your subscription, you'll unlock hundreds of hours of exclusive documentaries

with a brand-new release every week exploring everything from the ancient world, to World War II. Just visit historyhit.com forward slash subscribe. Hello, I'm Dr. Eleanorianica and welcome to Gone Medieval from History Hit, the podcast that delves into the greatest millennium in human history. We uncover the greatest mysteries, the gobsmacking details, and the latest groundbreaking research from the Vikings to the Normans, from kings to popes, to the Crusades. We delve into the rebellions, plots, and murders that tell us who we really were.

And how we got here. 10th century Norway. A world of unbridled ambition and bloodshed. Ragenhild the Mighty, wife of Harold Fairhair, the first king to unite his country, gives birth to a son. The boy Eric is destined for greatness from the start. But it is his own actions that will earn him a name that will echo through the ages. Blood Axe. From his earliest years, Eric shows a fierce appetite for battle and conquest.

When he turns 12, his father gives him five long ships, each manned by a crew of hardened Norse warriors. With this small fleet, Eric set sail on his first expedition, eager to prove himself worthy of his royal blood. For four long years, Eric and his men terrorized the coasts of the Baltic, Denmark, and Frisia. The young prince quickly gains a reputation for his brutal efficiency in battle and his merciless treatment of his enemies. But it is during a raid on the shores of Scotland that Eric will earn his infamous name. As the Norse longships approach the Scottish coast, the local defenders rally to repel the invaders.

Eric is swift to lead his men into the fray. In the thick of battle, the young prince finds himself face to face with a towering Scottish warrior, rising high with his massive war axe. With a primal roar, Eric swings his own axe in a deadly arc. The blade bites deep into his opponent's neck, nearly severing the man's head from his body. Blood sprays forth in a crimson fountain, drenching. Eric and his weapon. As the Scottish warrior falls, Eric stands triumphant, his axe stripping bread with the blood

of his vanquished foe. Times to come will forever know Eric as blood axe. The tale of his brutal victory spreads like wildfire among both his allies and his enemies. Some say that the nickname is given to him by his own men in awe of their leader's ferocity. Others claim it is whispered in fear by those who opposed him. Regardless of its origin, the name Blood Axe becomes synonymous with Eric's ruthless determination and uncompromising approach to warfare. He embraces the epithet, using it to strike fear into the hearts of his enemies and inspire loyalty among his followers. As Eric continues his raids along the coasts of Ireland, Wales, and even as far as France, his reputation grows.

He is no longer just a Prince of Norway, but a legendary Viking warrior in his own right. Every victory, every conquered territory adds to the legend of Eric Bloodax. But with great power, come great enemies. As Eric returns to Norway to claim his father's throne, he finds that his path to kingship will be paved with the blood of his own kin. The name Blood Ax will take on an even darker meaning as Eric faces the greatest challenge of his life, securing his claim to the crown of Norway, no matter the cost. Well, that's how some versions of the legend of Eric's Blood Axe go. Or at least how he might have got his name.

Joining me today to find out more about Eric Bloodax and maybe dispel some of the myths is John Sadler. His new book, Eric Bloodax, The Viking, I Shall Die Laughing. is remarkably the first non-fiction account of Eric's life, offering illuminating insights into this legendary Viking. Welcome to Gone Medieval, John. And we're glad to be here. I am excited for you to be here today because we are doing one of those big names,

which for medieval historians, I think conjures up a lot of images, but if you simply say the name, Eric Bloodax, I think non-historians prick their ears up right away. So can you just give us a... kind of pressy about where one gets a name like this. How do you get called Eric Blood Axe and live to tell the tale? Well, I think one of the remarkable things about Eric is he managed to clock up 70 before he finally went down in his last battle, which is a pretty big age in Thursday. It would appear a marvelous sort of comic strip title as Blood Axe is that it was Blood Axe is that it was Blood Axe and he

got the name because of the number of his brothers that he killed. He had a lot of brothers. At we fair, most of them were trying to kill him. When his father died, I think he left 19 sons altogether. And although their father, Howard Fair, who was king of Norway, he was the first king. So there was no idea of primary literature, there was no concept of a natural succession. Basically, it was last man standing. And Eric was determined he would be the last man standing. It's, you know, a beautiful tradition in culture.

What can I say? I suppose that's an important distinction, though, because obviously this seems fairly ruthless. However, it fundamentally just is the case that this particular society just didn't have the same social rules that we do now. And absolutely, Fratricide was on the menu in this circumstance. Obviously, Scandinavian society was emerging from a period where there were, and if you look at the geography, particularly of Norway, there's only 3% of the land it can be cultivated. And the country split up by mountain ranges into a whole number of separate pockets. And for centuries, those little areas had all been ruled by their own local king, the leading man and leading family of the area. And Viking society was very structured.

You had your royalty tier. You had your gentry tier. You had your not quite gentry tier. You had your freemen. And then you had basically all the rest who didn't count. And the idea that one man, one king would rule the whole country was it wasn't just novel. It was an anathema to most of the regional groups because the regional groups. because the regional groups, like regions everywhere, didn't much care for each other.

And they certainly weren't about to take orders from somebody from that side of the mountain. So, Harold Feiner, who was a father, who was a man who set out on a mission to unite Norway as one kingdom, under him, of course, as king, had a pretty uphill struggle on. And he was successful largely because he killed anybody got in his way. And because he was so much feared by the end of his period of conquest. And he ruled for over 50 years. he was so afraid that nobody actually did raise a hand against him. But that didn't mean that the independent tendencies wouldn't arise once he died.

That's why I suppose that there is a great way of getting out in front of that is by showing that one is willing to kill one's own brothers. That does put you in pretty good standing for attempting to have a quite violent control over a disparate group of people who they themselves are quite violent. I mean, that just sort of is how society is working. in these circumstances. It is. I mean, where there's been an effort by a summer store

to kind of rehabilitate Vikings as basically farmers, traders, fishermen, sea, veras, merchants, all of which they were. Great explorers, yes, great craftsmen,

yes, but at the end of the day, do an accepting violent society. Is there getting away from it? I agree. I was just going to say, one of my jokes about it, so I always say, uh-huh,

trading what? If you read any of the sagas, like Niagara, saga, saga of Burt in Nealphus. It's a sort of thing that Quentin Taratina would love, It's a non-stop cycle of gratuitous sex and violence.

It describes every blow, every cut, every thrust, excuse the pun. And it's clear that that's what the audience is expecting. That's what they revel in. They want to hear stories of bloodshed and violence and heroism. They're not really interesting to anything too fluffy. You raise a good point here. So we have these sagas, which tell us rather a lot about Eric Blood acts. What are the main distinctions between contemporary sources or saga-based sources

when we're attempting to find out about these individuals. Because the sagas really are kind of selling it, aren't they? They are the big blockbuster movies of the time. Sagas, if we talk about British newspapers, are much more daily mail than they are tale of telegraph. They're sensational. They are stories. They were passed down initially by word of mouth around the fire

whenever we want to hear a ripping tale of a Viking-type hero. And for the most part, they weren't written down until centuries later, many of them by snorries goes from Iceland. and they may well have been changed and altered, added to and taken away from in that time. And it's a bit like talking about the Trojan War and saying Homer is the main source. Yes, he is. But we can't prove it. We can't prove any of it. It's a cracking tale.

And the level of detail tends to make you think there's a kernel of truth there. But you certainly can't prove it. In terms of actual chronicle sources, contemporary records that would substantiate the story of Eric, these are very, very few and far between because the Vikings don't write about themselves. Others write about them, but they don't. And the others who are writing about them have generally just been duffed up by them or have their women stone or their cattle stone.

The women they can live with, they're cattle, but that's quite embarrassing. And not to mention they find their church was just being crashed, and their priests turned into slaves or don't-frew. So there tends to be a certain amount of bias against the rights, which in the circumstances, it's quite understandable. So, again, we don't have a chronicle source. You don't have an Anglo-Saxon chronicle from the Vikings, which gives us a year by year, blow-by-blue account, of what was going on.

We simply don't have that. So what we have is a patriarch of saga sources, which have to be treated with extreme caution. And we have a number of chronicle sources which are referring to the Vikings, written about them, but not by them. And again, there's a lot of bias there, and indeed a whole world of inaccuracy. One of the issues is it's really seductive to kind of go down the root of looking at the sagas because they're fun. They do exactly what they're meant to do. But are there any near contemporary sources that talk about Eric at all? Or are we just interpolating from literary

sources at this point? Eric, assuming Eric, the Eric of England is the Eric of Norway. Once he gets to England, there are references to his career in England, which really covers quite a short period. Two very short bursts as King in the North based at York are written in the Anglo-Saxon-Connorpoor and a few other sources. But they are very, very fleeting these referrals. And whilst we might say, well, yeah, okay, these look like this could be pretty much accurate, it still doesn't tell us a lot. And it doesn't really give us any picture of the human Eric Bloodax. And the information that they give us sometimes is contradictory. And again, we are left in no small measure in the realm of heroic conjecture. Try to piece the various bits together to get so many in the

truth. And that's why it's sort of disputed, why we have this question lingering about, is this Eric of Norway, is this Eric of England? Because it's kind of murky, isn't it, the information that we do have? Yeah. It's extremely murky. Some contemporary academics, writers like Professor Claire Downham, who's an extreme distinguished academic of this period, have expressed, not doubt, but they have a court pointed out that there was no actual hard evidence that tells us that Eric Bloodaxe of Norway was the same Eric as who ruled twice in Northumbria. The dates all fit, sort of, and it would seem likely that if I was Archbishop Wolfstand of Northumbria, the great power broker, if I was looking for somebody who could

stand up to the power of the Kings and Wessex, I'd want somebody with the proven track record, somebody who had a name and a reputation, which Eric certainly did have. And therefore, we say, well, there's no other Eric Bloodax being mentioned. So, It must be the same guy. I don't think that's unreasonable. If I was in a court of law, I couldn't swear that this is the absolute truth, not by a long way. It's an interesting one too, because when we start throwing Eric around in terms of his involvement in England, it's also an interesting one because in theory, he's not even the initial Norwegian connection over to the English, right?

You know, we have, we think, correct me if I'm wrong, because I could be. We think that the initial son, that is sent over is Hakon, who is kind of, I think, Hakon is great name. You know, their families contain multitudes.

Everyone's got good and everyone's got a bloodhacks, you know. So he kind of gets sent over by his father to be a fosterling to King Ethelstan, right? So what would that mean for Eric then?

You know, your younger brother sent off, here you are in Norway, which is a pretty sweet deal. You know, your dad has united it, but is there, knock-on implications for him as a slightly older son. Clearly.

Eric is, of course, hoping to inherit his father's kingdom when his father died. And the evidence reclety suggested during the latter years of for a hair's life, and he'd been in his 80s by the time he died, so he's a big age. He shared the throne with Eric, which would suggest that he was

grooming Eric to take over. Sending your youngest son, or younger son, to the court of his paled from a monarch as Athelston was a sound political move. It means you're building a bridge between England. And Athlstan was creating England at this time. At the same time as Harold has created Norway.

So there's a certain logic there. But of course, it goes back to bite Eric. Because Athelstan backs Harkin, the Good, when Harkin takes Eric on. And Eric simply can't compete with Athelstam. And of course, Harkin the Good, it's called Harkin the Good, because he probably wasn't as bad as Eric. He's only called the good, I think, by comparison.

Harkin himself is a pretty tough customer. He's no pusher. And again, he rules Norway for a considerable period and finally goes down in battle against Eric's sons some decades later. So I think what was in Harold's mind, as far as we can tell, when he sends Harkin away, he might have sent Harkin away. So Eric didn't feel the need to kill him himself.

He was out of harm's way in that sense. At the same time, his would have been a very valuable diplomatic mission to the court of Attlestan, who was then one of Europe's most powerful monarchs. Hacom comes back then, though, right? You know, because we have then the death of Athelstan and Haccon returns

to Norway. What happens then? You know, you think, you know, you're Eric. You're like, great, this is fantastic. I'm co-ruling with my father, here I am, in Norway, and then suddenly your brother returns. What does this mean? It's not good news. It means you need to move on fairly rapidly because it seems Eric, whatever gifts of rule of monarchy,

his father had, and Howard wasn't just about brute force. He obviously understood diplomacy. He understood the need to make dynastic marriages, the need to bring the nobles on side if he's going to keep the whole job together. Eric doesn't seem to have understood this. Eric, as soon as far as he died,

is thrown in a period of warfare with his other brothers, who he defeats. And then suddenly Harkin arrives back. At a time when, whether he's actively supported by English arms, we don't know, possibly, most likely, Athol stands giving him a pay chest. And the loyalty of the Norwegian lords

is very much dependent on who's writing the check at that particular time. And it does appear that the Norwegian lords were chafing under the harsh rule of Eric and Harkin appeared to be a safer auction. And I mean, I guess that's not a great way to show back up at your kind of bloodthirsty brother's court. Like, hey, I'm back from England. I've got all of this money. You know, don't worry, this is not a threat. To us, you and I might just be like, oh, it's great. As a foreign person myself, you know, whenever I return to my family, I bring a bag full of, you know, obscure and delight British treats, you know.

Absolutely, yeah. The same thing. And I think we could put, what would have happened, of course, that when, as soon as Howard died, Harkin would have begun making overtures to the Norwegian princelings. Athelstain would have seen the opportunity to extend his own influence into Norway and therefore would have provided him with substantial financial backing. and financial backing was the key.

We know all those who became kings of Norway, people like St. Olaf and Halt Hadradi only made their bid when they had a significant war chest amassed. So really, as Gelt-Prieg, as the Germans would call it, money as is as important as men-in-arms. I think that there's also an important kind of note here as well, because your brother shows back up with all of this money, And that is in and of itself somewhat of an implicit threat within this society. And also, I think it's kind of important to know, you know, who is your brother? You know, your brother's been away in England. Do you actually know this guy? You know, it comes across much more as a threat in this particular social milieu. This isn't, you know, your brother who you played next to near the hearth all day. You know, this is a somewhat foreign person who,

can be read as a direct threat to one's livelihood, if not their life, when he shows back up. Yeah, so it just has to look. If you look at Shakespeare, look at Richard III, when he says, speaks to his best, clowns thou art next. Well, we all purified with our siblings, but Royal Brothers probably do surround them more than others, because states are very high. And blood may be thicker than water, but gold generally is a good deal thicker than both. And the history of Scandinavia keeps on showing the guy with the big bucks has a good chance. are coming out on top. Fundamentally, Eric is the one who comes out on top in this.

Whether or not there was an actual threat, Eric, how shall we say this that politely eliminates his around there we think? He does. Yeah. That's not a apology for it. It's them or him. It's fairs to Eric. Yes, he was a pretty tough and utterly ruthless character,

but he lived in a tough and ruthless age. If he hadn't turned on his brothers, they certainly would have done for him. Probably were trying to do it at the time. And, of course, once the King died, all the various power factions within the regions begin to align and maybe choose their own candidate. They'll probably choose the guy who thinks weakest

because they know they're going to get their own way under him. So it becomes very, very complex. And this very fragile carapace of royalty which Harold has created simply falls apart. It's not been established long enough. The idea that one king will succeed another hasn't taken root as far as a Norwegian earls are concerned, they're waiting for him to die

so they can revert back to Square Wall. Is he bringing a similar level of violence to the earls, for example, as well? We don't know. That's the short answer. We do not know. We get a reference to him winning a sea battle in the north of Norway, presumably against the rebellious, because the northern earls tended to be particularly independently minded. And Eric has built up during his far-s-difetime, a reputation, as a successful Viking as a pirate, effectively. because Eric knows he has to build up his war chest as well

because he knows when his father died there's going to be a fight and therefore the greater level of resources that he possesses the stronger his position will be. So probably like most Vikings, has a spring cruise and an autumn cruise which sounds very nice, but actually means he go out and kill and rape and village and take slaves and attempt to build up the bank balance

to its maximum point when you know you're going to need it. So Eric will have been aware from a fairly early age that he needs to have a significant cash deposit behind him. He does a great job of consolidating wealth and consolidating power. You know, he's got a pretty good shot at having all these things because his father was great at that as well. Now, in your book, though, you talk a little bit about what it takes to be that kind of Viking,

what it takes to be that kind of pirate, essentially. And you go into a lot of detail about the weapons that Eric would have been good at using. Well, we've got a name like Eric Bloodax. Does that mean that this is a guy who has a preferred weapon of choice? You know, when he goes cruising, has he got an axe in his back pocket? Or is this, you know, a reference to something else that we don't quite understand here in the 21st century? Eric is almost certainly a great warrior.

You have to be. The Vikings like great warriors. It's like Achilles and Hector. They follow the man who has the reputation, who is a great fighting man. fake that. And because you're standing there in the front of the ship, you are the must kill target in a sea battle or a land battle. So you've got to know what you're doing.

You've got to be highly skilled with your weapons just to survive from day to day. And clearly I think Eric's reputation therefore is not built on hot air or spin or social media. It's built on reality. He is a seriously tough customer. And

yes, the name Blood Axe would suggest that the axe, longhand Danish axe, may have been his favourite weapon. But true about it. He is a serious. Viking warrior would be expected to be equally at home with any of the main weapons. Spear, axe, say axe, sword, the whole arsenal. You have to be good with that because at any point, you might end up using any or all of them. So, I mean, this is the, I guess, the sexy top things that we always talk about with Vikings.

I'm as bad as a saga, right? I go right in and I'm like, tell me about the killing John. I'd like to know about the guy. But there is. You know, yeah. Exactly. You know? But at the same time, one has to admit that there. There is a kind of diplomatic background as well that it's happening. And one of the things that you've mentioned now is there are good marriages happening behind the scenes as well,

which is so important and perhaps less sexy, a little bit less attention-gratting. Do we know anything about who Eric gets married off to as a result of all of this? Oh, yes, we do. His queen, much hated by the saga writers, is Gounhild. It was left to the view that the story and the other saga writers, the saga compilers, were pretty misogynistic because they don't necessarily expect to have strong women around. And if she's a strong woman, she must be a witch. She's got to be wrong.

It also means that Eric's excesses can be blamed on it, or blamed on his wife. Well, we get to the point where in Egil's saga, where Egil is shipwrecked, of course, in Yorkshire, finds himself rather embarrassingly, at Eric's tort. And of course, there's a lot of form between Eric and Egel. And Egel, certainly we know, according to his own saga, has killed one of Eric's sons. Gunnilde of the Queen is all for cutting them into small pieces and fitting the fish. But Eric intends to is reasonable. And I'm Bjorn, who is in Seizumbeard of Ege, is able to persuade the king to see reason. So Eric comes across as actually not such an unreasonable vindictive type, where his wife is an absolute cow.

And all the way through history, Pearl Gunil gets damned. She's in the legend. She's the daughter of a couple of wizards or whatever from the north, from Finland or somewhere. In reality, she was almost certainly a hierarchy Danish princess. So she was somebody of serious socio-economic status, actually probably just a little bit further up the ladder than Eric was. And, you know, she certainly was a loyal wife. And when they're guys, she takes over the family business, if you like.

And it's really, as a result of her leadership, that her sons eventually have a great look, becomes King of Norway by killing his uncle and Arkhammeda. It's such an interesting thing because you get this, you get provided with a literary scapego. It's fantastic. You can then big up Eric Bloodaxe, The guy who's got to the throne through fratricide by saying, oh, yeah, you know, all the things you don't like, probably Gnhilda, probably that woman over there.

Yes. It's just, you know, it's convenient. So was Eric, is Eric Bledax to be just a head back to husband? You know, you don't know. Maybe you only went cruising to go away from his wife. Gentlemen, am I right? Am I right? I mean, this is the thing.

You would kind of want a woman like Gunnilda around, especially, you know, a well-connected Dane. You know, they've got tons of money. And here's Eric, in theory, the king of a newly united Norway, but we're talking about him being over in England. You don't just leave Norway, a nicely united Norway, and go over to England for no particular reason. And we think he actually loses the crowd, right? Like, after about a year of ruling himself,

how does that come to be, do we think? When Eric is effectively disposed of his brothers, those who are remaining in Norway, Harkin has clearly ceded the ground for his own return, funded by Athostan's goal, possibly with English support, actual military support, we don't know. But he lands in Norway and the Norwegian Yards, who had another Eric by this point and his harsh rule, they seem as clearly the son of his valour.

They side with Harkin. And Eric obviously reads the wind pretty carefully and thinks it's worth time I was somewhere else because I can't compete with this level of wealth and influence, which is why he and all his loyal forces, he must have a reasonable following, take to their ships, and apparently then make for the Orkneys, which makes sense because they're obviously Viking,

they're a Viking colony, and his father had a very strong connection with the ruling house in Orkney. So that's an obvious first stop. And then what does Eric do to build up the war chest? Well, he continues where he left off. He goes back to Pirates, it's the family of business. You know, and fair enough,

you've always got that to fall back on, right? Get on a ship and go somewhere. And if you have the means and the capability, you can make a new life for yourself. His presence is mentioned in Orkney. What do we know about this particular chapter of his life? Again, it's a little bit fragmentary, to put it mildly, but we know there was a strong connection between his father and the ears of Orkney,

who were his father's nominees. And Eric, I imagined during his career of piracy in the course of his father's lifetime, had built up a strong personal connection with the ruler of Orkney. There's no suggestion he went across to Orkney and conquered the place or beat it up or robbed a village. He was obviously welcomed there as an ally, a friend and somebody who they knew quite well. Again, from his perspective, Orkner was a superb base for Viking activities. It exposed the whole coast of Scotland and England and the coast of Ireland, which are another lucrative hunting ground for Viking pirates.

So it was an obvious base for him to arrive at. And where he could watch what was happening in England, watch what was happening in England, watch what was happening. in Norway and make the most of any opportunities which happen to arise. This makes it a really reasonable refuge. And also, I guess it makes sense from our standpoint. If we understand that this is kind of a stepping stone on the way to Northumbria, you know, okay, you've been kicked out of Norway, but then you can go pull yourself together in Orkney where, you know, you have friendly people.

But of course, again, these are Vikings. They're going to want you to move on eventually. You don't want a guy of this caliber staying at your heart forever. And we're pretty sure at this point he then skips on over to Northumbria. What do we know about his initial stint there? It would appear that the background is Athelstan, after his great battle of Brunand Berr, whatever that was fought, in 937, had come close to realizing his grandfather's vision of an Engelander, actually uniting the whole of England, actually Britain, under one ruler,

normally himself. When Athelston dies, however, his immediate successor is nowhere near as powerful. as he was, and his confederation for a while falls apart. Because of Nathumbrians, who were themselves conquered by Vikings in 866, 867, now come to prefer a Norse ruler to a Southern Englishman. They don't like the House of Wessex, they'd much rather have a Northerner, a Norseman. And obviously by this time, the Norse and Nathumbrians, the bloodlines are serving to mainland. You can't really say one of the other.

But what the Nathumbrians are about is their independence. That is the number one consideration, because a short while before, Northumbria was the leading Anglo-Saxon kingdom. The Sumbria had been immensely powerful. They'd gone back a lot, but Northerners saw themselves as independent of the South. We still do. Is there a difference in terms of how we see Viking rules shake out there as opposed to the Anglo-Saxons? Because I know the Anglo-Saxon Northumbria, this is a place that's incredibly powerful and important as a result of cattle primarily,

you know, incredibly rich agricultural land. Is there a differentiation when you have Vikings come and take over, or is it just kind of the same old, same old, yes, we're still doing cattle farming, but also we go out Viking in the spring and autumn. The main change would be, really, when the Vikings are, when Ivar, the wonderfully, equally wonderfully named Ivar the Boomless,

defeats Ayala and takes over Nathlundon at York. It's really a change of management. Most average Nathlundian farm, I wouldn't really know whether he's been ruled by a Viking or a Saxon. Probably wouldn't care. You still pay into taxes, and that's the main. So a lot of key manners, key positions and key properties would go to North, to reward them for their service, which is what they'd come for in a first place.

But then really, it's business as usual. The difference is Anglo-Saxon, New York, Yafalwick, is a pretty pale shadow of Roman Ibarakum. The population declines. It's a bit run down. We'd think it as a bit as a shanty town compared to the Roman president. But the Vikings, I've honest successes, create this great trading impover. in Yorovic. And the population and the wealth of York rapidly rises again because obviously they've got their links to the North Kings in Dublin. They've got links to the Frankish court.

They've got links to Scannavia. They've got links to Spain. Links all over Europe. And the fight is of great traders. Yes, they're a pretty savage bunch of thugs, but they're also great traders. And we shouldn't forget, they're getting away from it. One of their main trades is human misery. They're slavers. They are slavers. It's nothing personally. It's just business smart as they're concern, but they deal in slaves. And obviously, reddish-haired, blue-eyed Irish women, a bit like itself, actually, would be a considerable premium in the slave markets in Paris or indeed across Istanbul or wherever. So they were businessmen as well as farmers. So the Saxons hadn't been as active commercially in terms of international trade as the Vikings were. So really, Viking Age

to Thumbria was a bit of a boom time. One way or another, they make things happen. It's easy to be critical of them. And I certainly am. But fundamentally, they've got great tech. They are able to move things around. They're able to make these connections. And I do think that there is, of course, a tendency for us to always say, okay, when Vikings show up, that's bad news. But in the case of Northumbria, I mean, really Norway's closer than London is. Culturally, you're going to feel more connected than you are to whatever is going on in the south.

There is very much. I mean, there always was in Britain, I think, even as far as they ironed. There was a kind of North South divide, as there still is. And that was particularly cute at this time, because the Northumbrians, are desperate to avoid being controlled by the South. And part of that leadership is coming in the church. Archbishop Wolfston of York is the leading prelate in the north. He doesn't want to bend his knee to the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Not at all. The northern church, again, which controls many of the seas in what is now southern Scotland, is immensely wealthy and doesn't want to surrender that hegemony to somebody who never met in Canterbury, who's talks in it, talks on a strange estuary accent. So you don't really want to do that. And the Norsemen who are now so integrated in terms of the bloodstock, really, they're the locals. By the time Eric comes across, the Norsemen are not foreigners.

They're the locals. And they are to be preferred to the southerners who are not locals. Well, one way or another, you get Eric, right? This is how he shows up and he takes up this mantle. But this doesn't go unchallenged, shall we say. You know, it's not that, you know, everyone in the South says, oh, that's fine. They've got a new Viking in, so I guess we can give up on Northumbra, right? He has to actually fend off rival claimants from the South and from Norway as well, correct?

From Dublin, particularly, the Dublin, have their own agenda as far as the Thumblin's concern. And Ivar, the bonus, had a strong connection to Ireland. So part of various problems is not just facing opposition from the South and the other end of the King. He's facing Olaf Goufgustis in Ireland, who will use any means. The Vikings are not a united front by any means. It's every man for himself. One Viking Warlord will not necessarily make common cause with the other. He's quite like Enid, it's the old story.

My enemy's enemy is automatically my friend. So Eric is in pretty dodgy position. He's supported by the bishop, the archbishop, and the Nathumbian stroke north gentry, as long as he's viable. The northerners are acutely aware, and he adds them aware of how much more powerful Wessex actually is. And if they step out of line,

he will, as he does, bring an army up and trash the place. Just to remind them who's actually. boss. That's what ends Eric's first tenure. He's actually successful in battle. He defeats he had at Castle. But the fact is that the sun on us have such overwhelming strength. One single victory doesn't matter. And eventually Wolfstad, who's an arch pragmatist, gets the message and Eric is sent on his travels again for a while. Yeah, because he comes back, right? You know, we kind of have an interregnum and then Eric comes back. So what happens in the meantime? Do we know? Is it just kind of like, oh, well, we're trying

again and then Eric goes and drums up more support? Or is that a little too simplistic? The events appear to be quite straightforward. But the moves behind those events, I suspect, were long drawn out and extremely complicated. Olaf, when he comes back, is acceptable to Yadred because he's less of a threat than Eric. But clearly the Nathumbians are still hankering after this independence. And therefore, Wollstand and the other Nathumbrian magnets, once again when they've recovered their confidence, it said after they kind of break down their resilience, which he had rid is infected on them, they get their spirit back. Northern's good at that. And then they think, well, what the hell? Eric Sourboy will have him back. And he

gets another two years. And that is nothing to sneeze at, I think. In a time that is as turbulent as this, kind of being brought back is a huge vote of confidence. Shows us kind of a rather a lot, not just about the violence inherent in the system, of course, but also about how confidences play out and how relationships are made as well. So, you know, yeah, Eric is obviously a very, very powerful warrior, but he must have been a pretty all right guy as well, considering the various alternatives and the fact that people actually make a plate for him. You know, this is our guy. We're going to get Eric back and things were a little bit more settled under him. Well, by this time, he's in his late 60s. He's no spring chicken. That's a big age for the time,

a very big age. It's like me in your 80s or 90s now. And he, I think we tend to forget or we're not aware of. The Valleybrookin actually gets from Gunhill. She's a daughter of the king of Denmark. And Denmark's had a settled monarchy for a very long time. The Danes are a powerful monarchical state. And having support, however it's expressed from that quarter, to Lends a fair bit of weight to any Clenonet Eric makes, he may be able to suggest them to Thumblins that it would be the first of the last time. He can draw on a Danish army to support him. Well, you know, that happens with Howard, or a Viking, it happens with Howard Hardrada in 1066. So the idea that he might be able to draw up support from the wider Scandinavian world. It's not that long before

Nutt, of course, becomes Atlantic, North European Emperor. So there is always that character. Eric clearly has quite substantial war band, as long as he can pay them, and he has therefore a powerful following, who given the colonel of any army he could raise, the Sumbians have a favorite of form about fielding armies. So clearly the nathumbrians feel in 952 that it's right, the time is ripe, to have him back and make another statement about their independence.

I suppose that really tells us a rather lot about Northumbria itself, not just about Eric as a person, but about the statecraft going on behind the scenes. You know, a name like Eric Bloodax, that's who you start paying attention to very quickly. But Northumbria is kind of in its own way as star of the show here. You know, there's a bunch of people that we don't know the names of who are involved in really intricate statecraft. And Eric just kind of steals the show because he's the guy they bring in. At the same time, when we talk about Northumbria, The Thumbria doesn't just mean Nathumberland or North Yorkshire the way it does today. There are two distinct regions.

Really from, say, the T's south and into Yorkshire, that's the Viking kingdom. From the T's northward up to the 3rd 4th, that's the old Nathumbria, which is not ruled by the Vikings. That's ruled by one of the House of Bamber that's ruled by a Nathumbrian earl. And they're players as well, because they are players and they are obviously valuable allies, either for the Lothumbrians or for the kings of Wessex, only for the Scots. the Scots are there as well. And then you've got the Irish Vikings just to steal the mix. So Eric isn't likely to face his enemies coming at him from any one direction. They can come from any direction, or all directions at once.

So whoever is sitting in that throne in York, he's in a pretty precarious position, which demands, it's not about brute force. It demands significant diplomatic and political scale just to keep your bum on the seat. I mean, it's worth it, though. It's a really rich kingdom. There's rather. a lot that's going on. You know, fantastic trading. But fundamentally, Eric ends up losing Northumberate because he dies. You know, he dies at 70 in the Battle of Stainmore. What do we know about this particular death? I mean, what is this guy doing out there in the first place? That's a very good question. I think I had to vote a very long chapter with a lot of Everson,

but some maybes in it. I think Eric had been deposed already. I don't think Stainmore is him hurrying from east to west to meet an enemy. I think it's him moving from west to east to reclaim Northumbria. And an alliance has formed against him of Olaf, of the Earl of Methumbland, all of whom one suspect are funded from Wessex. Yadrid is playing a clever game this time. He's not going for brute force. He's going for skilled, cunning diplomacy and let their people do the dirty work for him. So he's not directly alienating the Sumbrians by trashing the place. He's allowing them the fight among themselves, effectively. And then when Eric is dead, he'll just say, well, guys, here I am.

Nobody left. Last man standing. So I'm suggesting that the Adred is probably behind the coalition that is formed to resist Eric. The route across Stainmore was a sure and certain road from east to west. It was the Roman road. Still plenty of Roman remains longer, though. If Eric has been forced out of Nathumbria, if he has gone west to recruit men from, possibly the Wirro, from Cumbria, or indeed from Ireland, or wait, the enforcers coming in,

from Scotland, depending how far out of his checkbook will go at this time, he amasses a force marching eastwards from west to east, up the Stey Mall class, where he's intercepted somewhere near the head of the pass, the battle ensues, and he and his forces are overwhelmed. He's probably outnumbered, but he decides, because he's a gambler, Eric, at the end of the day, he decides his reputation and his ferocity, his name is enough, and he'll fight his way through, and he'll right make it. Exactly, the exact historical power would be King Olaf in, was it 10, 1035, a, at the Battle of Stichikerstat. He knows the odds against him. Who thinks what the hell? I'll have a

go anyway. Because I've always won in the past. That makes sense. Because if you're in an incredibly strong position, you know, if you're hanging out in York and you've got rather a lot of power and money behind you, there's no way that you're out at Stainmore, you know, swinging an axe around at 70 years old. It's likely, I would imagine that something is forced to your hand. There's no point in you being on the battlefield if things are fairly stable? I mean, even given the fairly patchy political nature of England at the time. That's right. I think we have, we read about early English histories being, you know, one battle after another. Medieval generals from this relatively early period armours would avoid battle if they possibly could. Nobody wanted to fight in a

battle unless he had to. Unless he was certain of winning, he would only fight if you thought there's a downgrade chance who were going to win, because once you commit your forces to battle, you actually lose all control. Because once you're in the front line, there's no way you can control the flow of the battle. You have no radio, have no comms, and you don't get an overview. There's no way you can actually gauge what something on the flanks if you're in the centre.

If you stand back from the battle, I know, look at him. Yeah, you know, he's not really one of us. So, you're expected to be this kind of hermeric figure leading from the front, in the front line, which makes controlling a battle. We don't know how many, what the numbers are, probably not that great. So Eric, I think,

has got to be pretty desperate almost, and knows this is his last chance. If he can break his confederation of enemies ranged against him, he can break them in now and stay well, he's bomb-proof. Do we know who actually killed him? I mean, this is a pretty big head to take, or is this simply a fog of war sort of situation? The man who gets to create is Earl Mahas, who is the Yarlene Rthumbria at that time. But in the heat of battle, exactly who is killing who is almost impossible. In the movies, it's always, you know, it's always this great fight between the two years. It never happens like that. The line breaks,

and you simply get rolled over. So exactly who, or which group of men strike Eric down, we don't know. One way or another, he's dead. It's a good innings. Seventy years. There's nothing to sneeze at in general, let alone if you're a Viking.

But what are the implications for Northumbria after Eric is actually dead? Does this mean that it's kind of absorbed more with the more northern part of Northumbria? How does this shake out? Really, the death of Eric is generally taken is marking the end of the independent kingdom of Northumbria and that the kings of West East now extend their influence

really all the way to the Scottish borders and the Earl of Northumbria becomes a servant of the kings of Wessex and remember of course at that point 954 there's no border between England and Scotland the way we understand it now the Thumbrian influence extends as far north as the further forth and the border's not fixed till 1018 and the Battle of Calm when the Tweed becomes the light

So really, the death of Eric is always taking us, and rightly, I think, taking this, marking the end of an independent North stroke the Thumbrian Kingdom in the North. That's it. The North is now part of England, whether or likely it or not. And this is one of the things that makes this story, I don't know, from my standpoint, kind of sad. I like the Independent North, whatever. Call me a romantic and you'll be a woman. You know, why not?

You know, why not? But, you know, I think that Eric gets held up at this point. As a fairly romantic figure, despite the fact that, you know, he's this big bloodthirsty Viking, you know, he's independent, he's a really good warrior, he's courageous. But how much of that is just us getting taken in by the various chronicles and sagas, right? Because a lot of what we know about him comes out of the Chronicle of Edgeland. Is this reliable or, you know, again, is this my romanticism and longing for Northumbria coloring my views? It's very difficult to see in a thousand years since, all the thousand years, the Vikings who've had many makeovers. And yes, everybody I know who has ever had the DNA tested has had it tested to see if they got Viking blood.

Yeah? Now, 30 years ago, and for a while, the most popular movie hero was Arnold Schwarzeneges, the Terminator, a psychopathic robot. And, you know, because in a way these characters, it's the Achilles type character, the rogue warrior, the great hero, who, if nothing else, is not deficient in courage, certainly. and who squares up to his enemies and beats them in a fair fight. Who is a great warrior. Dale has a resonance today. We like these type of characters. Richard III's a lot more popular than his brother, Edward IV.

And he was, you know, Cardinals would tell me he wasn't about it. I was really a very, very nice book. And he was just unlucky with a number of people who had to die around him. That we like the bad boys. Bad boys are fun. Jesse James is fun. Bush Cassidy's fun. All the nice guys of his tree are not necessarily that.

They're not exciting. They might do it. Joseph Lillimiston, these people, you know, they're great. They're marriage and mother's raises, all the rest. They're John Wesley's. They're nice people that do a lot of good, but yeah, God, you're a bloody boring, really. It doesn't quite and bash anybody. Yeah, kids in the backyard are not going to be playing, I don't know,

Charles IV and establishing churches everywhere. You know, they want to be a Viking, they want to hit each other with sticks, you know, yeah. I think that you're absolutely bang on here. There is this tendency for us to put all of our eggs into the heroic basket. And certainly I think we can all agree. that Eric Blundax is this big heroic figure. But do you think he's an actually successful ruler, or is he just dramatic? Well, if you look at it, and he was King and Orr, if he a very short time,

King and the Thumbia twice are two very short times in a whole year career. So, no, he's not a successful group. He's not a successful statement. He is an epic warrior. He's certainly a trier. He's still trying in 70. And he clearly commanded a lot of respect and regard from his contemporaries. He was clearly superb material for the saga, right?

and he fulfills the romantic image of the Vikings Barba. If you look at the statue of Lyverickson next to the cathedral in Reckubate, he doesn't look anything like Life Erickson. Lyverickson was short and fat. He was short fat, rather squat. But the guy of this statue looks like Kurt Douglas. You know, he's square jaw and lantern george.

He looks really ready for anything. He looks like a heroic figure. And come on, the end of the Vikings, in the duel, are you hoping for Tony Curtis or Kirk Douglas to win? You want Kirk Douglas to win? I do. He doesn't, but don't mind because he can't. this is my boy. But somehow he's a more tired of character.

Absolutely. And I think one of the reasons why we end up talking about Eric as well is he's able to kind of pop up in movies and in TV and in works and fiction because we've got this story about him. And he does, right? Like, you know, you're like, oh, here's Eric, like in some film about the Vikings, you know, this sort of thing. I mean, the Victorians obviously were great romantics. They loved romantic stories. And in Victorian times, there was a lot of interest in Norse Forebears. this idea of a heroic age of Norseman. And then, of course, that gets hijacked in the 1930s by the Nazis,

again, who use these great Nordic imagery to support their own warped beliefs in weird and completely mad racial theories. So you can cast the Vikings in a number of molds. And it's easy because the Vikings fall into so many molds. And they didn't have a mold to themselves. They were just what they were. What they were, what they did, it was the way they were. they didn't best think about it, that was their world.

And they then proved over the years to be quite malleable heroes as well as being coming up. They're shippling. These astonishing craft that they built. And they sailed him across the world's ocean. You know, they just go on Iceland. They're probably just going to Iceland. They're probably going to, wow.

That's pretty impressive. You know, there's a reason why we talk about them. And, you know, even me as kind of, I guess, I'm Viking agnostic, you know, because I'm at times, incredibly impressed by them, and I really love them. And at times, I am really horrified by what they do. So, you know, I think Eric Bloodax is one of these guys who just encapsulates all of that. You know, he's got the best and the worst of everything. He's bringing the dramatic action that we want to see and giving us these stories. You know, we're gossiping about him a thousand years after his death, you know, one way or another, whether or not he's successful.

He's fun to talk about. He's fun to think about. One of the most success-selling TV series in the last, what, 10 years, has been Vikings. And the main character, played by Travis Rammuz, who's very good-looking, is a Ragnar Lothbrook, who may or may not have existed, and from whom Eric did obviously claim dissent, because he's the archetype of vital ancestor. And no, he wasn't a very nice man. He was a savage. If you had been on Lindisfarne in 7-9-3s, if it was he, or whoever trashed Lindisfarne, you know, if you switch on the server, and you look at the pictures of dumbed and terrified refugees in the horror of Gaza and other places,

That's what Linusval would look like. So we shouldn't get too carried away by glorifying these guys. If you are on the assuming end of their interest, then there's nothing you wrote about them at all. They were bad guys, and they did terrible things. That's history, baby, right? That's the entire point of doing it, you know, is we take these horrible things and these difficult people

and we synthesize the information and we tell the stories from a safer move. It allows us this ability to romanticize and to hypothesize. And you need that remove, I think, because otherwise you do get bogged out in the human misery that is endemic. If you think in terms of propaganda, what is the most successful movie from the Scottish Nationalist Party point? If you ever made, it's Brave Art. You watch Brave Art. It is complete Tosh.

There are a lot of people who take it his gospel. And Mel Gibson's version of William Wallace was very cleverly constructed. becomes the norm. Now, the reality was, William was, wasn't Australian. He was probably a foot taller than Mel Gibson. He probably hated the English even less than Mel Gibson, and it would mean seen dead wearing a skirt.

Even today, that film's made, what, 95, 30 years old? It's become iconic because it gives us a view of history that we enjoy. This is the beauty of Eric Blood Axe and why I think he makes such a wonderful subject for all of us. And I guess I can't thank you enough for coming on and complicating the easy, heroic picture. You know, I do love good gossip about a Viking. What can I say?

Thanks to John Sadler and to you for listening to Gone Medieval from History Hit. Remember, you can enjoy unlimited access to award-winning original TV documentaries, including my recent series Meet the Normans. And ad-free podcasts by signing up at historyhit.com forward slash subscription. You can follow Gone Man Evil on Spotify. where you can leave us comments, suggestions, or wherever you get your podcasts. And tell all your friends and family

that you've gone medieval. Until next time.