Medieval Swedish government

[Llywelyn]

I'm working on creating a 1204 scenario for Crusader Kings and was looking at medieval Sweden.

In 1204, it looks like the major powers were

1. Sverker II who was king at Stockholm,
2. Olov Lambatunga who was archbishop in Uppsala,
3. The Jarl of Sweden from the Folkunga clan in Geatland, and
4. Erik who was the rightful heir of another dynasty in exile in Norway

Question is, how should the actual titles be parcelled out?

Obviously, Sverker's in charge in Sodermanland, Erik has nothing but a claim and is camping out in Trondheim, and the Jarl as day to day administrator should have ducal titles to all the lands under the king's domain.

But I don't know the rest.

1. I can't find any other large feudal magnates and it seems like the Swedes didn't have a nobility yet. Should every other province be controlled by a local Thing (ie, republic) or should there be one Thing that owns all of East Geatland (the Lionga Thing), another Thing for West Geatland (the Thing of All Geats), and a third for the remainder of Svealand (the Thing of All Swedes)? or should I just create random local nobility whole cloth?
   
2. Is it wrongminded for Sweden to have the archbishop in territorial control of Uppsala?
   
3. How were the Finnish territories administered? By their own Thing? or by the one at Uppsala?

Thanks for any help you can offer!
j.

[Skarion]

I'm not how much information there is left.

Stockholm's fire and the royal castle library burning down destroyed most of the records from the Swedish medieval age and what was before.

But I would say:
1) The king lived in Upsala. Stockholm was just a village during the 13th century. So Sverker should have control over Uppsala.
2) Having the archbishop controlling land wouldn't be fitting for Sweden as the church never had such power in that kind of way as the rest of Europe.
3) Sweden never had such a feudal nobility as southern Europe had. Not sure which way would be the best way to describe it but having them to be republics would be better then the hardcore feudal system of south.

[Llywelyn]

Originally Posted by Skarion

1) The king lived in Upsala. Stockholm was just a village during the 13th century.

Uppsala was the old capital, to be sure. 1208, though, Wiki's got the king resident at Stockholm (founded by another king in the 11th c.) - but if you aren't just generalizing for the whole middle ages, maybe it's just a glitch at wiki.

Anyone else is welcome to give me more info - I'll keep the thread subscribed, but for now, I'll just work with this. Thanks!
j.

[Arilou]

It's king Sverker of the Sverkerian family?

He'd probably not hang around Uppsala. (Wasn't his base of power) I think their centre of power was more around Skara.

Although the royal household would likely be ambulatory.

I can't find any other large feudal magnates

It's kind of complicated, but you might try checking out the castellans of the more important castles. Sweden never developed the kind of fixed-land magnates that many other countries did (rather, it was all about getting appointments as castellans, that's where the real money was, and those positions weren't heridatery)

Is it wrongminded for Sweden to have the archbishop in territorial control of Uppsala?

I'd say tentatively yes. The archbishop never had that kind of concentrated ownership (IE: He might be rich, but his lands would be spread out all over the place)

How were the Finnish territories administered? By their own Thing? or by the one at Uppsala?

¨

Finland was IIRC organized in their own lagsagor. Not sure if that happened later on though.

[Razor]

Originally Posted by Arilou

It's king Sverker of the Sverkerian family?

He'd probably not hang around Uppsala. (Wasn't his base of power) I think their centre of power was more around Skara.

Although the royal household would likely be ambulatory.

The Sverkerian family's base was probably not Skara either. It was further east. Vadstena, just east of the lake Vättern is probably pretty close.

There is not much that supports the idea of a capital or a "permanent" recident for any king in Sweden during the 13th century. And if there were places you might call the Kings base it was probably located in Götaland and not in Svealand (ref: Dick Harrisson, Maja Hagerman etc)

[Llywelyn]

Originally Posted by Razor

... it was probably located in Götaland and not in Svealand (ref: Dick Harrisson, Maja Hagerman etc)

Well, for a while here it went back and forth between Geatish and Sveadish (heh) dynasties, right? Wiki sez every community more or less had to set aside a patch of land ("Upsala Od") for the king's use, so he basically had demesne (on the community level) everywhere and (on the provincial level) nowhere

j.

[Razor]

Originally Posted by Llywelyn

Well, for a while here it went back and forth between Geatish and Sveadish (heh) dynasties, right? Wiki sez every community more or less had to set aside a patch of land ("Upsala Od") for the king's use, so he basically had demesne (on the community level) everywhere and (on the provincial level) nowhere

j.

Both the Sverkerian and Erikian dynasties were Geatish. The first from the eastern part and the latter from the western. After them came the Bjällbo (sometimes refered to as the Folkunga dynasty) dynasty who had their power base in Eastern Geatland (Bjällbo) as well.

[Olaus Petrus]

Originally Posted by Llywelyn

I'm working on creating a 1204 scenario for Crusader Kings and was looking at medieval Sweden.

In 1204, it looks like the major powers were

1. Sverker II who was king at Stockholm,
2. Olov Lambatunga who was archbishop in Uppsala,
3. The Jarl of Sweden from the Folkunga clan in Geatland, and
4. Erik who was the rightful heir of another dynasty in exile in Norway

Question is, how should the actual titles be parcelled out?

Obviously, Sverker's in charge in Sodermanland, Erik has nothing but a claim and is camping out in Trondheim, and the Jarl as day to day administrator should have ducal titles to all the lands under the king's domain.

But I don't know the rest.

1. I can't find any other large feudal magnates and it seems like the Swedes didn't have a nobility yet. Should every other province be controlled by a local Thing (ie, republic) or should there be one Thing that owns all of East Geatland (the Lionga Thing), another Thing for West Geatland (the Thing of All Geats), and a third for the remainder of Svealand (the Thing of All Swedes)? or should I just create random local nobility whole cloth?
   
2. Is it wrongminded for Sweden to have the archbishop in territorial control of Uppsala?
   
3. How were the Finnish territories administered? By their own Thing? or by the one at Uppsala?

Thanks for any help you can offer!
j.

Some quick thoughts. I didn't have time to check sources, but this should be rather accurate (although many of these things you asked are things which we don't know, because we don't have enough sources).

Jarl was highest officer in the realm (sort of marshall) and at the times stronger than king. King's power was highly limited, because for a long time there had been many competing candidates for the kingship and not all regions recognised power of the king. City of Stockholm was founded in 1252 by Birger Jarl, so at 1204 city wasn't founded. It was just a village.

1. Swedish frälse (equivalent to nobility) was created in 1279 in Ordinance of Alsnö. Before that "nobility" was more informal. There were local chieftains who were richest and mightiest landowners and had strong influence in the local ting. But other local families competed with them and rarely one family was dominant all the time. Army (or I should say fleet) was based on ledung system where each hundare had to give certain amount of ships and their crews to the service of the king during campaign. Campaigns were mostly performed by fleets, because at that time there was no road network and it was slow to move army through forests. So sea coast, lakes and rivers provided good route for the army. Swedish administration was still based on old Germanic system at the time.

2. At 1204 separation of church from the rule of secular power wasn't done in Sweden during this period and archbishops weren't as powerful as they were at the later times. At the time of archbishop Olov Lambatunga pope demanded that church should be freed from taxation. Archbishop were mighty man at Uppsala, but they were debendant of the royal power.

3. In 1204 there was bishop of Finland, although he was missionary bishop and we don't know his name. His power was limited to the area of Finland Proper (CK province of Finland). We also know that Swedes had a fort in Åbo, but we don't know who commanded the fort. Finland Proper was at that time losely connected to the Sweden and state organisation was builded at the reign of bishop Thomas (ca. 1230-45).

[Llywelyn]

Thanks! That's great to know.

Originally Posted by Olaus Petrus

City of Stockholm was founded in 1252 by Birger Jarl, so at 1204 city wasn't founded. It was just a village.

Wiki says the first "undisputed" mention of Stockholm's in 1252, as an already extant and established capital. So sometime before that.

I'd swear I saw a reference to it c. 1208, but apparently even if I go look that up, it's from a "disputed" source.

j.

[Olaus Petrus]

Originally Posted by Llywelyn

Thanks! That's great to know.



Wiki says the first "undisputed" mention of Stockholm's in 1252, as an already extant and established capital. So sometime before that.

I'd swear I saw a reference to it c. 1208, but apparently even if I go look that up, it's from a "disputed" source.

j.

First mentions are in some viking saga, but city wasn't officially established till 1252. Sure there was community before that. It became official capital only in the late middle ages.

[Arilou]

Again "Capital" is probably wrong: The king was ambulatory (Most of thet axes were in food after all, and in order to make us of it he had to travel around and eat it "at location" so to speak)

Exactly when Stockholm was founded i shard to say somewhere after the raid against Sigtuna and before 1252 is all that is known, IIRC.

Well, for a while here it went back and forth between Geatish and Sveadish (heh) dynasties, right? Wiki sez every community more or less had to set aside a patch of land ("Upsala Od") for the king's use, so he basically had demesne (on the community level) everywhere and (on the provincial level) nowhere

Mmm, that is pretty true, although by the 1200's that had (kinda, sorta) started to be complemented by taxes (more specifically fines: If you didn't serve in the Ledung you have to pay a fine, the Ledungslame, over time people started preferring to pay the lame rather than serve, so eventually it was turned into a tax)

It should be noted that the 1200's and 1300's is when the centre of the country starts to move from the geatish areas to Svealand. Most of the new churches and large construction projects are in Svealand by this time.

[L.J. Hiertha]

Originally Posted by Olaus Petrus

First mentions are in some viking saga, but city wasn't officially established till 1252. Sure there was community before that. It became official capital only in the late middle ages.

Stockholm is situated right on a choke point controlling acces to lake Mälaren. It's extraordinarily likely there was something there before 1252, but it might have been a fortification and perhaps not a town or even a village.

[Skarion]

Wiki says the first "undisputed" mention of Stockholm's in 1252, as an already extant and established capital. So sometime before that.

I'd swear I saw a reference to it c. 1208, but apparently even if I go look that up, it's from a "disputed" source.

j.

Stockholm became the official capital during GIIA reign.

Thought Uppsala had been the capital before Stockholm since Uppsalas högar?

[Hallsten]

Originally Posted by Skarion

Stockholm became the official capital during GIIA reign.

The earliest referrals to Stockholm as the capital of Sweden are from the early 15th century. Most earlier Swedish kings had their main powerbase in Götaland, so it's fair to assume that that's where they lived most of the time even though they surely may have visited both Stockholm and Uppsala. The foundation of Stockholm in 1252 is an invented fact, but it's the earliest known reference to a settlement of relevance at the site.

Originally Posted by Skarion

Thought Uppsala had been the capital before Stockholm since Uppsalas högar?

Uppsala högar are MUCH older than the country of Sweden. Before the formation of Sweden Uppsala had rulers that styled themselves "King in Uppsala", though.

[Skarion]

The earliest referrals to Stockholm as the capital of Sweden are from the early 15th century. Most earlier Swedish kings had their main powerbase in Götaland, so it's fair to assume that that's where they lived most of the time even though they surely may have visited both Stockholm and Uppsala. The foundation of Stockholm in 1252 is an invented fact, but it's the earliest known reference to a settlement of relevance at the site.

No, it was where the Riksdag was kept and most of the administration.

Stockholm was first officialy made capital by GIIA (And probably unofficialy by Axel Oxenstierna) as a way to higher effiency. Let see if I can get some sources...

From Wikipedia:

1634 blev Stockholm officiellt Sveriges huvudstad

[Olaus Petrus]

For those who can read Swedish I like to recommend reading works of Thomas Lindkvist. I myself just read his article "Erik den heliges Sverige -Makten och riket" (St. Eric's Sweden -Power and kingdom), which gave detailed picture of developements in state formation of 12th century Sweden.

[Razor]

Also Dick Harrison's book "Jarlens Sekel" might be a good selection.

I will take a look at Thomas Lindkvist's books. Thanks for the tip Olaus!

[The Brain]

Originally Posted by Arilou

Most of thet axes were in food after all,

Ouch.