Historians disagree about how bloody the Norwegian civil wars were
King Magnus and King Sverre fought for the throne. But was this business as usual, or was it a war?
King Sverre and the Birkebeiners ultimately won. But did they win a civil war, or was it an entirely ordinary conflict at the top of Norwegian society in the Middle Ages?(Painting by Peter Nicolai Arbo, 1862 / Public Domain)
Norway in 1130: The Viking Age has been over for a long time. It is now the High Middle Ages.
Most people are farmers, although trading towns such as Bergen, Trondheim, Oslo, and Tønsberg have emerged and grown. Norway has been fully Christianised. The Church and priests are becoming increasingly influential.
The king rules over a fairly unified Norway with the support of local chieftains and powerful nobles. There is no formal state apparatus, but people gather at local assemblies. These are the places where fines and punishments are handed down, and where networks and political alliances are formed and strengthened.
The population is estimated to have been no more than 350,000.
Sigurd the Crusader dies
Annonse
King Sigurd the Crusader dies in 1130, triggering a struggle over who will succeed him on the throne.
This has traditionally been regarded as the beginning of the Norwegian civil wars, a period that continued until 1240.
But was Norway really in a state of civil war for 110 years?
No, say Hans Jacob Orning and Jon Vidar Sigurdsson. Both are professors of history at the University of Oslo and have spent almost ten years researching this period.
Yes, says Lars Kjær. He is an associate professor of history at Northeastern University in London and studies the High Middle Ages in Europe, including Norway.
Both sides use the same sources: sagas, letters, and other texts from this period. Yet they arrive at completely different conclusions.
“The difference between us is that I take the sources at their word. I take what people in the Middle Ages said seriously. It was through words that they gained support, built alliances, and weakened their opponents,” says Kjær.
A coup with only a king’s daughter as his mother
It was not unusual for Norway to have several kings at the same time. Sigurd the Crusader himself ruled alongside two brothers. His sons both ruled together and competed for power.
After them came several royal sons from various branches of the family tree, all of whom wanted to become king. Some succeeded before being brought down by the next ambitious contender.
In 1161, something quite extraordinary happens. The ambitious earl Erling Skakke allies himself with powerful chieftains, the Church, and the Danish king. He places his own son, Magnus, on the throne.
This is essentially a coup, according to Jon Vidar Sigurdsson.
Magnus is the son of King Sigurd the Crusader's daughter – and daughters did not provide as strong a claim to royal power as sons did.
Magnus Erlingsson therefore becomes the first Norwegian king who is not himself the son of a king.
Annonse
Magnus V Erlingsson was just five years old when he became king. He was the son of Kristin Sigurdsdatter, daughter of Sigurd the Crusader, and Erling Skakke, who ruled the country while Magnus was a child. Magnus died in battle at the age of 28, losing both the battle and the Norwegian throne.(Image: Erik Werenskiold / Public Domain)
Sverre – son of sons
Then Sverre Sigurdsson enters the picture. He grew up in the Faroe Islands and was trained as a priest. When he is 24 years old, his mother, Gunnhild, visits him from Norway. She tells him that he is actually descended from royalty – specifically, that he is the great-grandson of Sigurd the Crusader through the male line.
This gives Sverre a claim to the Norwegian throne. He travels to Norway and becomes leader of the Birkebeiners. They were a band of rebels who, under Sverre’s leadership, became a political and military force fighting for control of Norway.
It is Sverre and the Birkebeiners’ struggle against King Magnus that now sits at the centre of the disagreement among historians today.
Then the Church enters the scene
Since time immemorial, alliances and conflicts between kings and chieftains have come and gone.
What makes the struggle between Magnus and Sverre different is that the contest for the throne now involves two powerful opposing sides, while the Church has emerged as a new and influential force in the struggle for power.
The Church wants to govern itself, with the bishops as its highest authorities, subject only to the pope. Magnus accepts that. Sverre, on the other hand, wants to be the head of the Church.
The conflict also concerns more tangible assets.
"In the past, silver was the most important resource for the Norwegian elite. Now land has taken its place, and the Church has acquired large estates at the expense of the king and the chieftains," explains Jon Vidar Sigurdsson.
"The Church also holds the ideological power. It can define who belongs in society and who is excluded from it," says Hans Jacob Orning.
From left: Hans Jacob Orning and Jon Vidar Sigurdsson have been researching the civil wars for nearly ten years.(Photo: Nina Kristiansen)
Everyone knew everyone
Norway is by no means a peaceful society. Conflicts are part of everyday life, according to Orning and Sigurdsson.
But the kings have neither large armies nor tax revenues. They depend on the chieftains to get anything done at all.
Yes, kings’ sons do fight for power, but society is so small and so thoroughly interconnected by personal ties that it is impossible for a huge conflict – such as a civil war – to get underway, according to the two historians.
They argue that kinship, friendship, neighbourly ties, and marriage alliances made Norwegian society unusually well equipped to keep the level of conflict down, even during periods of rivalry over the throne.
Lars Kjær, on the other hand, believes that a violent civil war did take place, with intense hostility and many casualties – just as the sagas and sources describe it.
The others are demons
"Precisely because there were so many family ties and friendships, those who wanted war had to use harsh rhetoric to make people willing to fight," Kjær explains.
To persuade relatives and former friends to fight one another, the kings had to motivate their supporters. They did this through what scholars call radical othering – the systematic demonisation of the enemy.
“This is clearly evident in the sources,” says Kjær.
They used Christianity. Each side portrayed the other as heretics, enemies of God, and servants of the Devil.
Lars Kjær researches the Middle Ages. He believes that the civil wars unfolded as the sources and sagas describe them.(Photo: Nina Kristiansen)
Excommunication and the burning of Bergen
The Birkebeiners called Magnus’ army devil-men. Sverre called the priests and bishops who supported Magnus disbelievers, liars, and evil.
In one speech, Sverre claimed that the bishops were spreading a spiritual disease that would turn Norway into a new caliphate – a form rhetoric similar to that used by Christian crusaders against Islam.
Magnus and his men responded in kind. The bishops had Sverre excommunicated. The pope called him a limb of the Devil.
One concrete consequence of this religious condemnation was the burning of Bergen in 1198. Archbishop Nikolas Arnesen, who fought against King Sverre, ordered the city to be set on fire – including the churches. He argued that the Birkebeiners had defiled them, meaning they were no longer holy.
“The written sources from these years show that people portrayed their opponents in radically brutal and aggressive terms. The sources also show they treated each other accordingly. The casualty figures from this period show that people meant what they said,” says Kjær.
One of these sources is the writings of Theodoricus the Monk. He was a man of the Church and a historian. He says that he does not wish to write about the period following the death of Sigurd the Crusader, because terrible things happened then, including crimes, murders, parricide, plundering, the abduction of women, and contempt for God.
Hans Jacob Orning does not consider Theodoricus a reliable source.
"Historians have relied on Theodoricus the Monk for 200 years, but he is not a neutral observer. He has a strong interest in painting the situation in the darkest possible colours and demonstrating the need for the authority of the Church and the king. It's similar to Donald Trump describing an America that has gone completely off the rails and claiming that only he can make it great again," says Orning.
The sagas play down the conflict
The sagas were written after peace had been established, Magnus had been killed, and Sverre had become king. Parts of Sverris saga were written while he was still alive. It describes the conflict and the battles, but is more restrained in how it portrays the opposing side.
"The Kings' sagas present a completely different picture from Theodoricus' bleak portrayal," says Sigurdsson.
They describe the granting of grið – that defeated opponents were shown mercy and given guarantees of safety.
"That was the normal practice. People returned to their farms and formed new alliances and networks," says Orning.
"This was a society with close connections. It was not unusual for members of the elite to place one son on one side of the conflict and another son on the opposing side. This strategy ensured that they would always have one son on the winning side, protecting their farm from confiscation. It also made it harder to attack and kill the enemy, because your own brother might be standing on the other side," says Sigurdsson.
The struggle for the throne comes to an end
Kjær agrees that the sagas present a more subdued picture.
"Once peace had been restored, people who had fought on opposing sides were again sitting together in the longhouses. The fact that they had been calling each other the antichrist only a few months earlier was played down. The rhetoric was softened as part of the process of peace and reconciliation. Even so, a great deal still seeps through; we can see the conflicts," says Kjær.
But there was not complete peace. Magnus died in battle, but the rivalry continued for several more years, as royal claimants and their army, the Baglers, attempted to win the throne.
Norway’s long struggle for the throne came to an end with Sverre’s grandson, Håkon Håkonsson, who was king for 46 years.
Orning, H.J. & Sigurdsson, J.V. Hvor voldelige var de norske borgerkrigene? (How violent were the Norwegian civil wars?), Historisk tidsskrift, 2026. DOI: 10.18261/ht.105.2.7
