RXML parse error: No current scope.
 | <set quote="none" value="//www.lysator.liu.se/nordic/scripts/links/extern_link_73.pike" variable="extern_redirect">
 | <set quote="none" value="//www.lysator.liu.se/nordic/scripts/links/extern_link_73.pike" variable="extern_redirect">
 | <trimlines>
 | <insert file="/nordic/include">
 | <insert file="include">

RXML parse error: No current scope.
 | <if variable="rxml is 1">
 | <if variable="rxml is 1">
 | <trimlines>
 | <insert file="/nordic/include">
 | <insert file="include">

RXML parse error: No current scope.
 | <if variable="rxml is 1">
 | <if variable="rxml is 1">
 | <if variable="rxml is 1">
 | <trimlines>
 | <insert file="/nordic/include">
 | <insert file="include">

RXML parse error: No current scope.
 | <set eval="<date part=second>" variable="start_s">
 | <if false="1">
 | <if false="1">
 | <if variable="rxml is 1">
 | <trimlines>
 | <insert file="/nordic/include">
 | <insert file="include">

RXML parse error: No current scope.
 | <set eval="<date part=minute>" variable="start_m">
 | <if false="1">
 | <if false="1">
 | <if variable="rxml is 1">
 | <trimlines>
 | <insert file="/nordic/include">
 | <insert file="include">

RXML parse error: No current scope.
 | <set eval="<date part=hour>" variable="start_t">
 | <if false="1">
 | <if false="1">
 | <if variable="rxml is 1">
 | <trimlines>
 | <insert file="/nordic/include">
 | <insert file="include">

RXML parse error: No current scope.
 | <set eval="<countdown seconds since iso=1997-12-01>" variable="surfer_time">
 | <if false="1">
 | <if false="1">
 | <if variable="rxml is 1">
 | <trimlines>
 | <insert file="/nordic/include">
 | <insert file="include">

RXML parse error: No current scope.
 | <if variable="file">
 | <if not="not" variable="file">
 | <if false="1">
 | <if false="1">
 | <if variable="rxml is 1">
 | <trimlines>
 | <insert file="/nordic/include">
 | <insert file="include">

and the Swedish Revolt in 1434-1436

Back to my homepage.

Preface
The Background to the Revolt
The Autocracy of the Union
The Dawn of the Revolt
Engelbrekt Engelbrektsson
From Bergslagen to the Treatise in 1434
1435
The Second Revolt
The Murder of Engelbrekt
Conclusion
Literature

Preface

The revolt that broke out in Bergslagen in Sweden against king Erik of Denmark (the ruler over the three countries; Norway, Sweden and Denmark, of the Kalmar Union) in 1434 was a mark of the beginning of a new era. The revolt had a strong folkmovement as basis and Engelbrekt Engelbrektsson, who was not a member of the immediate uppermost class, was the leader. he had his likeness in other parts of Europe at the same time; Jeanne d'Arc and Jan Hus. Like them Engelbrekt was also made into a martyr and a national hero after his tragic death. He was held as a forerunner in the rebellious movement against the king of the Union by the the Swedish nobility and his story was told by bishop Tomas in the Engelbrekt Chronicle (Engelbrektskrönikan). His role as a messanger of God with a divine mission of ending surpression was emphasized by the german Herman Korner in his Chronica Novella and by Ericus Olais in Historia de regno Gothorum. The legend of Engelbrekt was very much idealized already in his own time (Larsson 1984, p.11, Ahnlund 1934, p.12,35,57).

In the 17th century Engelbrekt was referred to as a "friend of the nation" and in the 19th century he was the leader of the peasants in the nationalromanticized historical writing. He became a national symbol and the "founder of the first Swedish parliament (riksdag, which is not true, but an indication of the historical view of the 1800's. In the early 20th century much critisism has occured, but in the 30's Engelbrekt was held as the leader of an "early capitalistic revolution" by the marxistic writng, or as an "bourgeois revolutionary" (Larsson 1984, p.14-18).

The sourcematerial is scarce, which evidently has led to many different views on the revolt, on Engelbrekt's role and life. Of the original letters, documents and cronicles remains only a few, but enough to somewhat reconstruct the events and the background. I have used the books and essays written on the subject by Swedish authors from the 20th century. In this essay the emphasis lies in the comprehension of the background and the events of the Swedish revolt in 1434-36 and compare the views of hisotrians on this. The nobles behind the revolt are also palying a great role in the essay, and it is built up around the main figure, Engelbrekt Engelbrektsson from Norberg. Since all my sources are in Swedish I have freely translated some sections, which I have used. Feel free to comment this essay and discuss the subject or other subjects on Medieval history!

The Background to the Revolt

The Swedish Society During the Kalmar Union

The large group of self-owned peasants in Sweden was formed by skattebönderna, plying the taxes to the crown. The tax-pressure on them was enourmous, but they had status and a material basis - the land. The landbönder, paying taxes to the nobility, the crown or the church, had an even greater tax-pressure and a far worse status, since they only had the right to USE the land of the crown, nobility or church. Thus, the peasant's power lay in his number, the responsibility of vendetta, his right to juridical institution (sockenting, häradsting) and the emergence of new weaponery technics in their use. The contacts with other peasants over the country was though weak; they could not start a rebellion without leaders from the nobility (who had largespread contacts). (Larsson 1984, p.58, 62-63)

The mining-peasants, bergmännen, became richer than the other peasant-groups, when the mining began in Sweden in the 13th century, with the help of german know-how and capital. It created new markets and more economic gain. The most important areas were in Bergslagen (in Dalarna) and in Närke. Engelbrekt Engelbrektsson's family had for three generations been miners, with their origin in Germany, and hence emerged in status to the lower nobility. (Larsson 1984, p.67-68)

The Autocracy of the Union

Margareta, the queen of the Union 1397-1412, established reductive economic politics, which aimed to buy in the estates of the lords to the crown in order to encrease the wealth of the crown. The taxes were therefore raised and the amount of labor for the peasants (dagsverken) encreased. The lords were controlled carefully; the danish lords and unknown swedish families were given the most important swedish estates, which, of course, was not seen keen on by the swedish nobles. Even the peasants "own" by the church were taxeted heavily, which united the opinional front. (Lönnroth 1934, p.63)

After the death of queen Margareta the autocratic priciples were somewhat milded, according to Erik Lönnroth the Union was firm and "gave the three nordic peoples a common peace by the borders and an outer strength". (Lönnroth 1934, p.65) Lars-Olof Larsson emphazises that the queen in the eyes of the crowd was a negative personality; her father Valdemar was called "The Wolf" and she thus was called "The Daughter of the Wolf" (the wolf a symbol of evil). In Sweden there was much critisism against Margareta's taxation, when king Erik Pomeranian succeded her. (Larsson 1984, p.77, 81)

King Erik travelled to Sweden to calm down the situation. Vadstena was won over to his side, due to his wife Filippa, who owned large areas in Swden. Erik tried to gain control over the church and the nobles, (Larsson 1984, p.81) but his actions were not seen upon mildly. He interferred in the elections of a bishop in Roskilde 1416 - his ruthless politics occured very quickly. In Sweden the nobles hated him even more. Most of their castles were in the hands of danes or germans, put there already by Margareta and continued on by Erik, to ensure their loyalty to the crown and as a means of centralization, (exept Viborg in Finland, where Krister Nilsson Vasa ruled), and also the bishops were danes. Erik seldom travelled to Sweden and NEVER to Norway! (Enemark 1986, p.37-38, Larsson 1984, p.102-103)

Erik wanted control over Slesvig and the Hansa helped him in his demands. The Hansa wanted some privilegies instead, but did not get them (Erik worked more against them by establishing the Customs at öresund -öresundstullen) and so Erik declared open war with the Hansa. The conflict continued until 1432, when a peacetreaty was signed, although the argument was not fully settled. Although the war had been a disaster for Erik and the enthusiasm of the nobles had decreased, the nobles had gained importantexperience of fighting - a help in the revoltyet to come. (Larsson 1984, p.90-92, 99-101) He was forced to raise taxes during the war. Besides, the agrarian crisis (agrarkrisen) lowered the prices and the mining of silver had stopped in many European countries. The war with Lübeck caused difficulties for the swedes to import and export products, e. g. the export or iron and cupper from Bergslagen (!) decreased as well as the import of salt and wheat.(Enemark 1986, p.40) This made the critisism against the king grow even more.

In the same year as a treaties finally was signed with Lübeck, in 1432, a big argument between Erik and the swedish church occured, in the elections of a new archbishop. Erik and Uppsala had proposed different cadidates (Erik a dane, of course, and Uppsala a swede), but Erik forced them to elect his man. Erik was then highly disliked and the swede elected by Uppsala continued as an archbishop abroad in secrecy.(Larsson 1984, p.97)

The Dawn of the Revolt

1432 or 1434?

Jösse Eriksson was a nobleman with danish roots in Borganäs, controlling Bergslagen as sheriff. The peasants were heavily taxated and finally rose to oppose the demands of even more taxes (the large amount of skattebönder there were more taxated - see chapter 2). The peasants refused to pay and revolted. (Larsson 1984, p.114-115) According to the Karlskrönika they reported to the king about Jösse Eriksson already in 1431, but were ignored. Gottfrid Carlsson claims that there occured some revolts as early as in 1432, but these the swedish nobles succeded to calm down. But, in 1433 a new revolt broke out, which was succesful, and Jösse Eriksson was deported. The situation calmed down, but only for a moment. Anew a revolt broke out in 1434 and the leader was now Engelbrekt Engelbrektsson, the nobleman from Norberg. There was a "rumour that Erik would give them a new, even worse sheriff to Borganäs", but in the background lay probably war- and foreignpolitics of king Erik (e. g. the disturbance of the economic connections with the Hansa as Erik*s ships started to guard the coast even if peace still was official). (Carlsson 1964, p.29-30) Bergslagen was economically strong, but dependent on the Hansa, which opposed Erik's politics. The diplomacy that had begun between Erik and the Hansa was destroyed as the revolt broke out. (Lönnroth 1964, p.19)

According to Erik Lönnroth we cannot be sure if Engelbrekt was the leader of the revolt against Jösse Eriksson, due to the controversity in the sources, but his name is mentioned in July, as the revolutionaries marched to Stockholm. (Lönnroth 1964, p.17) The revolution grew larger and stronger as people joined in from every part of the country they marched trough. Lönnroth calls it a "swedish jaquerie" - a peasant movement against the nobles. But we cannot underestimate the critisism among the churchmen (due to the election of archbishop) and the aristocracy. "Nothing personal, political initiative from Engelbrekt can [...] be traced at that time, empazises Lönnroth, but Engelbrekt's initiative was surely the same for Bergslagen and the aristocratic government. Lönnroth's liberal view can be clearly shown here. According to him the aristocracy had "an old program of freedom" from the dominance of Denmark in the Union. (Lönnroth 1964, p.20-22) Larsson joins Carlsson's view by proving that Engelbrekt was sent to the king's herredag in Copenhagen in 1433 to complain about Jösse Eriksson. Due to this Jösse was replaced by lord Hans von Eberstein, apparently a german. The situation was not much better and so the revolt broke out. The absence of contact between the people and the nobles makes the united front look more uncertain. The peasant revolt was used as a reason for revolting by the church and the nobles. (Larsson 1984, p.129-135)

Engelbrekt Engelbrektsson - the Man Behind the Organized Revolt

It is known very little of the man Engelbrekt Engelbrektsson before his actions in 1434. He was a nobleman of the lower nobility and his origin were german. He was probably born in the 1390's and married in 1428 to Karin, daughter of a nobleman of conciderable wealth in Västmanland. Engelbrekt's family had been miners - bergmän - in Dalarna, but he was also a member of the bourgeois of Västeros - he owned a mannor there. Västeros was the harbor for export of iron and cupper and hence Engelbrekt had to be a member of the bourgeois there to have right to do business with the Hansa. (Larsson 1984, p.121-125, Carlsson 1964, p.27)

Carlsson ephasizes that Engelbrekt probably grew up on the mannor of Nils Gustavsson Rossvik, which could explain the good relations he had to the highest nobility even before the revolt. Besides, his wife Karin, was the daughter of a rich nobleman, and this could only mean that Engelbrekt himself was a man of great influence in his own area in Norberg. Karin remarried after Engelbrekt's death in 1436, with a noble namned Folke Turesson, and lived on after his death on his mannor in Jämmertuna still in 1461. (Carlsson 1964, p.28, 31) Bishop Thomas described Engelbrekt as "the little man", and that is all we now of his outer appearance. His coat of arms shows three lilys cut in half. (Larsson 1984, p.121,123)

From Bergslagen to the Treatise in 1434

The castle Borganäs was burnt down by the revolutionaries on Midsummer's Day in 1434. The people moved on to Västeros, which suffered the same fate as Borganäs. In Västeros Engelbrekt held a meeting - ting - and the nobles decided to join him, led by the knight (and probably an old aquaintance with Engelbrekt) Nils Gustavsson from Rossvik. He was given the Västeros castle and became an important supporter of the movement as it moved on to Uppsala. In Uppsala Engelbrekt gave a promise to lower the taxes and hence became popular. The king's representative fled and the swedish archbishop, Olof, could return from abroad. A revolt broke out in Finland and Norrland at the same time, led by Erik Puke, when the strategically important Kastelholm castle was taken. (Larsson 1984, p.139-142, Ahnlund 1934, p.43-46, Carlsson 1964, p.32) Larsson witholds that "if the revolt in Dalarna really should have had the miner's fear for new problems with the trade with the Hansa as foremost reason [...] one can only confess that the revolt quickly and effectively resulted just in what they wanted to prevent." (Larsson 1984, p.146) In five weeks the revolutionaries were outside the very walls of Stockholm.

Stockholm surrendered, due to the negotiations with the mayor, Hans Kröpelin (of german origin, but very popular among the people because of his good behaviour against them). (Carlsson 1964, p.32, Ahnlund 1934, p.10) The troups went on to örebro, Nyköping and östergötland. Here a treatise was signed, which made Engelbrekt free to travel to Vadstena, to meet the nobles in the August of 1434. The bishops signed (forced or not by Engelbrekt? The discussion is lively) a letter to king Erik, where they revolted and claimed he had no right to rule them anymore. It was a success for Engelbrekt, since the bishops, their nobles and people in the southern parts of Sweden now had joined him. It is uncertain wheter he forced them to join him or wheter they joined him freely. Engelbrekt acted, according to Larsson, "int the king's place" and hoped for a true co-operation with the nobles. He also reorganized the troups in three divisions, one led by himself, another led by Guse Nilsson and the third led by Herman Berman. (Larsson 1984, p.149-152, 154) Lönnroth claims that Engelbrekt at this time lost control over the revolt; "Engelbrekt put the lavin of the revolt in movement in 1434. [...] But when the aristocracy had taken the step towards revolt, he never again had any significant influence on Sweden's fate. [...] After the 16th August 1434 the aristocracy led Sweden's foreign and domestic politics. He [Engelbrekt] tried to oppose the old noble families, which led to his fall." (Lännroth 1964, p.25)

Carlsson claims the opposite; the idea that Engelbrekt now would have stepped aside for the aristocracy in the war against king Erik is controversial to the sources. The aristocracy in the government supported Engelbrekt and worked as a government on "Engelbrekt's formal mission or nevertheless with his agreement" - he "remained himself the real ruler of the country as much as he conquered its territories, and as such he was regarded also abroad." (Carlsson 1964, p.33) In a letter to Danzig 10th of March 1436 Engelbrekt tried to sign a treatise with the Hansa, and this is saved in the memory of Lübeck as "the year, when Magnus Bengtsson killed Engelbrekt", which could be proof of the importance of Engelbrekt and that he was held as a ruler of Sweden abroad. (Carlsson 1964, p.39)

The revolt went on and many castles and mannors were burnt down. Engelbrekt's troups advanced into danich territories in Halland. Engelbrekt negotiated and he got the territory's taxes, even if the castle Falkenberg (controlled by the dane Axel Pedersen) remained a danish outpost. Engelbrekt's skillful tactic gave him many benefits. He could now, when the southern parts were secured, go back up north. (Larsson 1984, p.158-160)

King Erik summoned troups and ships in an effort to conquer Sweden from the east coast, which had not yet been occupied by the swedes. He tried to stop the revolt, but he did not manage to do it. By S:t Martin's Mass, the 11th November 1434, Erik surrendered to sign a peace treatise that would last for one year. New negotiations was to start then. (Ahnlund 1934, p.11, Carlsson 1962, p.9, Carlsson 1964, p.34, Larsson 1984, p.161)

1435

During this year Engelbrekt planned the building of the so called "Täljekanalen" - a channel between Mälaren and Saltsjön. He aimed at better connections with the Hansa, since their ships could travel better if a channel was made. This project had to be ended due to too much trouble in building it. (Larsson 1984, p.35, Ahnlund 1934, p.8)

In May 1435 a meeting took place in Halmstad, and Erik was declared king of Swedn again. The swedes were content. In June The Uppsala Cathedral was ready and a feast was held, where Engelbrekt and archbishop Olof were present. (Larsson 1984, p.173,175)

In October 1435 new negotiations began between the swedes and king Erik. Engelbrekt was present, but had not signed the treatise. He had no personal reason to hate Erik, since the latter had signed a peacetreatise with the Hansa in July 1435 and had given Engelbrekt the castle in örebro. The aristocrats gave away for king Erik, who now made the conditions even worse. He recreated the government (which Engelbrekt had created in 1434) and Engelbrekt was now excluded. That was taken as a serious offence and a new revolt broke out. The people was easily won on Engelbrekt's side, since the promise of decreased taxes had not come into reality. Danish nobles were replaced in the castles and this made the people discontent again. Karl Knutsson Bonde was made marsk, in charge of the military, which was an important step in his future career. (Carlsson 1964, p.36, Lönnroth 1964, p.23-24, Larsson 1984, p. 178)

The Second Revolt

Engelbrekt's influence had drastically decerased. Erik Puke, his comrad, had lost Kastelholmand joined him in his discontentness. The people joined them due to the heavy taxation. A new revolt broke out in November 1435. But Erik Puke, Engelbrekt and Karl Knutsson started fighting amongst themselves. (Larsson 1984, p.185-189)

A new meeting in Arboga was arranged 13 days after Christmas, in January 1436. Complaints on the king's politics were discussed and a new revolt was planned. Karl Knutsson went over to Engelbrekt's side and they agreed to march towards Stockholm. By the gate of Stockholm Engelbrekt and his nobles formed a committee, on which the german bourgeois of the city answered. The mayors were attacked by Engelbrekt and Karl Knuttson, when they had decided not to open the gates, and the revolutionaries forced their way in (the citizens inside opened the gates, as they opposed the germans). The bourgeois were afraid of a blockade and joined the revolt. Karl Knutsson and Erik Puke took control of the city, as Engelbrekt led the army in the other territories. (Larsson 1984, p.188-192, Carlsson 1964, p.36)

The 15th March 1436 Karl Knutsson was elected as rikshövitsman. The elections was held by 30 nobles; lords and clergymen, in the dominican convent in Stockholm. Karl Knutsson was elected probably because he seemed more secure, as Engelbrekt and Erik Puke did not rely on the government. Besides, Erik Puke had arranged trouble as he had conquered bengt Stensson Natt och Dag's castle in Tälje and hence encreased the rivality between him, Engelbrekt and Bengt Stensson. This was to have disastrous future events... According to Carlsson the government maybe also wanted to have teh rikshävitsman in Stockholm and not, as Engelbrekt was doing, running around the country. The bourgeois and the commons wanted to see Engelbrekt as their leader, so the government decided to make BOTH Karl Knutsson and Engelbrekt into rikshövitsmän to solve the situation. All parties agreed on that. (Larsson 1984, p.192-194, Carlsson 1964, p.37)

At that time, in February 1436, a revolt also broke out in Norway against the Kalmar Union. The leader was the nobleman Amund Sigurdsson Bolt. They also managed well and offered the swedes a united movement, but this did not come to an end, as thing were at hand in Sweden... (Larsson 1984, p.195-196)

Engelbrekt was on his way towards Kalmar; Brömsehus was taken and Blekinge and Halland lay at his feet. In Scania a new treatise was signed in Tranarp, 5th April 1436. Engelbrekt went north again, but during this march he fell ill and returned to his castle in örebro, the 20th April 1436. (Larsson 1984, p.197-198)

The Murder of Engelbrekt Engelbrektsson

According to Karlskrönikan Engelbrekt recieved a message to örebro from Bengt stensson on Göksholm. Bengt Stensson wanted to meet Engelbrekt and sort out their unsolved earlier disputes. Bengt's son, Magnus Bengtsson, also had a personal quarrel with Engelbrekt dating back to 1434, when the former had left his duty. The government was to solve the argument and Engelbrekt travelled to Stockholm - the date here is uncertain; it was thought to have been the 27th April, but in another source the date is more probably the 4th May 1436. Engelbrekt went by boat on Mälaren and according to the story, he landed on an island for the night. Magnus Bengtsson, however, caught him here and killed him. (Larsson 1984, p.203-204)

The rumour of the murder spread among the peasantry and they marched to Göksholm. Bengt Stensson and his son had to flee, but the peasants did not conquer the castle. Instead they fetched Engelbrekt's body and brought it back to örebro. (Larsson 1984, p.206)

The cult of Engelbrekt's martyredom spread very quickly. Lönnroth emphazises that when Engelbrekt was regarded as a martyr and saint, his murder's father "Bengt Stensson (Natt och Dag) had him out of the way; Karl Knuttson protected his murderers. The uneasiness among the peasants [...] was calmed down by meeting with delegates from the peasantry." Lönnroth comments the cult by claiming that "the real Engelbrekt's personality only peeps out of the shadows of the medieval blur of the politic warfare." (Lönnroth 1964, p.25-26) In 1440 Magnus Bengtsson Natt och Dag returned from abroad and became a man of the government. he died in the 1470's. Carlsson claims that Engelbrekt was never concidered as an equal to the higher aristocracy, but more as a "man of the people". (Carlsson 1964, p.40)

Conclusion

After the tragic death of Engelbrekt the people was gathered to a meeting in Uppsala. Karl Knutsson alone became rikshövitsman (and he, finally, in 1448 was elected king). The 1st September 1436 Erik was elected ruler over Sweden in Kalmar, but he had to submit to the government's principles. They had succeeded at last. The people's rights had not been concidered and more revolts broke out in Dalarna and Värmland during the following two years, but they were surpressed. (Larsson 1984, p.211-214, 231) Erik Puke, who had continued a personal revolt, was defeated and killed in 1437. (Lönnroth 1964, p.25-26) The people had no one to lead them anymore and the movement died out.

Nils Ahnlund saw the revolt as a nationalistic event. He wrote in 1934 Engelbrekt's story to the festivities of the "500th" anniversary of the swedish riksdag; "the Engelbrekt-revolt in 1434 is for us swedes what the Eidsvoll meeting in 1814 ha become for the norvegians", he dramatically wrote. (Ahnlund 1934, p.13) He also critizised Erik Lönnroth, who thought the sources more inreliable due to their religious purpose. Ahnlund thought that they were reliable even though they had "got coloured by the natural way of expressions of their time". (Ahnlund 1934, p.64, 72)

Erik Lönnroth firmly claimed that "Engelbrekt's historical importance lies in that he [...] on the summer of 1434 declared the swedish opposition's opinion in the conflict between the king Erik and the Hansa [...] and therefore secured the victory of the Hansa over the united North." (Lönnroth 1964, p.26) Gottfrid Carlsson saw Engelbrekt not as a builder of opinions, but as a person whose "reputation and honor do not need any beautiful or enlarging ingredients. In a critical time he made the Swedes lords in their own house [...] according to lines that he himself with a fist of iron had drawn up." (Carlsson 1964, p.42) To Carlsson Engelbrekt apparently was an absolute hero.

Lars-Olof Larsson has in 1984 ancored Engelbrekt to his time in a social context. He adds contact between the classes to the picture, as an important ingredient, but there is not much he can actually add. Engelbrekt and the revolt of the 1430's will probably always remain a shadowy question to us.

Literature

Ahnlund, Nils, Engelbrekt - tal och uppsatser, Uppsala 1934

Carlsson, Gottfrid, "Engelbrekt Engelbrektsson" in Tvistefragor i svensk historia, ed. Birger Sallnäs, Lund 1964

Carlsson, Gottfrid, Engelbrekt, Strurarna, Gustav Vasa, Lund 1962

Enemark, Poul, Kalmarin unionista Tukholman verilölyyn: Pohjoismainen unioniaika 1397-1521, Juva 1986

Larsson, Lars-Olof, Engelbrekt Engelbrektsson och 1430-talets svenska uppror, Värnamo 1984

Lönnroth, Erik, "Engelbrekt" in Tvistefragor i svensk historia, ed. Birger Sallnäs, Lund 1964

Possible comments/suggestions upon this essay, please mail to Eva Ahl.

Back to my homepage.