Section VI.
The Battle of Clontarf.—Power of the Ostmen after the Battle.—Their
Churches and Bishops.—Their Land and Sea Forces.—The English
Conquest.—Remains of the Ostmen.—Their Importance for Ireland.
The cause of the battle of Clontarf, so celebrated in song and legend, or, as it is called in the Sagas, “Briánsbardagi” (Brian’s battle, after King Brian, who fell in it in 1014), is not precisely known. All that we are acquainted with is, that Brian, who was connected by very close ties of relationship with the Norwegian royal family in Dublin, had long availed himself of the assistance of the Norwegians to subdue other Irish princes, until, at length, after gaining victories in that manner, he came to a rupture with King Sigtryg of Dublin. The prospects of Sigtryg, and of the Norwegian power in Ireland, seem really to have been threatening enough; at least it is said that Scandinavian warriors hastened in numbers to Sigtryg’s assistance from the Scandinavian kingdoms in England, the Isle of Man, the Syder Isles, and Orkneys. From the last, in particular, came Jarl Sigurd the Stout, with a chosen force, in the midst of which waved a flag with the image of Odin’s holy raven. Sigurd’s own mother had woven this raven, which, with fluttering wings, had often before led the warriors to victory and glory.
This time, however, the raven was checked in its flight. After many of the standard bearers had been killed, Sigurd Jarl himself took the flag from the staff, and wrapt it about his body. He seemed to foresee, what really happened shortly afterwards, that the raven-flag would be his winding-sheet. The Norwegians were at length forced to give way, even if the battle was not so entirely lost as the exaggerated Irish accounts represent. The Scandinavian auxiliaries withdrew to their ships, and King Sigtryg retired with the remnant of his army to Dublin.
But, as the Irish chronicles contain nothing about Sigtryg and his men having been afterwards expelled from Dublin, or about the Norwegian dominion there having been entirely destroyed, we cannot conclude from them that the power of the Ostmen in the rest of the Irish cities was annihilated in consequence of Sigtryg’s defeat in the battle of Clontarf. It would, besides, have been singular enough if the power of the Norwegians in Ireland had been perfectly destroyed so early as the year 1014, since it was just after that time that the Northmen in the neighbouring countries acquired their greatest power by means of their victories. Instead of the Norwegian influence in Ireland having ceased, we not only find, long after this battle, King Sigtryg of Dublin fighting bravely with his Ostmen, though at times with varying fortune, against several Irish kings and chiefs, but we further behold the Ostmen displaying a very remarkable degree of strength and independence in various places in Ireland.
About five-and-twenty years after the battle of Clontarf (say the Irish chroniclers themselves), Sigtryg, king of the Ostmen in Dublin, and Donat (Dunan), their bishop, built, in the middle of that city, the church of the Holy Trinity, also called Christ Church. That the Ostmen should then have founded one of the principal churches of Dublin, which even lay without their own town (Ostmantown), in the very heart of ancient Dublin, is highly significant. After the church was built, Bishop Donat presented several relics to it, amongst which are mentioned “pieces of the clothes of King Olaf the Saint.” The great respect in which the name of the Norwegian Saint Olaf was held in Dublin is also manifest from the circumstance that a church consecrated to St. Olave, or, as the Irish common people gradually corrupted the name, to “Tulloch” (compare the name of Tooley Street in London, corrupted from St. Olave Street), was to be found there till at least far into the sixteenth century. This church adjoined the northern end of Fishshamble Street, near Wood-Quay; but originally, perhaps, it was just outside the city.
In the same year (1038) that Christ Church was, partly through the exertions of Bishop Donat, erected in Dublin, he likewise built the chapel of St. Michael. Half a century later (1095) another “Ostman” built Saint Michan’s Church in the “Ostmen’s” town in Dublin; and about the same time the cathedral in Waterford, dedicated to the Holy Trinity, was founded and erected by the Ostmen there.
The “Ostmen” in Ireland thus possessed not only their own churches, but likewise, as the Irish records also mention, their own bishops, who were consecrated in England by the archbishop of Canterbury; whilst the Irish bishops were consecrated in Ireland itself by the Irish archbishop of Armagh. The Dublin “Ostmen’s” first bishop Donat, or Dunan, died in the year 1074, and was buried in Christ Church, to the erection of which he had himself so considerably contributed. After him, by desire of the Dublin king Godred, or Godfred, another “Ostman,” Patrick, was chosen bishop of the Ostmen in Dublin, but perished by shipwreck on his voyage home from Canterbury (1084). He was succeeded by the “Ostman” Donat O’Haingly (+1095); whose cousin, Samuel O’Haingly, previously a monk in the convent of St. Alban’s in England, afterwards filled the see of the “Ostmen” in Dublin until the year 1121. His successor, Gregorius, was the first of these Ostmen’s bishops in Dublin who was made archbishop. This probably arose from the circumstance of the “Ostmen” in the other Irish towns having in the meantime obtained bishops, who were now to have a common superior in the Archbishop of Dublin. In the year 1096 the “Ostmen” in Waterford are said to have obtained a bishop, Malchus, who is stated to have been a native of Ireland. In the year 1136 Waterford had an “Ostman” named Toste (Tuistius, or Tostius) for its bishop. A few years later (1140) Gille, or Gilbert, the “Ostmen’s” bishop of Limerick, died; after whom the “Ostmen” chose a certain Patrick. In the year 1151 the “Ostman” Harald, bishop of Limerick, died, and was succeeded by his countryman Thorgils (“Thorgesius”). Twenty years previously (1131) the death of the “Ostman” Everard, or Eberhard, abbot of the convent of St. Mary, near Dublin, is mentioned; which confirms, what is indeed almost a matter of course, that the Ostmen, who had their own churches and bishops, must also have had their own convents partly filled with Scandinavian monks and abbots. At length, in the year 1161, Gregorius, archbishop of Dublin, died; and from his time until the present Dublin has constantly been the seat of one of Ireland’s principal archbishops. But precisely because this archbishopric was originally founded by Ostmen, or foreigners, the archbishop of Dublin did not afterwards become the primate of all Ireland, as, from the importance of Dublin, we might otherwise have expected. That dignity, on the contrary, has constantly been reserved for the genuine old Irish archbishopric of Armagh, in the north-east of Ireland. Even Gregorius’ successor in the archiepiscopal see is said to have been consecrated in Dublin by the archbishop of Armagh. It has lately been discovered (compare P. Chalmers in the Journal of the Brit. Archæol. Assoc., Oct., 1850, p. 323, &c.) that these archbishops of Dublin not only administered their own diocese, but, at least at times, acted as superintendents of the Norwegian bishoprics in the Isle of Man and the Sudreyjar. There is a letter of Pope Honorius of the beginning of the thirteenth century, from which it appears that the archbishop of Dublin at that time consecrated a bishop of Man and the Sudreyjar, a privilege which in more ancient times belonged to the archbishops of York, and afterwards (from 1181 to 1334) to the archbishops of Trondhjem. It is quite certain that this was a result of the lively intercourse which undoubtedly took place between the successors of the Ostmen in Ireland and their near kinsmen in the Norwegian kingdoms in Man and the Sudreyjar.
It was, above all, a very fortunate circumstance for the independence of the Irish Ostmen that such powerful Norwegian kingdoms continued to exist on the west coast of Scotland. From these they could usually obtain assistance in their battles with the Irish; and by means of them they also kept up a constant connection with their Norwegian fatherland. That they were able to maintain their peculiar independent position in Ireland for more than a century after the Danish dominion in England had ceased to exist, was clearly not so much owing to their military skill and compact force, in comparison with the internal dissensions and perfect want of union among the Irish, as to the considerable wealth and power which they constantly derived from their extensive trade and navigation, and the influence which by such means they must necessarily have exercised in Ireland. The Irish chronicles and pedigrees teach us that friendly connections and reciprocal marriages increased more and more between the Irish and the Ostmen, both in Ireland and Norway, so that the Irish aristocracy became mixed in a considerable degree with Norwegian blood. We also learn from the same documents that the Ostmen and their kings constantly continued to ally themselves with Irish princes, whose power they often essentially contributed to support. The Irish king Konofögr gained a naval battle in Ulfreksfjord against Einar, jarl of Orkney, because, as it is stated, the Norwegian Viking, Eyvind Urarhorn, had joined the former with his ships. When King Magnus Barfod of Norway undertook his expedition to Ireland, he concluded an alliance with Myrjartak, King of Connaught (O. N., “Kunnáktir”), whose daughter, Biadmynja, was married to Magnus Barfod’s son Sigurd. But when Magnus fell in Ulster (in 1103), Sigurd abandoned Biadmynja. Yet the connections formed in Ireland by Magnus through this expedition produced important results for Norway. An Irishman named Harald Gille came forward and passed himself off for a son of that monarch by an Irishwoman; and after proving his descent by walking over red-hot iron, actually became king of Norway, and left its throne as an inheritance to his family.
The Ostmen settled in Dublin and other places in Ireland were more and more induced to form connections with native Irish princes, nay, even sometimes to submit to them, as the support which they derived from their own country continually decreased during the eleventh and twelfth centuries. Shortly after the battle of Clontarf, Christianity was introduced into the Scandinavian North, and thus an end was put to the Vikings’ expeditions, which had hitherto incessantly brought colonists and auxiliary forces into Ireland. Even the reinforcements which the Ostmen were able to obtain from their countrymen in Man, the Sudreyjar, and the Orkneys, were naturally not so important as before; since on these islands also Christianity gradually annihilated the bold Viking spirit of the people.
Under such circumstances it is surprising that Godfred (or Godred) Merenagh, king of the Ostmen in Dublin, had in the year 1095 a naval force of not fewer than ninety ships in the harbour of Dublin; and that the land forces of the Ostmen in that city were proportionately powerful. The Irish chronicles mention many battles in the eleventh and twelfth centuries in which the Dublin Ostmen brought numerous warriors into the field, and in which they often suffered very considerable loss, without, however, being entirely annihilated or driven out of the town. Even in the year 1167, and consequently a hundred and fifty years after the battle of Clontarf, a great meeting of the Irish people was held by Athboy of Tlactga, at which, the Irish themselves say, thousands of the first Ostmen in Dublin were present.
That this account is not exaggerated, and that the number of Ostmen in Dublin, as well as in the other Irish cities, was really very considerable at the close of the twelfth century, is clearly shown by the notorious fact, that when the English, under Earl Strongbow and Miles de Cogan, obtained, in the years 1170 and 1171, a firm footing in Ireland, the Ostmen in Dublin, Limerick, and Cork, were able to offer a very powerful resistance. Respecting the conquest of Dublin by the English we find the following statement in the “Dublin Annals” (by O’Donovan):—
“The year 1170. The Danes of Dublin were treacherously slaughtered in their own garrison by Mac Morough and the English; and they carried away their cattle and their riches. Asgal, the son of Reginald, king of the Danes in Dublin, fled from them.
“1171. A battle was fought at Dublin, between Miles de Cogan and Asgal, son of Reginald, king of the Danes of Dublin. Many fell on both sides, both of the English archers and of the Danes; among whom was Asgal himself, and Hoan, a Dane from the Orkney Isles.”
On this occasion Asgal, or “Hasculph,” is said to have returned to the city with sixty ships. His warriors, say the chronicles, were accoutred, according to the usual custom of the Danes, in armour and coats of mail, and had red circular shields bound with iron. But though these men were “just as steeled in soul as in arms” (homines tam animis ferrei quam armis), and though, as well as their brethern in Limerick and Cork, they fought the fight of desperation in defence of their property and liberties, yet they were not able to withstand the English. Thus these new conquerors succeeded in annihilating the dominion of the Ostmen in Ireland, or rather in the most important cities of that country, after it had lasted above three hundred years.
Nevertheless we must not believe that the Ostmen were even now wholly expelled from Ireland, or that their influence there was entirely at an end. After the taking of Dublin by the English, so many Ostmen still remained in the city that “the Galls of Dublin” continued to have their own separate army, which even seems to have acted pretty independently of the English conquerors. An Irish chronicle (Annals of the Four Masters) states that Mulrony O’Keary, Lord of Carbury, was treacherously slain by the “Dublin Ostmen” in the year 1174, and consequently some years after the taking of Dublin. In the same year the English themselves were forced to obtain the assistance of the “Dublin Ostmen” against the Irish; and it is expressly stated that in a subsequent attack of the Irish on this united Anglo-Norwegian army not far from Dublin, there fell no fewer than “four hundred Ostmen.” The contemporary author, Giraldus Cambrensis, to whom we owe this account, also speaks of the Ostmen, after the conquest of Ireland, as a peculiar and decidedly separate people, who carried on trade and navigation (“gens igitur hæc, quæ nunc Ostmannica gens vocatur,” &c).
Even more than a century afterwards we can still trace many Ostmen in the chief cities of Ireland, where, it seems, they continued to preserve those Scandinavian characteristics which distinguished them from the Irish and English. In the year 1201 a verdict was pronounced by twelve Irishmen, twelve Englishmen, and twelve Ostmen in Limerick, concerning the lands, churches, and other property belonging to the church of Limerick; which shows that the Ostmen were sufficiently numerous there to be placed on an equal footing with the English and Irish. There is in the Tower of London a document of the year 1283, issued by the English king Edward I., ordering that the Ostmen in Waterford (“Custumanni,” Oustumanni, Austumanni?) should, pursuant to King Henry the Second’s ordinance, have, and be judged by, the same laws as the English settled in Ireland, which clearly indicates that the Ostmen at that time still formed a distinct and separate people. We might almost believe that the Ostmen in Waterford had even refused to observe the English laws, or that at least there was a doubt how far these laws could be applied to them; since King Edward found it necessary to enforce Henry the Second’s ordinance, and to enjoin his chief justice and magistrates in Ireland that the three men named in the document should, “like other Ostmen in Waterford,” be judged, and as far as possible (“quantum in vobis est”), punished, according to the laws in force for Englishmen in Ireland. (See the Latin document in the Appendix.) The striking historical account that in the year 1263 the Irish applied to the Norwegian king Hakon Hakonsön, then lying with his fleet on the south-west coast of Scotland, for assistance against the English, will now no longer be inexplicable or improbable; for it is placed beyond all doubt that amongst the Irish who thus in vain implored King Hakon for help, there must have been a number of the Ostmen still living in Ireland, who naturally continued to maintain a connection with their countrymen in the Norwegian kingdoms on the south-west coast of Scotland, until these kingdoms also were destroyed in the middle ages.
But from this time forward the “Ostmen” do not play any prominent part in the history of Ireland. Their political independence was annihilated; and their national characteristics were not sufficiently supported by fresh arrivals from the mother-country, to enable them in the long run to maintain a distinct position in face of the rapidly advancing English nationality. Their descendants continued, nevertheless, to dwell in Ireland; where they gradually became amalgamated partly with the English conquerors and partly with the native Irish. The Irish chronicles point out various clans in Ireland which were either of Norwegian descent, or at all events had been much mixed with Norwegian blood. In the annals and pedigrees of the middle ages we also meet with both laymen and clergy in Ireland bearing Scandinavian names. For instance, in Christ Church in Dublin, built by the Norwegians, canons and monks are spoken of in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries called “Harrold,” “Olof,” “Siwird” (Sivard), “Regenald,” (Ragnvald) “Iwyr,” &c., names entirely unknown in Ireland previously to the arrival of the Norwegians. The often-mentioned Irish chronicler makes use of a highly remarkable expression. In stating that most of the merchants’ families in Dublin in his time (about the year 1650) were descendants of the Norwegian-Irish king Olaf Kvaran, by Brian Boroihma’s (Boru’s) daughter Save, he adds: “and the descendants of that Amlave Cuaran are still in Dublin opposing the Gadelians of Erinn:” whence we clearly see that national distinctions and national disputes between the descendants of the Irish and of the Norwegians, were still very prominent only two hundred years ago, or full six hundred years after the battle of Clontarf (1014).
Even to the present day we can follow, particularly in Leinster, the last traces of the Ostmen through a similar series of peculiar family names, which are by no means Irish, but clearly original Norwegian names; for instance, Mac Hitteric or Shiteric (son of Sigtryg), O’Bruadair (son of Broder), Mac Ragnall (son of Ragnvald), Roailb (Rolf), Auleev (Olaf), Mánus (Magnus), and others. It is even asserted that among the families of the Dublin merchants are still to be found descendants of the old Norwegian merchants formerly so numerous in that city. The names of families adduced in confirmation of this, as Harrold (Harald), Iver (Ivar), Cotter or Mac Otter (Ottar), and others, which are genuine Norwegian names, corroborate the assertion that Norwegian families appear to have propagated themselves uninterruptedly in Dublin down to our times, as living evidences of the dominion which their forefathers once exercised there.
It is thus satisfactorily proved, by notorious facts of the most various kinds, that for more than three hundred years the Norwegians lived according to their own manners and customs, and under their own bishops and kings, in the most important towns of Ireland, which they in part ruled, down to the time of the English conquest (1170); that they were the first who minted coins, and carried on any considerable trade and navigation in Ireland; and lastly, that great numbers of their descendants continued to reside in that country even after it had long been conquered by the English. No impartial person, therefore, will be able any longer to deny that the settlements of the Ostmen, although commenced by the frequent demolition of churches and convents, were ultimately in the most essential matters particularly fortunate for Ireland; since, by introducing trade and navigation to an extent before unknown, they opened for that sequestered country channels of animated communication and intercourse with the rest of Europe and its continually advancing civilization. The Irish towns occupied by the Ostmen, which have continued to be the principal depots for foreign merchandise, and consequently also the central points of intercourse with foreign countries, may with justice be said to be indebted chiefly to that people for their present greatness, wealth, and power.
Nor, on a larger historical survey, will it appear less evident that, as the Norwegians first opened the way for peaceful connections between Ireland and the rest of Europe, so they also facilitated the English conquest. In consequence both of their frequent wars, and of their frequent alliances with Irish kings, party feeling had rather increased than diminished among the Irish chiefs; whilst numerous Irish families, even the greatest in the land, had by degrees become so much mixed with Norwegian blood, that the strength of the Irish as a nation was not a little weakened and divided. This was particularly the case in those districts of the east coast of Ireland where the English or Norman power afterwards obtained its chief seat. Add to this that the Irish, through the long dominion of the Norwegians in their chief towns, and the advantages which they reaped from it, had become more and more accustomed to behold with indifference the sway of strangers in their country; a circumstance which contributed to the powerful support given to the English on their first invasion of Ireland by several of the native chiefs.
It may possibly be said that the Norwegians in Ireland, by thus preparing the way for the Norman or English conquest, rendered a far greater service to England than to subjugated Ireland. But all the chronicles, it must be recollected, bear witness that the Irish were neither strong enough to govern their own country independently, nor capable of keeping pace with the advance of European civilization by means of an active commerce. We have seen that even in later times the same baleful and sanguinary spirit of dissension which weakened Ireland in ancient days is yet scarcely extinct among the original Irish race. It is manifest, therefore, that Ireland, which would otherwise have been divided from the rest of Europe, and devastated by terrible intestine contentions, has been much benefited by being united to so great and powerful a country as England, which has both the ability and the will to promote the true welfare of the Irish people. England will, by degrees, employ the great advantages afforded by the excellent soil and situation of Ireland, and thus conduct that country, torn as it is by all possible distresses and misfortunes, to a happier existence.