Scotland’s ‘Viking king’
Who was ‘King Karl’?
The Orkneyinga saga, composed in the early 13th century, records the careers of the Scandinavian earls of Orkney from c.900 to 1214. Of all the earls in the history of the Norse earldom, one in particular looms large: Thorfinn Sigurdsson ‘the Mighty’ (d.c.1058). According to the saga, Thorfinn ruled the earldom for 70 years and held an astonishing nine Scottish earldoms. As every subsequent Norse earl of Orkney was descended from Thorfinn, some of his achievements should be understood as exaggerations, probably created by Thorfinn’s dynasty to legitimise their own actions. However, one of Thorfinn’s achievements stands out for different reasons. The Orkneyinga saga claims that he defeated a Scottish king called ‘Karl Hundason’ in a series of battles.
Thorfinn’s battles against Karl are a self-contained narrative that appears in chapter 20 of modern editions of the saga. According to this account, Thorfinn initially defeats Karl’s nephew Muddan in Sutherland. Muddan flees to Berwick-upon-Tweed to inform Karl of his failure. Karl sets sail for the north and fights Thorfinn off the coast of Deerness in Orkney. The two fight again in Tarbat Ness, which the saga mistakenly claims is south of the Moray Firth. Thorfinn definitively beats Karl in this battle, though it is unknown whether Karl survived or not. At this point, Thorfinn apparently raids in Scotland, reaching as far south as Fife. There are plenty of reasons to doubt this account. Most importantly, there is no other record of ‘King Karl’, and his Scandinavian name does not suit the Gaelicspeaking Scottish monarchs of that time.This article will suggest who ‘King Karl’ actually was and discuss how the Orkneyinga saga’s mistaken account was produced. In doing so, it will reveal the many issues with using sagas as historical sources.
Before approaching the mystery of the identity of ‘King Karl’, it is important to understand that the Orkneyinga saga’s account was based on less than ideal sources. The most reliable part of the tale is the poetry of Arnórr jarlaskáld (which translates to ‘earl’s poet’). This poetry can be reliably dated to the 11th century; we can identify its author, we know he was a real person, and perhaps most importantly, the strict structures involved in creating skaldic poetry mean that it has remained unchanged since its creation. However, the saga author’s interpretation of the poetry, and thus, the surrounding narrative, is not as reliable. The rest of the saga’s account is based on oral tradition that was passed down through generations of Scandinavian settlers in northern Scotland. Unlike a
The story of King Karl shows that Icelandic sagas should not always be taken literally as sources, especially in their earlier sections
written record, oral traditions were altered with every retelling, so an oral account from the 11th century would be significantly different by the time it was written down in the 13th century. For the saga author, these traditions are difficult to date and easily misunderstood. By acknowledging these issues and the surrounding historical context, the story of ‘King Karl’ begins to unravel.
Mistaken identity
The first discovery is that Karl was not a king of Scotland at all. In the 11th century, Scotland was made up of two sub-kingdoms, which were seemingly based on the boundaries of the earlier Pictish kingdoms: the Fortriu kings in the southern part of the country and the Muréb (or Moray) kings in the north. Historian Alex Woolf has proposed that these two regional leaders shared the kingdom of Alba (Scotland) in an alternating kingship, akin to that which operated in the Irish over-kingdom of Tara. In this system, the leaders of each province took it in turns to be king of the combined territory, while each continued to rule his own territory.
However, by the 13th century, this alternating system had ended. The reigns of Malcolm III’s sons show that the Fortriu dynasty had permanently established itself as the kings of Scotland in the late11th and early-12th centuries. This means that the Orkneyinga saga’s Icelandic author was probably unaware of the fact that Scotland had previously been divided between two sub-kingdoms. When he read Arnórr’s poetry and saw that Thorfinn fought against a king in Scotland, he probably assumed this was a king of Scotland. The context of the situation suggests Thorfinn actually fought against a ruler of Moray. The saga claims Thorfinn was the grandson of a Scottish king called Melkólmr (the Old Norse representation of Máel Coluim or Malcolm). This is probably Malcolm II of Scotland, a Fortriu king.
He arranged for his daughter to be married to Sigurd, Thorfinn’s father, in what seems to have been an anti-Moray alliance. The
Orkneyinga saga claims Sigurd won a battle against Findláech, a Moray leader. This battle seems to be how the earls of Orkney conquered Caithness. Thorfinn’s battles against a king in Scotland should therefore be understood as part of conflict between the kings of Moray and the Orkney earls over Caithness, which the earls eventually won.
Who was Karl?
If King Karl was in fact a ruler of Moray, the most plausible candidate for his identity is Findlaech’s son Macbethad, known to Shakespeare fans as MacBeth. One of many things Shakespeare’s play fails to acknowledge is that before becoming king of Scotland, Macbethad was a leader of Moray. The Orkney earls’ alliance with the southern sub
kingdom is evidenced by the marriage of Malcolm III (r.1058-1093) to Thorfinn’s widow Ingibjorg. Historian A. A. M. Duncan hypothesised that Thorfinn protected the young Malcolm from his northern rival Macbethad in Orkney. Macbethad’s conflict with Thorfinn was probably due to the fact that Thorfinn controlled Caithness, which had historically been Moray territory. As the saga account of the conflict with Karl suggests, Macbethad was unsuccessful in retaking Caithness. The earls of Orkney held Caithness for the rest of the Norse period and beyond. Thorfinn’s possible protégé Malcolm would eventually overthrow Macbethad and his short-lived successor Lulach (d.1058).
So, is that the mystery solved? King Karl was Macbethad? Well, not exactly. There is still an obvious issue: Karl’s name. Several authors have attempted to explain why ‘Karl Hundason’ is a Norse pseudonym for Macbethad, however, the Orkneyinga saga is good at representing Gaelic names, so the use of a pseudonym here would be extremely unusual.The migration of Gaelic-speaking people to Iceland in this period meant that Icelandic authors were familiar with the pronunciation of Gaelic names.This meant they only had to transcribe them from Gaelic into Old Norse.
It appears that two separate individuals have been merged to create King Karl Hundason. The poetry on which the Orkneyinga saga’s account is based references Thorfinn’s battles against a king of Scots and Karl Hundason. However, they are never identified as the same person. It is only in the surrounding text, written over a century later, that Karl is called a king of Scots.
A rival claimant?
The question remains – who really was Karl? Once we recognise that he was not a Scottish king, it appears more likely that he was a rival claimant to the earldom. The Scandinavian system of inheritance used in Orkney meant that all male descendants of a previous earl were entitled to part of the earldom, meaning there was often more than one earl at the same time.
The evidence for Karl being a claimant to the earldom comes earlier in the Orkneyinga saga. The saga claims that Sigurd,Thorfinn’s father, was visited by Olaf Tryggvason, who would later become the king of Norway. The chronology of Olaf’s visit to Orkney fits with his escapades in England, where the generally reliable Anglo-Saxon Chronicle records his baptism in 994. It is therefore plausible that, on his way back to Norway, Olaf paid a visit to the northern isles.
The Orkneyinga saga claims that Olaf took a son of Sigurd as a hostage. The saga author is uncertain of the son’s name, claiming that it was ‘Hvelpr’ or ‘Hundi’, which are both words for ‘dog’ in Old Norse. The author’s uncertainty might be through some element of disbelief, as neither ‘Hvelpr’ nor ‘Hundi’ was a commonly-used personal name.
Despite this uncertainty, Alex Woolf has suggested that this statement suggests a candidate for Karl’s parentage. Old Norse names usually included a first name and a patronymic – a name related to the parentage of the individual.
Therefore, ‘Hundason’ would mean ‘the son of Hundi’. The saga states that Hundi did not survive long in Norway, but it is not impossible for him to have fathered a child who would later try to claim the earldom. It is also possible that an opportunistic Norwegian chieftain tried to claim he was Hundi’s son in an effort to seize the earldom. Whether legitimate or not, Karl Hundason appears to have been a claimant to the earldom, who Thorfinn successfully resisted.
So far, it has been established that the saga’s ‘King Karl Hundason’ is an amalgamation of two people – Macbethad, ruler of Moray and future king of Scots, and Karl Hundason, a failed claimant to the Orkney earldom. However, the locations of certain events within the Orkneyinga saga’s account suggest neither of these people were involved in them. Macbethad was at war with Thorfinn over Caithness, so there was no reason for him to be getting involved in battles in the south of Scotland. Indeed, the poetry in the account describes a battle with the ‘Scottish king’ at Tarbat Ness, located just south of the Dornoch Firth. Battles involving Karl would have been located in the north, as Karl presumably travelled from Norway. Accordingly, a poem referencing Karl describes a battle off the coast of Deerness in Orkney.
Despite this, in the accompanying narrative, based on oral tradition, we are told that ‘King Karl’ was reportedly once at Berwick-uponTweed. This does not match with the actions of Macbethad or Karl. The saga also claims that Thorfinn raided in Fife, which would contradict his supposed alliance with the southern Scottish kings.
Another indication that the oral narrative has been confused is the inclusion of Sutherland in the list of Thorfinn’s territories. Sutherland was originally part of Caithness, and the earliest use of the term ‘Suthyrlandia’ in Scottish charters dates to c.1211. The name ‘Sutherland’ almost certainly originated in Norse as Suðr-land
– meaning ‘Southern-land’. The only way that Sutherland could be considered ‘the south’ would be if you were from the northern isles or Caithness. However, it does not appear that Sutherland existed as a term in the mid-11th century. The Orkneyinga saga does not mention ‘Sutherland’ again until it discusses events which occurred in the 12th century – a more likely period for the creation of the term. This chronological gap between the uses of ‘Sutherland’ suggests its association with Thorfinn the Mighty is incorrect.
These issues with the account can be explained by a confusion of two Thorfinns. Earl Harald Maddadsson (d. 1206) was probably the most accomplished of the earls of Orkney. Unlike Thorfinn the Mighty, his rule was characterised by rivalry with Scottish kings, rather than co-operation. His second marriage to Gormflaith MacHeth gave his family a claim to the earldom of Ross, bringing him into conflict with King William ‘the Lion’ of Scotland (r.1165-1214). Harald’s eldest child by his second marriage was called Thorfinn, and 12th-century sources indicate that Thorfinn Haraldsson was a serious problem for King William. Chronicler Roger of Howden records that William took an expedition north in 1196 and forced Harald to meet him. William demanded that Harald bring him ‘the king’s enemies’ in future. The chronicles Gesta Annalia I and the Chronicle of Melrose record a battle between Thorfinn Haraldsson and ‘the king’s vassals’ near Inverness in 1197.
Roger notes that later that year, William went to Nairn, demanding that Earl Harald bring him his desired prisoners. When Harald arrived, William asked where Thorfinn was, indicating that Thorfinn was one of the enemies William had asked for in 1196. Harald had refused to bring Thorfinn, complaining that he had ‘no other heir in this land’, presumably referring to Ross – just across the Moray Firth from Nairn. In response, William imprisoned Harald until his son was delivered, at which point Harald was released.
A confusion of Thorfinn Sigurdsson and Thorfinn Haraldsson accounts for the anachronisms in the tale of King Karl. The latter Thorfinn was alive at a time when the term Sutherland was probably in regular usage and if Thorfinn Haraldsson raided in Fife, this would certainly explain why he was regarded as ‘the king’s enemy’ prior to 1196. Furthermore, it is known that his opponent, King William, was in the south in 1194-96 due to discussions over Northumberland, so could have been in Berwick in 1197. This confusion also explains why the Orkneyinga saga incorrectly claims that Tarbat Ness was south of the Moray Firth. It appears the author mixed up the battle between Thorfinn Sigurdsson and the ‘Scottish king’ Macbethad with the battle between Thorfinn Haraldsson and the ‘king’s vassals’ at Inverness, which is on the south of the Moray Firth.
There are several reasons as to how these two individuals, living over 100 years apart, could be mixed together in this way. Firstly,Thorfinn Haraldsson’s career was relatively short-lived and may not have been known to an Icelandic author. After King William traded Earl Harald for his son, Thorfinn remained in prison for the rest of his life and was brutally mutilated on William’s orders after another falling out with Harald. Secondly, if Thorfinn Haraldsson had claimed to be the earl of Ross, he might have been called ‘Earl Thorfinn’ in the northern isles.The author of the Orkneyinga saga, being familiar with Thorfinn Sigurdsson, would probably have assumed any stories about an ‘Earl Thorfinn’ to be about Thorfinn Sigurdssson. Thirdly, in accounts involving William and other Scottish kings in the Orkneyinga saga, their first names are rarely used.
They are usually referred to only as a skotakonungr – meaning ‘king of Scots’. If this were the same in the traditions on which the accounts were based, it would have been easy to mistake one king for another. Lastly, and most importantly, this account relies on oral tradition, which is extremely difficult for the author to date. Vague stories from the 11th century could plausibly have been mixed with late-12th century tales before the saga author wrote them down.
Overall, it is plausible that ‘King Karl Hundason’ was actually a combination of three people: Macbethad of Moray, Karl Hundi’s son, and King William ‘the Lion’. His opponent, Thorfinn, was a mixture of two individuals: Thorfinn Sigurdsson ‘the Mighty’ and Thorfinn Haraldsson, who was possibly earl of Ross.The story of King Karl shows that Icelandic sagas should not always be taken literally as sources, especially in their earlier sections. However, it also shows that there is historical information hidden in sagas which can be extracted with a creative approach and a knowledge of the surrounding context. In this case, the Orkneyinga saga might have more to offer historians of 12th-century Scotland than previously realised.
A confusion of Thorfinn Sigurdsson and Thorfinn Haraldsson accounts for the anachronisms in the tale of King Karl
Tom Fairfax is a graduate of Lancaster University and has recently completed an MLitt in Scottish History at the University of St Andrews. His Masters dissertation was about the Orkneyinga saga and the independence of the earls of Orkney.