Blood, Feud, and Honor in the Viking Age

Last week we discussed the ideal system of law in Viking Age society. Yet, that is just the surface of the system that actually existed. Although not directly related, feud was the true process for obtaining justice. Law was merely a phase that most feuds would go through. This lesson aims to shed light on how justice was truly obtained, how honor governed all things within society, and how blood was the answer when honor was violated.

This is an area of Viking history with a good amount of complicated elements. I am going to attempt to simplify and condense it, but if there are any questions, I will happy answer them with greater, isolated detail.

Contents:

1. Defining a “feud”
2. The Economy of Honor
3. Vengeance
4. Peace

Defining a “feud”

Characteristics of the feud process:

1. Feud is a hostile relationship between two groups.
2. Involved groups that can recruit in various ways (household, clientage, etc.)
3. Violence is controlled and scaled, generally remaining between the involved groups.
4. Collective liability (one person getting killed meant that any person from the other group could be killed in return).
5. A notion of exchange (my-turn/your-turn).
6. Score is kept.
7. Honor as prime motivator.
8. Governed by social norms (a well defined process).
9. Culturally acceptable means of settlements and hostility.

Feud was frequently moral, often judicial, and always political. It was moral when social norms are violated (seating arrangements, gift giving, etc.). It was judicial when involving settlement and legal action (the law phase). It was political because it is the primary exchange of power and influence. Feud was far more than vengeance-killing alone. There is also no specific term for feud; it was a process not an institution.

The Icelanders did have a model for feud though, and it takes the vocabulary of gift giving and inverts it. Score is kept and a gift (or killing) is returned with another. Feud took place between people of relatively equal status and resources. It generally did not cross social strata and such conflict would be perceived differently. Those below the middling farmer could not afford to feud. Supporters who died in feud did not spark feuds themselves, because they were a part of the feud between the big men. Feud was not always the first course of action either, of course. If terms were good, matters settled quickly. Yet even settlement was not automatic and feud was never too far away.

Counsel was a major role in the feud process. Not seeking out advice from kin was seen as disrespectful and something that would lead to disaster. After all, kin were effected by feud as much as the complainant himself.

Much of the work behind the feud was actually in gaining support or preventing the other from gaining support themselves. From killings to legal action, support was needed. The uninvolved were crucial, for they were the audience and the judges who would distribute honor accordingly.

The Economy of Honor

“Honor and reputation were in the eye of the beholder and most beholders’ eyes were jealous because they too were competing for the same limited supply.” (Miller, 31)

Rank was not only determined by ancestry and wealth, but also by their worthiness. Honor was the measure of worthiness and was always at stake; social status was inherently insecure. Offended sensibilities over seating arrangements that then lead to conflict are often seen in the sagas. Politeness was important, and so the head of the household was responsible for inviting others to his household and accept food and lodging – a complicated balance and “game” of honor. 

“Honor was thus, as a matter of social mathematics, acquired at someone else’s expense. When yours went up, someone else’s went down.” (Miller, 30)

The exchange of honor was not a closed-off realm between two individuals; it was a matter of the community. The community passed moral and social judgement on a transfer, with honor and prestige being allocated by them. Honorable people exchanged via feud or feast.

Compensation, or the physical amount that a person was actually worth, was defined by their honor. It would also be a person’s honor that determined an appropriate target during a feud, in the case that blood was desired over coin.

“An old man could not relax, nor even the corpse that had suffered violent death, for the final assessment of the victim’s honor depended on how much compensation or how great a vengeance his kin could exact on his behalf.” (Miller, 31)

Vengeance

“Out of some 520 cases in the family sagas counted by Heusler (1911, 40-41), 297 led to blood vengeance, 104 to arbitration without prior recourse to law, and 119 to lawsuits.” (Miller, 236)

Social norms regarding vengeance varied in strength, generality, and applicability. There would be contempt for one too eager for vengeance, but also the man too eager for settlement, a more peaceful closure for a feud. Vengeance was not always killing. It was sometimes found in winning an outlawry judgement. People recruited would prefer peaceful settlement. Yet, when blood was desired, compensation would never do. Even with Christianity, the desire for blood was not completely substituted.

“…vengeance was a duty that had its time and place.” (Miller, 269)

Outlawry was the major punishment that the law dealt against people. It was far less risky to have someone outlawed than to seek blood vengeance, which granted no legal support. On the contrary, the law encouraged the killing of outlaws once sentenced. This was primarily meant to be done by the one who directed the legal action, but even other outlaws were convinced to kill one another (kill three go free).

“…when it rained in Iceland there could be drops of blood mixed in.” (Miller, 296)

Peace

“For segments of society disabled from feud by poverty, peace was like good weather: mysteriously present or absent, but beyond one’s control.” (Miller, 259)

Peace was the norm, and sessions of peace lasted longer than sessions of vengeance and legal action. Still, peace had to be earned and bargained for during times of conflict. The sagas reveal a sense that people not part of the feud were obligated to stop fighting that took place, which was a method for peacemaking. This required strength and courage from the bystander, because it was no game intervening in these outbreaks of violence.

Key Terms

1. Feud – A complicated, hostile relationship between two groups.
2. Honor – The worth of a person based off of their status, image in the community, and achievements. 
3. Compensation – The monetary value of a person based on their honor.
4. Vengeance – The desire that a death be answered with blood instead of gold.
5. Settlement – A compensational ending for a feud, where both parties come to terms, paying what price may be necessary.
6. Outlawry – Sometimes permanent exile from the country, other time for only a three year period.

Wrap-up

“To tell the truth, I could care less if they do each other as much harm as they wish. I think it a better course for us to find a good and safe place to view their meeting and enjoy the sport.” – Thorkel, Laxdœla saga.

Congratulations to anyone who made it through this post. I probably could have done a better job writing this lesson, perhaps with less depth. Hopefully it was not too bad and something was still learned from it.

Next week’s lesson: Lesson 13 – Women in the Viking Age [multi-part series].

---

Sources

This time, I stuck to one book. I have cited this book quite often, and if you are curious about how Viking society may have actually functioned, I highly recommend reading it:

Miller, William Ian. Bloodtaking and Peacemaking: Feud, Law, and Society in Saga Iceland, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990).