Viking defeats at The Battles of Tara and Clontarf

MarchDub

I thought it would be interesting to look at the significance of Tara in older Irish history. A mention was made on another thread about the Battle of Tara – fought in 980 - in which the Vikings suffered a great defeat and were hindered from progressing further into the interior of Ireland. The Annals of Ulster reported the battle in this way:

U980.1
The battle of Temair [Tara] was won by Mael Sechnaill son of Domnall against the foreigners of Áth Cliath and the Isles, and very great slaughter was inflicted on the foreigners therein, and foreign power ejected from Ireland as a result. There fell therein Ragnall son of Amlaíb, the son of the king of the foreigners, and Conamal, son of a tributary king of the foreigners, and many others.

It was a very significant battle – and was overshadowed in historiography by The Battle of Clontarf in 1014 in which the Vikings attempted to make a last attempt at domination. But Tara was where their power was initially curtailed and it could be said that they never recovered from the defeat. Donncha O Corrain – Professor of History at UCC - described the Battle of Tara in Ireland Before the Normans as ‘the beginning of the end for Dublin’s Viking Kings” and the end of their hopes for a wider political role within Ireland.

I think a discussion of the Battle of Tara, Battle of Clontarf and also the wider significance of Tara in the pre-twelfth century Anglo-Norman invasion would be worth pursuing.

riffmongous

There's not much on Tara in my copy of Battlefields of Britain and Ireland, but it does give the name of the leader of the vikings forces, Olaf Cuaran Sigtryggsson, who has a surprisingly large wikipedia article to his credit. The book also mentions a battle that happened between Tara and Clontarf called Glen Mama near Saggart.

Another interesting thing it says is that between 917 and 1014 the Dublin Vikings fought 25 battles and only won 10 which would perhaps suggest that they were not as all powerful as it might seem.

CDfm

Interesting MD.

Your account mentions the Isles and how I learned about the vikings was as a type of marauding bands of pirates from Norway. It seems that they were closer to home in the Isle of Man and the Scottish Isles and had proper territorial bases.

The Gaels had controlled the Isles had they not. Take Colmchille settling on Iona. So has Gaelic seapower waned ?

The Vikings were strong in Waterford and Wexford too.

jonniebgood1

MarchDub wrote: »

I thought it would be interesting to look at the significance of Tara in older Irish history. A mention was made on another thread about the Battle of Tara – fought in 980 - in which the Vikings suffered a great defeat and were hindered from progressing further into the interior of Ireland.

............

I think a discussion of the Battle of Tara, Battle of Clontarf and also the wider significance of Tara in the pre-twelfth century Anglo-Norman invasion would be worth pursuing.

This is an area I would like to find out more about. I think to understand the significance we need to understand the situation before the battle, i.e. background information.
Most of the country was still under native control. The Vikings though would seem to have successfully made bases in the larger settlements. I am assuming this from the following map showing 950AD:
www.irelandstory.com
So the Vikings wanted to move west from Dublin for more control of territory. I have some questions that may or may not be easy to answer? Did the various viking settlements have links with one another? Did they have any alliances with other families? And on a broader basis what was the pattern in other nations where the vikings had established settlements- did they gain control eventually?

CDfm

Were our vikings autonomous from Norway. Didn't you have Norwegian unification around this time.

Wasn't there a Clan Ivar /Ui Imair that were Norse Royalty and were big fish in the Viking world ?

The normans were norsemen too.

So kinship the eventual norman invasion may not have been too surprising.

Take the Kingdom of the Isles



And Viking British Activity

fontanalis

CDfm wrote: »

Were our vikings autonomous from Norway. Didn't you have Norwegian unification around this time.

Wasn't there a Clan Ivar /Ui Imair that were Norse Royalty and were big fish in the Viking world ?

The normans were norsemen too.

So kinship the eventual norman invasion may not have been too surprising.

Take the Kingdom of the Isles



And Viking British Activity

Was it not the Danes who ended up settling in Dublin (I think the Normans were mainly Danes aswell)? I think some Irish people at the time differentiated the different groups as black or white vikings, the colours referring to either the sials or shields.
Also weren't the vikings a very fractured group, for example didn't some vikings side with Brian Boru?

jonniebgood1

I think the vikings in Dublin were from Denmark. According to the "A popular history of Ireland vol. 1" by Thomas D'arcy Magee:

In the year 979, the Danes of Dublin and the Isles marched in unusual strength into Meath, under the command of Rannall, son of Olaf the Crooked, and Connail, the Orator of Ath-Cliath

The names are spelt different than in MD's OP but they were Danish according to this.

fontanalis

The site below has a bit more info, apparently they left their mice in Dublin aswell!
http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/vikings.shtml

riffmongous

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

So the Vikings wanted to move west from Dublin for more control of territory. I have some questions that may or may not be easy to answer? Did the various viking settlements have links with one another? Did they have any alliances with other families? And on a broader basis what was the pattern in other nations where the vikings had established settlements- did they gain control eventually?

Well as far as I know the Viking set up in Ireland was different to other countries mainly because the fractured nature of native Irish political life made them hard to subdue, instead of being overlords the Norse generally got caught up in the various feuds between the Irish kingdoms as allies. And as we know from Clontarf different viking factions ( I think the vikings were organised along family lines) sometimes ended up opposing each other as part of these alliances. Limerick and Dublin vikings also fought against each other directly with Irish allies from 924-937.

Instead of trying to control territory the vikings generally used the rivers where they were based to move inland each year to campaign inland, mostly for plunder and slaves, I've seen it mentioned before that viking dublin was notorious for its slave trade.

Here's a link to the history of the kingdom of Ossory (my local kingdom) that gives you an interesting look at what Irish military and political life was like around that time, even for a relatively minor kingdom like Ossory, which was essentially a buffer kingdom, but it lets you see just how many alliances there was, often changing every few years.
http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~irlkik/ihm/ossory.htm

CDfm

fontanalis wrote: »

Also weren't the vikings a very fractured group, for example didn't some vikings side with Brian Boru?

Were they a fractured group or was kinship important to them ??

Didn't the Waterford & Wexford vikings have family links with the Dublin ones and while they may not have been unified were there unified clans ?

Were they generic or were there different Dane and Norse groups. Like some with allegence to the King of Denmark as overlord and others the the King of Norway ?

MarchDub

fontanalis wrote: »

Was it not the Danes who ended up settling in Dublin (I think the Normans were mainly Danes aswell)? I think some Irish people at the time differentiated the different groups as black or white vikings, the colours referring to either the sials or shields.
Also weren't the vikings a very fractured group, for example didn't some vikings side with Brian Boru?

Yes, the Irish Annals record a clear distinction in describing the Vikings as the Fionn Gall [white foreigners] from Norway and the Dubh Gall [dark foreigners] who arrived later from Denmark. It's not clear why they were called these names and may have had something to with their difference in dress or as you say their ship sails.

The first recorded raids off the Irish coast were in 795 - and within about 20 years they had managed to develop a pattern of attacks around the whole of the Irish coast. The wealthy monasteries were their main targets because that it where the economic life of Ireland was then. The monasteries were the centre of Irish social and economic activity so that was the reason for plundering them.

In the Atlas of Irish History Sean Duffy describes the time :

In these first four decades of the campaign the Vikings rarely penetrated further than 20 miles inland and were still merely sea-borne raiders based elsewhere. Periodically they plundered Irish churches, not simply because Christian targets made suitable pagan prey, but because the monasteries were important focal points of economic activity, storehouses of movable goods which were inhabited by potential captives.

The big business of the Vikings was their slave trade so carrying off people for slavery was one of the activities involved in their plundering.

jonniebgood1

MarchDub wrote: »

The big business of the Vikings was their slave trade so carrying off people for slavery was one of the activities involved in their plundering.

Is it known if they took slaves back to Denmark or used them in their settlements?

MarchDub

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Is it known if they took slaves back to Denmark or used them in their settlements?

They did both - and traded in exporting slaves also. Research on the Viking slave trade has mostly come from the extant writings of the period - and more recently from DNA research. They were slave traders so their slaves went just about everywhere in the known world - including some slaves being sent as 'exports' to the Byzantine Empire.

When the Vikings established settlements they would set up slave trading posts, which they did in Ireland also. So they would use slaves as a captured servant class and also sell them as valuable goods.

Slavery was common throughout Europe at the time and was not invented by the Vikings by any means - but they perfected the trade - had excellent ships for transportation purposes - and became rich on it.

Tabnabs

Just a note regarding the Irish Annals, they record their version of history. This does not always match up with contemporary accounts such as the Icelandic Landnámabók and a number of sagas including Eyrbyggja saga. To get a sense of how fractious and political viking age Scandinavians were I would highly recommend the Sagas including Njalls Saga. Blood, death, feuding and high jinx from 1000 years ago

eg. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olaf_the_White

fontanalis

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Is it known if they took slaves back to Denmark or used them in their settlements?

Recent DNA research suggests a lot of Irish women ended up in Iceland.

MarchDub

Just to add a background note to the Ireland of that time and some context.


The country was divided socially into tuata or family groups each with its own local king or chieftain. The Gaelic language was spoken by all and Brehon law was the indigenous law system. Tara, in pagan times an important sacred area, had become the centre of the kingship – the king of Tara declared himself to be the High-King of Ireland - but it was by no means the same position as a feudal lordship.

The Christian monasteries had grown to become essentially large towns – or centres of commerce and wealth because they had integrated into Irish society so well and vise versa. They were quite secular – well, certainly by the standards of later monasteries in the post twelfth century they were. The monks did not live by any particular monastic ‘rule’. For the most part they were family owned – and the Abbots typically married and passed the monastery on to one of their sons. Armagh was owned by the powerful Ui Neills – which is one of the reasons it became the centre of Irish Christianity.

The Irish monasteries also became centres of European learning – and were able to retain a purer Latin for future generations.

Donnchadh O Corrain says of the scholarship that developed in Irish monastic life.

Irish Christians knew that only Latin gave them access to God’s own words. But Ireland was outside the Roman-language area, the first non-Roman country to accept Christianity in the West. So the Irish had to learn Latin as a foreign language. In the beginning they learned it properly from the best European grammarians and the best books. And when those books didn’t suit them, they wrote even better ones. By the sixth century the [Latin] language was already corrupted elsewhere in Europe. People who thought they were speaking Latin in France and Spain didn’t realise they were actually speaking early French and early Spanish. But in Ireland the [Latin] language remained pure because it was for the educated elite alone, uncorrupted by colloquial use.

slowburner

Please forgive me for being parochial with this minor quibble - but this map shows no viking settlements in Wicklow or Arklow.

MarchDub

slowburner wrote: »

Please forgive me for being parochial with this minor quibble - but this map shows no viking settlements in Wicklow or Arklow.

Slowburner, do you have anything for a source on that?

I checked two maps that I have in books - one in Sean Duffy's Atlas of Irish History and the other in Historical Atlas of the Vikings and both concur with the above map in that Wicklow and the Arklow area are marked as 'Viking activity' but not as a 'settlement' region. Do you have any further information?

slowburner

MD, I am not stating that there were major settlements in these two towns, just remarking that they weren't noted on the map at all. The names of the two towns are well known to descend from the Vikings.
There are still some prevalent names in Arklow which are directly from Scandinavia - Gammel, for example.
On a side note, I am exploring some old mining activity in this area - some of these workings were referred to in 18th/19th C literature as "Danes' works".


http://www.ncte.ie/viking/vikarch.htm

The evidence from the burials ties in well with documentary evidence. Larne, Co. Antrim, was called Ulfreksfjord by the Vikings and there was a settlement there. The longphort at Strangford Lough was probably near the grave site at Ballyholme, Co. Down. The burial at Eyrephort, Co. Galway is close to a fine natural harbour which may have been the site of a Viking longphort perhaps established to coincide with the attacks on Connemara and South Mayo in 812 and 813. In the middle years of the ninth century it would appear that there was a chain of defended sites along the east coast of Ireland with small scale colonising on the west and south coasts. These longphort settlements did not endure. Cork was destroyed in 848, the bases in Antrim and Down were destroyed in 866, Dublin was abandoned in 902 and the last mention of Annagassan is in 927.
Second Period of Settlements:
The second and more intensive period of settlement was characterised by the establishment of a series of towns. Waterford (914), Cork (c.915), Dublin (917), Wexford (c.921) and Limerick (922). Each town had a Scandinavian controlled hinterland which varied in size according to the political power of the town. Dublin's hinterland was the most extensive, called the Dyflinarskiri. It included modern County Dublin and parts of Wicklow as far as Arklow. Many placenames are Scandinavian in origin - Skerries, Lambay, Howth, Dalkey, Wicklow and Arklow are all coastal and Leixlip (the salmon leap) marks the western boundary of Dyflinarskiri. Large monasteries such as Swords, Tallaght and Finglas continued to flourish in this area. The material culture of this phase shows that the Vikings were becoming assimilated. Politically the people of Dublin maintained their independence and close contacts with Scandinavia.

And another quite interesting piece here
http://www.wicklowpeople.ie/lifestyle/arklow-castle-traced-back-to-strongbow-2897013.html

jonniebgood1

'The story of Ireland' by Emily Lawless
suggests a big difference between how the Viking invaders assimilated into England and Ireland respectively. That in England they were accepted and managed to become a part of the natives whereas in Ireland they were rejected.

In Ireland the Danes, as they are popularly called, were always strangers, heathen tyrants, hated and despised oppressors, who retorted this scorn and hatred in the fullest possible measure upon their antagonists. From the moment of their appearance down to the last we hear of them--as long, in fact, as the Danes of the seaport towns retained any traces of their northern origin--so long they continued to be the deadly foes of the rest of the island pg49

This is an old book but it does seem to have insight into the era and I found that interesting. This was the era of viking invasions and they were more often quite successful. Was this when Brian Boroimhe(Boru) came to the fore???

MarchDub

slowburner wrote: »

MD, I am not stating that there were major settlements in these two towns, just remarking that they weren't noted on the map at all.

I didn't post the map so I don't now where it came from but if you look at the thin circular line denoting 'maximum area of influence by Dublin Vikings' it does include Wicklow and Arklow. Did you see that on the map?

I have found another map where Arklow is marked on there as a 'Viking camp' but not a settlement the way Dublin and other regions are. I think it's maybe just a matter of degree of Viking presence - and not an indication of total absence.

jonniebgood1

The map seems to be consistent with what is being said.

slowburner wrote: »

I am not stating that there were major settlements in these two towns, just remarking that they weren't noted on the map at all. The names of the two towns are well known to descend from the Vikings.

So the map only shows 'major settlements' as 'viking territory'.

MarchDub

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

'The story of Ireland' by Emily Lawless
suggests a big difference between how the Viking invaders assimilated into England and Ireland respectively. That in England they were accepted and managed to become a part of the natives whereas in Ireland they were rejected.

This is an old book but it does seem to have insight into the era and I found that interesting. This was the era of viking invasions and they were more often quite successful. Was this when Brian Boroimhe(Boru) came to the fore???

Brian Boru was born around 941 - and died in Battle at Clontarf in 1014. His father was the King of Thormond in modern day Clare. The family home was in Kincora - near the modern town of Killaloe. At an early age Brian was involved in battles with the Vikings in Limerick and gained a reputation for valour. At age 21 he is described as leading a campaign against the Limerick Vikings. He would go on to greater things.

The Vikings did manage to make a greater hold on England but Patrick Wallace, Director of the National Museum of Ireland- one of Ireland's best experts on the Vikings - explains in his writings that this had a lot to do with Irish kingship ability to put up a resistance - but he says social assimilation did take place because:

One of the things that the Vikings lacked in Ireland was women. And women are a fairly vital ingredient if you want to stay in business for another generation. So they married Irish women right from the start. Some Norse women came over the Scotland and Norway but it was never enough.

So from an early time many Vikings assimilated into Irish families. Which in time led to some alliances between Viking and Irish in battles.

CDfm

Here are some I found and Arklow is definately there











Here is the site

http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~irlkik/ihm/ire900.htm

MarchDub

The Vikings in Ireland had some internal issues amongst themselves. The Irish Annals record some confusion from 849 when the King of Lochlann [where Lochlann is actually located is disputed, it is either Norway or a Norse settlement in Scotland] sent a fleet of 140 ships to enforce his authority over the Viking - Norse- areas in Ireland.

Then into the mix in 851 the Danes arrived to attack the Norse longphorts in the settlement in Dublin. Then the Norse brought in reinforcements of 160 ships to counter-attack the Danes. There is a reference in the Irish annals to 'white foreigners do battle with dark foreigners' as the Danes seized Ath Cliath.

Must have been a sight to behold!

fontanalis

MarchDub wrote: »

The Vikings in Ireland had some internal issues amongst themselves. The Irish Annals record some confusion from 849 when the King of Lochlann [where Lochlann is actually located is disputed, it is either Norway or a Norse settlement in Scotland] sent a fleet of 140 ships to enforce his authority over the Viking - Norse- areas in Ireland.

Then into the mix in 851 the Danes arrived to attack the Norse longphorts in the settlement in Dublin. Then the Norse brought in reinforcements of 160 ships to counter-attack the Danes. There is a reference in the Irish annals to 'white foreigners do battle with dark foreigners' as the Danes seized Ath Cliath.

Must have been a sight to behold!

Indeed!
Off topic but wasn't there talk of a film about Brian Boru a while back.

MarchDub

fontanalis wrote: »

Indeed!
Off topic but wasn't there talk of a film about Brian Boru a while back.

Yes, I do remember hearing about it being discussed a couple of years back - but nothing since. Maybe someone knows?

CDfm

Boru's Battle Cry

961 AD 7.00 pm Brian & the lads hit Limerick on the bus from Nenagh

One of the things that the Vikings lacked in Ireland was women.

At age 21 he is described as leading a campaign against the Limerick Vikings

961 AD 10.30 PM Nancy Blakes

Brian " The Vikings are after our women "

dubhthach

MarchDub wrote: »

The Battle of Clontarf in 1014 in which the Vikings attempted to make a last attempt at domination.

Well yeah if you believe the Dál gCais authored "Cogad Gáedel re Gallaib" -- a masterpiece of political propaganda. In reality the battle was more about the kingdoms of Leinster and Dublin throwing off the overlordship of Brian. Máel Mórda (King of Leinster) been the uncle of Sigtrygg Silkbeard (king of Dublin) -- Sigtyrgg mother Gormflaith of course is one of most interesting characters in Irish history.

First she was married to Amlaíb Cuarán (Óláfr Kváran) whom she bore Sigtrygg (Sitric) by. After his death in 981 she married Máel Sechnaill (the victor at Tara -- who was Amlaíb stepson by previous marriage)

She subsquently married Brian Boru and bore his son Donnchad, of course Brian ended up divorcing him and if you believe some of stories it was a bitter Gormflaith who prompted her brother and son to provoke a conflict with Brian. Which is really a Leinster revolt as oppose to a "Viking war"

Sigtrygg by the way was married to Brian's daughter.

By this stage the Vikings in Ireland were heavily Gaelicised and heavily invovled in Irish political scene.

I tend to like this map for period. quite clear:

MarchDub

dubhthach wrote: »

Well yeah if you believe the Dál gCais authored "Cogad Gáedel re Gallaib" -- a masterpiece of political propaganda. In reality the battle was more about the kingdoms of Leinster and Dublin throwing off the overlordship of Brian. Máel Mórda (King of Leinster) been the uncle of Sigtrygg Silkbeard (king of Dublin) -- Sigtyrgg mother Gormflaith of course is one of most interesting characters in Irish history.

First she was married to Amlaíb Cuarán (Óláfr Kváran) whom she bore Sigtrygg (Sitric) by. After his death in 981 she married Máel Sechnaill (the victor at Tara -- who was Amlaíb stepson by previous marriage)

She subsquently married Brian Boru and bore his son Donnchad, of course Brian ended up divorcing him and if you believe some of stories it was a bitter Gormflaith who prompted her brother and son to provoke a conflict with Brian. Which is really a Leinster revolt as oppose to a "Viking war"

Sigtrygg by the way was married to Brian's daughter.

By this stage the Vikings in Ireland were heavily Gaelicised and heavily invovled in Irish political scene.

Yes, I have no problem at all with what you say - Clontarf was not of course a clear cut Viking vs the Irish issue at all. I think that has been accepted for quite some time. Leinster had become a part of the Viking economy and was quite leery of Brian's domination. Like I said in another post the intermarriage of the Vikings into Irish society had set up Irish/Viking alliances and economic interests, trading also played a part. Then there was the myth that it was a religious conflict -

As O Corrain says:

There is an old view of Clontarf that was a conflict between Irish Christianity and Scandinavian paganism. This just doesn't hold up because the Viking people who ruled Dublin were Christian. Olaf, the Father of Sitric Silkenbeard, actually died in religious retirement in Iona. Sitric Silkenbeard himself was a great patron of the church in Dublin.

But O Corrain also points out that it did break the Viking power on the Irish Sea. But Brian's death was not good either - he had built up a strong High-Kingship with no obvious successor, like the primogenator style succession that the rest of Europe had. So Ireland suffered years of conflict over the high-kingship.

And Gormflaith was quite the woman. I was actually trying to find something on Gormflaith on the web. I have book references to her but a link to something would be good - save me from typing out .

dubhthach

Well I think the whole "religous" angle to it is if anything a product of the 19th century. When you think about Romantic nationalism probably saw parallels between the Noble "Christian" Irish throwing off the foreign "pagan" yoke

Of course the reality is completely different.