Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXV

[Tobtor]

Dollinger calls the Herring situation at the end of the 14th Century and beginning of the 15th a 'decline'; I used the word 'crash' - which I got from other historians (I didn't invent it). The sudden drop off of herring fisheries in that area is something which as I'm sure you know, has happened several times, then recovered, and this has been studied a great deal. My understanding of the Skania situation is that a series of bad fish harvests starting in 1395 ended by 1405 with a massive drop off. By Dollingers numbers it's about an 85% decline which didn't recover for several generations. I call that a crash, but you could also call it a steep decline or something else.

Look he uses 1400 as the peak year, which indicate there wasnt a crash in the 14th century, or at least not one that was permanent. I can tell you that the (foreign) towns continued to pay taxes to get booths, and that there was continued strong as solid expansion of the Skania towns (and tDragør) in questions long into the 15th century. Perhaps the issue is that when the Hanse lost control in 1385 and that Denmark might have promoted a more diverse group of traders (Dutch and English, as well as Danish and German). Thus a small decline became big for the German towns? Thus scewing German sources?

The 85% drop (I doubt it was that big), is not in the late 14th century, but something that happened between 1400 and the late 15th century (according to Dollinger).

To say Skania was the heart of Denmark and insist that it was not contested when you already acknowledged that the Hanseatic towns seized it for 15 years seems a bit odd to me.

Any historian working with the area would agree that Scania was a part of the heartland (I didnt say "the hearth", but that it was as much as Zealand etc). Since the the 10th century it was part of the political organisation of Denmark. It was one of the main sites for royal power from the 11th century. It was Canute the greats minting place in Denmark (he also had in England of course). It continued to be a central part, and it was where the Danish Archbishop was placed. by the 12th century Scandinavia was divided into three archbishopries which corresponded to the political boundaries of Denmark (Lund), Norway (Nidaros/Trondheim), and Sweden (Uppsala). In many respect there was not many really contested parts of Scandinavia. Sure there where some of the inland areas between Norway and Sweden, and they also argued who should tax the Sami etc. And there was a bit of an issue between Denmark and Seden on the area between Scania and Sweden.

But as said: Scania was Danish as much as Zealand. Denmark consisted of three parts Jutland, Zeland and the islands, and Scania including Bornholm. As I said the whole administration was based on peasants, nobles and bishops from each destrict etc. Apart from the German "holdings" (and the baltic ones) the national character was very homogeneus, that is the language was Danish (yes I know towns had foreigners). Was there periods of enemy control over parts of Denmark? Yes (before Valdemar III most of the country was pawned to various foreigners), but generally the idea of Denmark, Norway and Sweden was much stronger and more fixed that lets say Germany or France. Thus Denmark is much more comparable to England. A English island with clear English afinity, and then some French contested provinces (Normandy, Aquitaine etc). Denmark (Jutland, Zealland and Scania) was stable, but the German holdings where contested (such as Holstein, Rügen, for a short period Mecklenburg etc).

This is importent to understand when working with the period: the very fluid borders and intermixed "spot" states of Germany didnt extend to Scandinavia

Whether or not the booths were set up on the beach at the site of the herring run from year to year maybe we should just agree to disagree. That is what my sources say. I described to you what my understanding was - yes there were permanent castles (they are mentioned in the Hanse letter I posted) but the 'market' moved from year to year.

Yes we have to disagree. It is VERY clear from all sources that the permit to do trade and salt fish allways was located at specific places (Skanør), and that it didn't move about. Again in neither Swerdish or danish or any other literature I can find this is contested or a controversial point.

I also contend that the Hanse and other foreign merchants had at least, a considerable amount of control in that area. This can be the case even with a strong centralized Kingdom. England had to tolerate a Hanseatic quarter in London, the Steelyard, which even controlled one of the London Gates (the bishopsgate) and this went on until the reign of Queen Elizabeth.

Yes they had some influence, of course.
They where the major trade partners. Just like USA have a lot of influence on its neighbourghs today. Every area with amercian influence is not contested areas between USA. Especially in the 15 years already discussed (but it was from the start a short period and a way to pay war-reparation from Denmark). HOWEVER, as I mention the burghers of for instance Malmö often supported the kings against alliances of Hanse and noble allainces. But Denmark is as centralised as England in the 15th century. Denmark of course also had influence in Germany (like Mecklenburg holdings), but I would never argue that these areas where really Danish. But the Hanse didn't have any more influence in Scania than they did in other parts of Denmark, apart from a specific period of 15 years.

Denmark adopted a policy in the middle ages which could be perceived as either retrograde or forward looking. They started out very similar to Sweden but then adopted a certain subset of German or 'Continental' policy - embracing Hausmacht and attempting to establish a strong Feudal Monarchy. You could say either that they were stuck in sort of an 11th -12th Century Feudal model or that they were looking forward to something more like the Absolute Monarchies of the 17th Century.

Yes and they succeeded at some point to create rather centralised understanding of "Denmark", there where clearly civil-war periods and periods of turmoil, but both during the late 12-13th century during Valdemar I-VAldemar II timeframe and again after Valdemar III and Margaret (and their successors) the country was a strongly centralised realm (by medieval standards, not by modern, but there was a very clear cut adminitrative division which was also a matter of fact, though of course with political issues like who had to pay what taxes etc).