AHC: Iceland Maintains or Quickly Regains its Independence

With a POD no earlier than 1220 ( the beginning of the Age of the Sturlungs), how could Iceland have either continued its early independence, or regained it relatively soon after the imposition of Danish control? Is there a way to preserve a stabilized Althing as the "government?"
 
With a POD no earlier than 1220 ( the beginning of the Age of the Sturlungs), how could Iceland have either continued its early independence, or regained it relatively soon after the imposition of Danish control? Is there a way to preserve a stabilized Althing as the "government?"

1) Create a legal block for the number of size of territory controlled by one Godi in response to the consolidation of power in fewer and fewer hands. Would probably take a large scale dispute/revolt if it were to take place after 1220.

2) Go the other way and have one Godi gain clear dominance, effectively becoming the overlord the King of Norway became.
 
1) Create a legal block for the number of size of territory controlled by one Godi in response to the consolidation of power in fewer and fewer hands. Would probably take a large scale dispute/revolt if it were to take place after 1220.

2) Go the other way and have one Godi gain clear dominance, effectively becoming the overlord the King of Norway became.
Thanks.
Do you think scenario I could be ultimately stable?
 

Skallagrim

Banned
The Icelandic Commonwealth was in fact incredibly stable for centuries. The reasons it destabilised can be clearly identified:


-- First of all, when Iceland converted to Christianity, the church began to demand tithes. This was the first involuntary payment the people of Iceland ever had to render unto anyone. Payment of a goði had been voluntary, and those who refused to pay the typical contribution towards maintaining the legal order of the goði and the þing were treated like anyone without insurance in a free market economy: if they needed access to the 'court', they had to pay a fee up front. Such people weren't ordered to buy into the 'insurance': they were simply identified as niþingers. That is: "no-thingers", "ones who aren't part of the thing". The introduction of church tithes introdced involuntary payments, and set a seriously dangerous precedent when it came to maintaining the traditional Icelandic system, which had been based (quite literally) on being voluntary. (Keep in mind that Iceland was first settled by people who didn't want to pay taxes to, or obey laws laid down by, a king.)

-- The fuction of "Law-speaker" was also made permanent within a century of Christianisation. At a meeting of the Alþing, this Law-speaker was authorised to interpret justice (as there was no written law). Previously, such a person was chosen in instances of uncertainty. Now, this position became permanent. This further eroded the initial freedom to interpret justice in a way that the popular assembly saw fit, and concentrated such authority in one person. Binding precedent thus gradually became more important than "case-by-case judgement", turning the extraordinarily free Icelandic system into a far more 'typical' system of predetermined rules. A major problem was that the Law-speaker was paid for his job... by the church. The same church that had inroduced involuntary tithes.

-- Finally, with the tithe revenue, the church sponsored certain key clans, which it bound to itself. Over twe centuries, five powerful families bought up a majority of the 36 goði-titles in Iceland. And there were only allowed to be a fixed number of goðords. Around 1220 thery obtained the majority, giving them unprecedented and highly dangerous power over the institutes of justice. This also meant far less choice for the people when it came to finding a 'court' for a legal case. More often than not, they were faced with a predjudiced magistrate belonging to a fixed oligarchy. At the end, these wealthy families, backed by the church, introduced taxation to Iceland.


These developments caused armed resistance, and it was this series of disturbances that Haakon IV of Norway exploited to invade. He offered his aid to the established families, and by their leave, he brought an army and subjugated Iceland. Looking at what transpired, we can easily see what ought to be done to preserve Iceland as it was:


-- The rule that there were only allowed to be a fixed number of goðar should be scrapped. Rather than fixing their territorial reach, as @Kerney suggested, I would instead simply propose that anyone who wished to call himself goði and set up a goðord should be free to do so. If the people trust your judgments, you will get 'customers'. If you are a shit judge, you will soon be out of business. This attitude sounds highly libertarian for today's world, but would not be strange to the people of the Icelandic Commonwealth.

-- The function of "Law-speaker" should not be made permanent, and should only remain an option based on an ad hoc basis. Furthermore, the office should remain unpaid, and the Law-speaker should certainly not be on the church's payroll.

-- Speaking of the church: tithes should be voluntary. Just as payments to the goði and the þing were voluntary, so should payments to the church. Those who didn't pay tithes would simply remain outside the congregation and be refused sacraments and Christian burial. That should be motivation enough. (Observe that Iceland chose to adopt Christianity though what was essentially a referendum. Just have this condition of voluntariness be part of the people's decision. That can be the POD.)
 
The Icelandic Commonwealth was in fact incredibly stable for centuries. The reasons it destabilised can be clearly identified:


-- First of all, when Iceland converted to Christianity, the church began to demand tithes. This was the first involuntary payment the people of Iceland ever had to render unto anyone. Payment of a goði had been voluntary, and those who refused to pay the typical contribution towards maintaining the legal order of the goði and the þing were treated like anyone without insurance in a free market economy: if they needed access to the 'court', they had to pay a fee up front. Such people weren't ordered to buy into the 'insurance': they were simply identified as niþingers. That is: "no-thingers", "ones who aren't part of the thing". The introduction of church tithes introdced involuntary payments, and set a seriously dangerous precedent when it came to maintaining the traditional Icelandic system, which had been based (quite literally) on being voluntary. (Keep in mind that Iceland was first settled by people who didn't want to pay taxes to, or obey laws laid down by, a king.)

-- The fuction of "Law-speaker" was also made permanent within a century of Christianisation. At a meeting of the Alþing, this Law-speaker was authorised to interpret justice (as there was no written law). Previously, such a person was chosen in instances of uncertainty. Now, this position became permanent. This further eroded the initial freedom to interpret justice in a way that the popular assembly saw fit, and concentrated such authority in one person. Binding precedent thus gradually became more important than "case-by-case judgement", turning the extraordinarily free Icelandic system into a far more 'typical' system of predetermined rules. A major problem was that the Law-speaker was paid for his job... by the church. The same church that had inroduced involuntary tithes.

-- Finally, with the tithe revenue, the church sponsored certain key clans, which it bound to itself. Over twe centuries, five powerful families bought up a majority of the 36 goði-titles in Iceland. And there were only allowed to be a fixed number of goðords. Around 1220 thery obtained the majority, giving them unprecedented and highly dangerous power over the institutes of justice. This also meant far less choice for the people when it came to finding a 'court' for a legal case. More often than not, they were faced with a predjudiced magistrate belonging to a fixed oligarchy. At the end, these wealthy families, backed by the church, introduced taxation to Iceland.


These developments caused armed resistance, and it was this series of disturbances that Haakon IV of Norway exploited to invade. He offered his aid to the established families, and by their leave, he brought an army and subjugated Iceland. Looking at what transpired, we can easily see what ought to be done to preserve Iceland as it was:


-- The rule that there were only allowed to be a fixed number of goðar should be scrapped. Rather than fixing their territorial reach, as @Kerney suggested, I would instead simply propose that anyone who wished to call himself goði and set up a goðord should be free to do so. If the people trust your judgments, you will get 'customers'. If you are a shit judge, you will soon be out of business. This attitude sounds highly libertarian for today's world, but would not be strange to the people of the Icelandic Commonwealth.

-- The function of "Law-speaker" should not be made permanent, and should only remain an option based on an ad hoc basis. Furthermore, the office should remain unpaid, and the Law-speaker should certainly not be on the church's payroll.

-- Speaking of the church: tithes should be voluntary. Just as payments to the goði and the þing were voluntary, so should payments to the church. Those who didn't pay tithes would simply remain outside the congregation and be refused sacraments and Christian burial. That should be motivation enough. (Observe that Iceland chose to adopt Christianity though what was essentially a referendum. Just have this condition of voluntariness be part of the people's decision. That can be the POD.)
Thanks for the extremely informative and insightful explanation!
I just have a few questions.
Wouldn't there naturally be some alignment between the landed families and the judicial system, the only broad institution? How do we modify their incentives so that it wouldn't be in their own best interests to monopolize the judgeships?
As far as I know, tithes in Catholic nations were always compulsory. Wouldn't there eventually be some eventual "institutional" pressure from the church on its Icelandic bishops (o from the bishops themselves) to try to collect universal tithes? Perhaps we need the reformists to lose the investiture conflict across Western Christendom, leading to autonomous Icelandic bishops that have a more local view?
 
very minor thing I know, but Iceland fell under Norwegian control, not Danish ... and was de-jure under Norwegian control all the way to 1814, even if it drifted towards Danish from 1380 onwards, by the start of the personal union, and Iceland was still relatively autonomous internally until absolutism in 1660, disregarding the introduction of Lutheranism in ~1540
 
One way for Iceland to maintain its independence is just if the Norwegian civil war continues. For example is Sigurd Ribbung survives longer.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
Thanks for the extremely informative and insightful explanation!

Don't mention it-- I rather like talking about the Icelandic Commonwealth, which hardly ever gets any attention, but was very interesting in its quite anarchist way of life.


I just have a few questions.
Wouldn't there naturally be some alignment between the landed families and the judicial system, the only broad institution? How do we modify their incentives so that it wouldn't be in their own best interests to monopolize the judgeships?

I don't think it's possible to stop people from seeking power (at least not in any lasting way). To be fair, that's my own view of human nature. My suggestion of allowing anyone to style himself as goði and run a local þing, however, may well make monopolisation impossible.


As far as I know, tithes in Catholic nations were always compulsory. Wouldn't there eventually be some eventual "institutional" pressure from the church on its Icelandic bishops (o from the bishops themselves) to try to collect universal tithes? Perhaps we need the reformists to lose the investiture conflict across Western Christendom, leading to autonomous Icelandic bishops that have a more local view?

Since Iceland is relatively far out, I don't think the church will make a big deal of it. There will be pressure for everyone to join the church and pay tithes, but it will be harder than in most countries to force people. The niþingers won't be compelled, and even in OTL, it took quite a bit of time for the church to spread to the inland regions.

The ability to set up your own þing also matter here. Those communities that disagree with compulsive tithing will put the matter to their own goði and local þing, which will consist of their kinsmen and rule in their favour. The obvious strategy for the church would be to do the 'normal' thing and just get to work on converting people.
 
Don't mention it-- I rather like talking about the Icelandic Commonwealth, which hardly ever gets any attention, but was very interesting in its quite anarchist way of life.




I don't think it's possible to stop people from seeking power (at least not in any lasting way). To be fair, that's my own view of human nature. My suggestion of allowing anyone to style himself as goði and run a local þing, however, may well make monopolisation impossible.




Since Iceland is relatively far out, I don't think the church will make a big deal of it. There will be pressure for everyone to join the church and pay tithes, but it will be harder than in most countries to force people. The niþingers won't be compelled, and even in OTL, it took quite a bit of time for the church to spread to the inland regions.

The ability to set up your own þing also matter here. Those communities that disagree with compulsive tithing will put the matter to their own goði and local þing, which will consist of their kinsmen and rule in their favour. The obvious strategy for the church would be to do the 'normal' thing and just get to work on converting people.
Thanks again, but I have two additional questions.

Firstly, what mechanism could plausibly be put in place, save the total collapse of any effective centripetal pressures in the (admittedly very decentralized) Icelandic system, to prevent the opters-out from eventually being compelled to bring their cases before the thing, if not abide by its decisions?

Secondly, if dilemma I is avoided by indeed positing a lack of sufficient force which could incorporate the no-thingers on a non-voluntary basis, what is there to forestall the complete destruction of the law as a means of resolving disputes, leading to all of the potential violence restrained in the Icelandic polity coming unsheathed in an orgy of bloodshed that would make the Saga and Sturlung ages look tame by comparison? Are we to rely wholly on the law's capacity to provide face-saving means of de-escalating disputes that are profitable to neither party? If so, then I pray for our hypothetical reformed Commonwealth.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
Thanks again, but I have two additional questions.

Firstly, what mechanism could plausibly be put in place, save the total collapse of any effective centripetal pressures in the (admittedly very decentralized) Icelandic system, to prevent the opters-out from eventually being compelled to bring their cases before the thing, if not abide by its decisions?

Secondly, if dilemma I is avoided by indeed positing a lack of sufficient force which could incorporate the no-thingers on a non-voluntary basis, what is there to forestall the complete destruction of the law as a means of resolving disputes, leading to all of the potential violence restrained in the Icelandic polity coming unsheathed in an orgy of bloodshed that would make the Saga and Sturlung ages look tame by comparison? Are we to rely wholly on the law's capacity to provide face-saving means of de-escalating disputes that are profitable to neither party? If so, then I pray for our hypothetical reformed Commonwealth.

This gets more difficult to accurately predict, I admit. What I can say regarding both questions is that the Icelandic system that prevailed from the outset was surprisingly stable: it lasted for nearly 400 years without much change and without any real problems. As I argued in my initial reaction, the eventual decline of the system was fundamentally caused by changes introduced by outside forces, and escalated from there.

The first question is the most difficult to 'solve'. Indeed, if the church starts converting and is successful, it will eventually have all of Iceland converted-- and paying tithes. Even though these are nominally voluntary, there will be no easy way (due to social pressure) to refuse. On the other hand, this far more gradual Christianisation of Iceland could easily mean that the church gains less political power. If they still get something like the Law-speaker on their payroll, and/or if there is still a way to gain monopolistic control of the legal institutions, Iceland faces the same problems as before. Yet if we assume that these two things do not occur, then the introduction of tithing by itself isn't all that disturbing to the existing order.

Regarding the niþingers in particular, it must be noted that the church didn't typically gain control over earthly law. Even if these people are still converted and still pay tithes, this does not imply they have to recognise the authority of goði and þing. So barring the insinuation of church power into the early legal framework, the introduction of tithing alone will change nothing. The right POD could achieve that, I imagine.

So then we have an Iceland that becomes Christianised, but which politically stays the same. Which is to say: it does little in the way of politics, it has no political institutions except these popular assemblies and their magistrates, it has no written law, etc. -- and it's generally happy about this. And that brings us to the second question: what's stopping the collapse of the law as a means of resolving disputes? Well, I'd ask, what's been stopping it for the past few centuries? Iceland has at this point had niþingers from the start, and it hasn't caused problems. In fact, even barring the numbers related to wars (in which Iceland didn't participate), the violent crime numbers for the Icelandic Commonwealth were very low. Astoundingly so. For all of its existence, this 'lawless land' was a peaceful place compared to other European countries. Even compared to countries that were also thinly populated.

The thing is that the niþingers didn't get to have their cake and eat it, too. Suppose Erik lives a bit inland, and pays an annual stipend to the local goði and this gives him a right to speak and vote in the þing and to bring cases before it. A few miles over, more inland, lives Rolf. Rolf is a niþinger and pays nothing. Now suppose Rolf steals Erik's sheep. Erik can't compel Rolf to appear before the thing, or to accept its verdicts. On the other hand, Erik can just gather some of his kinsmen, go to Rolf's house, lop his head off, and take his sheep back. And Erik has done nothing illegal, because Rolf has placed himself outside the legal order. The law can catch him, but can't protect him, either.

This sounds very crude to our well-ordered modern sensibilities, but by the morals of old Iceland, this made complete sense. Harsh, but just. In any case, it made people think twice before acting like total outlaws. That sort of thing tended to have unpleasant consequences. The most interesting part about this is that if Erik went on a bloody rampage against Rolf's kinsmen, far in excess of what could be called reasonable retaliation, Rolf's surviving kinsmen could that go to the þing, pay a fee to be able to bring a case even as niþingers, and ask that Erik be judged for his excessive violence. And Erik would indeed be judged.

I'm not saying this way of doing things would last like that forever. In OTL, Iceland's "system" could function for so long and with such stability because Iceland was isolated and because it wasn't heavily settled. Of course, these factors largely stayed true for a long time after. Without an Age of the Sturlungs, I don't see any foreign power really willing to take the trouble of conquering Iceland. First of all, an Iceland that's not socially destabilised as per OTL is essentially a not-very-bountiful island filled with hardcore anti-authoritarians who don't want a foreign ruler. Second of all, it was bad form to invade without some kind of pretext. Norway was invited to act in OTL, and without that invitation, would not have been prepared to interfere. So the Icelandic Commonwealth could easily last for centuries longer, or even to the present day. Given enough time, it would probably evolve towards a more organised governmental system, but that would be a process of natural development rather than something being imposed from the outside.
 
Top