AHC: Slave revolt in Viking age Scandinavia

Could slaves in Viking-age Scandinavia have revolted en masse and formed an army like that of Spartacus?

If so, how could it occur in a way that the rebels would succeed and would it have any religious effects?
 
I don't think the thralls made up a large enough portion of Norse society and the society as a whole was far too militarized for that. It might be possible for a slave uprising with Gaelic help to happen at Dublin though.
 
Were thralls even under anything like chattel slavery?

No thralls was a complex social institution with thralls being property, but their function running from being servants, secondary wives or proto-serfs. It’s mentioned in some saga about a wiking warlord, that in his early attack, he was joined by landless sons and unruly thralls, while in his later he was joined by first sons and well mannered thralls. This indicates that some thralls was given some freedom by their masters to join in military expeditions to gain loot to buy themselves free. But honestly in Continental Scandinavia nothing indicates that thralls have made up a very large part of the population, while in Norse colonial settlements, they seem to have made up a significant part of the population, as seen with the large amount of Irish ancestry among the Icelanders and the descendants of the Norns.
 
There's little to rebel against honestly. A thrall might go full sicko and kill his master, perhaps joined by some other thralls and form a murderous band of robbers for a while, hell by some miracle he might even bring down a local leader and take his place, but if he does then he likely will be just that, a new viking-era leader and as such will probably end up owning thralls himself. May end in a saga or two.
 
There's little to rebel against honestly. A thrall might go full sicko and kill his master, perhaps joined by some other thralls and form a murderous band of robbers for a while, hell by some miracle he might even bring down a local leader and take his place, but if he does then he likely will be just that, a new viking-era leader and as such will probably end up owning thralls himself. May end in a saga or two.

Not really a thrall killing his master would be killed, most likely by the masters heirs or by the master’s servants, but maybe even the other thralls.
 
Not really a thrall killing his master would be killed, most likely by the masters heirs or by the master’s servants, but maybe even the other thralls.

I'll re-formulate.

It's not inconvievable that a thrall could convince his fellow thralls that they should kill their master and his family, it's unlikely yes, but it could happen. They in turn could turn into some kind of bandit party going from farm to farm, encouraging thralls to rise up. Again, not impossible but highly unlikely due to how thrallhood functioned in the viking age.
 
Not really a thrall killing his master would be killed, most likely by the masters heirs or by the master’s servants, but maybe even the other thralls.

Same thing in (Anglo-)Saxon and Russian codes, by the way, regarding who was owed compensation and who was entitled to revenge.
 
What if the thrall population is increased and has a unifying element of religion; for example, say the Vikings sack Constantinople and pillage the rest of the Byzantine Empire, enslaving many Greeks and bringing them to Gotaland. With Christianity and Koiné Greek making it easier for the thralls to organize, they revolt upon the unjust killing of a martyr. At the same time, a radically Christian jarl, possibly a former member of the Varangian Guard, could arm and support the thralls as his way of taking over the region and Christianizing Sweden.
 

Scaevola

Banned
What if the thrall population is increased and has a unifying element of religion; for example, say the Vikings sack Constantinople and pillage the rest of the Byzantine Empire, enslaving many Greeks and bringing them to Gotaland. With Christianity and Koiné Greek making it easier for the thralls to organize, they revolt upon the unjust killing of a martyr. At the same time, a radically Christian jarl, possibly a former member of the Varangian Guard, could arm and support the thralls as his way of taking over the region and Christianizing Sweden.
What point is there in feeding and taking all these Greek thralls across the continent? It makes no sense, better to sell them to Arabs/Bulgars/Slavs (depending on time period) and sail back with a bunch of money that doesn't require maintenance. And can buy you plenty of hardy northern slaves, or you just raid for more northern slaves.
 
What point is there in feeding and taking all these Greek thralls across the continent? It makes no sense, better to sell them to Arabs/Bulgars/Slavs (depending on time period) and sail back with a bunch of money that doesn't require maintenance. And can buy you plenty of hardy northern slaves, or you just raid for more northern slaves.

If one still really really wants to recreate this scenario for the purposes of fiction, these Christian slaves could be British, Frankish or Slavic more reliably than Greek.
 
Wouldn't a rebellious thrall be more likely to just run off by their lonesome/in a group?

Given rather low Scandinavian population densities compared to say, the Roman Republic, it'd be harder for a 9th century Spartacus to start something.
 
Wouldn't a rebellious thrall be more likely to just run off by their lonesome/in a group?

Given rather low Scandinavian population densities compared to say, the Roman Republic, it'd be harder for a 9th century Spartacus to start something.
On the other hand they can more easily forage for supplies without attracting attention, and there is no way to raise an imperial army against them, only small "feudal" armies and war parties.
What point is there in feeding and taking all these Greek thralls across the continent? It makes no sense, better to sell them to Arabs/Bulgars/Slavs (depending on time period) and sail back with a bunch of money that doesn't require maintenance. And can buy you plenty of hardy northern slaves, or you just raid for more northern slaves.
Perhaps the Greek slaves are prized as educated slaves, much as in the Roman Republic.
 
There was another reason for captured thralls to stay loyal. Once you're captured and no ransom comes, either your family is dead or they are moving on. Your spouse may marry another and your children will forget you. If you are young enough you may become a stranger to the land you came from. Any inheritance in time will go to a sibling or a cousin. In a year or three or five you have no home to go back to.

Then your only choice and real chance is to make a home among the people you're among.
 

Scaevola

Banned
If one still really really wants to recreate this scenario for the purposes of fiction, these Christian slaves could be British, Frankish or Slavic more reliably than Greek.
Irish is your best bet for largest time range.
On the other hand they can more easily forage for supplies without attracting attention, and there is no way to raise an imperial army against them, only small "feudal" armies and war parties.
Perhaps the Greek slaves are prized as educated slaves, much as in the Roman Republic.
No need to raise an army when the winter will disperse them easily. Without holding a town or two, this bandit army needs to disperse over a large area to survive the winter. To take a town or two, they have to fight a war party AND militia.
It's about 1000 years too late for that. Western priests are better educated than any Greek that could be conjured up.
 
Not really a thrall killing his master would be killed, most likely by the masters heirs or by the master’s servants, but maybe even the other thralls.
Or maybe even by master´s enemies.
Notorious case of Tormod Kark.
Olaf Tryggvason defeated his enemy Earl Haakon. Earl Haakon fled with a single slave named Tormod Kark and sought shelter in a farm named Rimul. The mistress showed them a pig sty to hide in. King Olaf showed up with his army, did not bother actually searching the farm and looking in the pigsty - but held a speech within the hearing of the pigsty, announcing that he
Olaf Tryggvason said:
would reward any man richly who could harm Hákon Earl

Several hours later, with none of King´s men having checked the pigsty, Tormod killed Haakon and presented the head for reward. The problem was, Olaf failed to keep his promise to "any man" when "any man" happened to be a slave killing his own master.

Not every enemy might be so unscrupulous. Best chances for a slave to get away with killing his master is if the master had powerful enemies.

But...
Birchlegs were generally regarded as low status scum. And they won.
By 1170s, were any Birchlegs actual slaves? How did Sverre compare with Spartacus?
 
Top