4 facts about the Viking emperor Knut
Sky HISTORY’s Knut: The Viking Emperor tells the story of the eponymous Viking marauder. How did he conquer England, and did he really try to stop the tide?
Image: Public Domain
Even if you know little about Emperor Knut, the name alone likely rings a bell. Yes, this is the same ‘King Canute’ who took over 11th-century England but, according to legend, arrogantly thought himself capable of controlling the tide.
There’s more than an element of myth to the latter story, which has dealt an undeserving blow to Knut’s modern reputation. The real Knut was much more of a shrewd political operator than this unflattering narrative suggests.
So, what can we say with confidence about Knut? Many of the ancient sources are sketchy, but we can still tease out crucial details, as revealed in Sky HISTORY’s Knut: The Viking Emperor, starting Monday, 4 May at 9pm. Here are four known facts about the Viking warlord.
1. Knut waged more than a year of warfare in England
Knut is thought to have been born a Danish prince around the 990s AD, well into the Viking Age. By then, England was no stranger to Viking raids. Knut’s own father, Swein Forkbeard, even seized the English throne from Æthelred the Unready in 1013.
Just five weeks later, Swein passed away. Though Knut was proclaimed as his royal successor in England, he was soon supplanted by the restored Ætthelred. Knut fled to Denmark, but busied himself with preparing another Viking invasion of England.
In 1015, Knut led an army into England, beginning a 14-month war of attrition against Æthelred’s eldest son, Edmund Ironside. Edmund became English king after his father’s death in 1016, but fell at the Battle of Assandun later that year.
2. Knut ruled a large maritime empire
After conquering England in 1016, Knut resorted to a mix of timing and guile to extend his political power far beyond. In 1018, his brother Harald II of Denmark died, leaving Knut an obvious candidate to succeed him in his family’s Scandinavian homeland.
Knut’s path to the Norwegian throne was more tumultuous and brought his military skills back into play. Olaf Haraldsson, the reigning King of Norway, fled after Knut invaded the country in 1028. Knut would reign over Norway (and England and Denmark) until his death on 12th November 1035.
So, for a period of about five years, Knut held three kingdoms. Historians call this personal union of territories the ‘North Sea Empire’, as these kingdoms were all connected by the North Sea.
3. Knut was something of a shape-shifter
You might think that for Knut, ruling three different kingdoms at once would be at least somewhat arduous. However, Knut appointed loyal regents to govern on his behalf in these territories. This enabled him to easily travel between them without leaving gaping power vacuums for potential political rivals to exploit.
It did help that Knut was also adept at getting rid of heavyweights who could plausibly pose threats to his hold on power. It’s similarly important not to overlook how careful he was to cultivate popularity among people who might not have initially seen him favourably.
In England, Vikings had long been perceived as pagan brutes. So, it’s not hard to see why Knut was not at first welcomed with entirely open arms in England, a devoutly Christian country. In the event, Knut contributed financially to English religious institutions, helping him to put fears at rest among the native populace.
4. No, Knut (probably) didn’t think he could stop the tide
Ah, yes, that story – arguably the most famous thing about Knut. Except that, well, there’s good reason to doubt that it happened at all. The story was originally written by Henry of Huntingdon two centuries after Knut’s time.
In the 12th-century chronicle, Knut rejects his courtiers’ overly gushing plaudits by insisting that even a pious king has no control over the elements. To prove this point, he makes a show of attempting to stop the incoming tide. The water instead laps at his feet, just as Knut had expected.
This plays out very differently to how the story has been distorted in the centuries since. Contrary to the popular perception today, Knut was not delusionally assuming that the tide would bow dutifully to his wishes. Instead, he was humbly demonstrating that his power was far from godly.
As for whether even the story as originally told actually happened, it’s impossible to tell for definite. One theory is that Huntingdon was disparaging the haughty kings of his own time by portraying Knut as a much more modest forebear.
Like the tide, new history programmes are always on the way. By subscribing to the Sky HISTORY newsletter, you can get waves and waves of timely updates about upcoming shows.
