• Were your results as expected, or did your research take other directions than outlined in your project description?

One of the most central insights from the project is that ‘civil wars’ is a misleading label for the conflicts in High Medieval Scandinavia, partly because the term connotes a form of breakdown that is not sustained in the sources, and partly because the conflicts in the period are ‘travelling’ between various areas in Scandinavia. 

The cooperation with scholars studying modern conflicts has made us more aware of the similarities between medieval and modern conflicts (as well as some crucial differences), and the potential for borrowing models not only from anthropology, but also from political science. ‘New wars’ and ‘constant crisis’ are concepts which have proven useful in a medieval context. 

In a medieval Scandinavian setting, close cooperation and close reading of texts has made us more alert to national traditions and blind spots, and it has highlighted the entangledness of Scandinavian networks, dynasties, and conflicts. Discussions with non-Scandinavian scholars have brought to the fore some divergences with European conflicts, most notably the importance of fortifications and territorial power. The futility of demarcating a period of ‘civil war’ has emerged clearly, giving way to a view of conflicts as intrinsic and most often productive in medieval societies. 

• How did your group work together during the year at CAS? 

The cooperation with modern scholars was totally new to us, and even though we import theories and models from social sciences, we have never been working closely and comparatively with them. In particular, the similarities between modern Guinea-Bissau and medieval Scandinavia were surprising to find.

Moreover, the very close connections within Scandinavia came somewhat surprisingly, particularly since we devoted much energy to discuss how the lack of sources in Sweden can be counteracted. Arguing ex silentio is of course no option, but the close dynastic links to Sweden hints at its importance. Moreover, we were able to broaden the political field in Denmark by including a ‘southern Scandinavian power field.’ Finally, the importance of what we labelled ‘genealogical accidents’ was notable.

Since we were all gathered at the same place, and in the first two months sharing offices, cooperation was tight. Apart from the regular and irregular meetings described previously, we had frequent ad hoc discussions on matters that arose there and then. Since most participants were present for a minimum of three months, we had the opportunity for discussing matters in a long-term perspective.

• Why was a year at CAS important for this project?

The fact that we were all working full-time on the same project made this year completely different from previous projects we have engaged in. We had worked together with parts of the group, but always only by meeting for a few days and otherwise communicating per mail or phone. Staying together at CAS provided us with a much larger opportunity for progressing further, both in close reading of texts together, as well as in discussing the overarching ideas of the project. 

Our project was in effect separated into two parts: the modern scholars in the fall; the medievalists in the spring. Both projects had an intense phase of winding up, and -- naturally -- most of the writing was done during the last month. Whereas we tried to start the writing process earlier, we realized that the CAS experience consisted of using more time than usual to look for answers and to explore instead of closing down questions early on. We are therefore convinced that working so intensely made us find insights which we would never have had the time and patience to pursue in the daily routine of academic life. 

• Are there any plans for continuing the collaborations initiated during your stay at CAS?

We have not finished our projects from CAS. Our first book is not far from publishing, but the second one needs more time. This was planned from the early stages, as we knew that it would be impossible to produce a good product before the summer. The three core members (Esmark, Sigurðsson, Orning) will therefore meet regularly during the next year, sometimes also with the ‘outer group’ (Benham, Hermanson, Poulsen).

We want to continue this strand of research, but have not yet found out exactly how. It will probably make a good starting point for EU applications.