The Bear - Symbology During the Middle-Ages

You can watch the video about this subject in here: [The Bear - Symbology During the Middle-Ages]

When people ask you “what animal is the king of all animals?” the first creature to come to mind is the lion. But in truth, before the church imposed the lion as the king of all the animals, the bear was the real king, at least in the European continent. The bear was the symbol of power, strength and majesty.

It is possible that our ancestors during prehistoric times already worshiped bears. We can find bear skulls aligned in niches in caves, and they weren’t placed in there at random. There might have been an early bear cult, and unlike the image we grow up with, of people living in caves, our ancestors actually built houses made of huge animal bones and tusks, tree-trunks and animal skins, so those caves with beautiful paintings, were in fact out ancestors’ first temples. But let's not go back so much in history.

Anyway, we can find traces of the utmost respect, even fear and also admiration our ancestors had for these creatures, in folktales, changed by time and the different political and social realities throughout history, and of course, changed by new faiths. We can also see it in sacred places, christianised, but were once the places of pagan deities and with the new faith became the dwelling places of saints and Christian mythological accounts. For instance, the Celts worshiped a goddess which was represented with a bear on her side or in front of her. The bear goddess called Artio, and the name has a lot of similarities with Arthur, who in turn is also a name connected with bears. This was a primitive deity, linked to the fertilizing force of the earth, in a time when gods had not yet been anthropomorphized and were still represented as animals.

There were certain early Cristian accounts that show the importance the bear had to the pagans, and as such, the devil often took the form of a bear to come and terrorized the monks. The king of animals was turned against those who admired it, by demonizing the poor animal. In the Jewish and Christian traditions, the bear often has a negative symbology, and you can see that in the Old Testament.

When the missionaries began their process of evangelization through Europe, they encountered a variety of pagan deities, many of which were either associated with bears, or were bears themselves. To the Germanic and Celtic populations of Europe, the bear was the animal associated with royalty, so it isn't a coincidence that the most famous legendary king, Arthur, was also associated with the bear. It’s interesting to see that the bear, well, the she-bear, was connected to the warrior goddess Brigid, of whom the Celtic kings were sons of, making them little bear cubs. So there was the necessity to christianise this goddess, and so Saint Brigid was born, and later, this pagan goddess, now christianised, was associated with a real abbess of Kildare named Brigid, who died more or less in the year of 525 of our era.

To the Germanic and Scandinavian peoples, the bear was connected to the warrior spirit, personified by the god Thor. It appears that in certain Germanic groups, one of the imposed trials to the young warriors, was the solitary bear hunt. Although it hasn't been proven yet if these initiation rites were real or just mythical. Anyway, what is real is that the strength and the ferocity of the bear was an inspiration to the Germanic and Scandinavian warriors.

Many ancient cities throughout Europe still have the representation of the bear in their coat-of-arms. The survival evidences of the bear being the king of animals before the church replaced the symbolic functions of the bear for the lion. The lion was an exotic animal, and by the time it replaced the bear, sometime in the year 1000, the lion didn't belong to the European Fauna so this almost mythical creature during medieval times was easily adopted. But to this day some cities such as Bern in Switzerland and Berlin in Germany, to name a few, still have the bear in their coat-of-arms.

It's not a coincidence that during the reign of Charlemagne a lot of bears were hunted almost till extinction, because of the cult the Germanic peoples had and the pagan gods associated with the animal, and of course taking down loads of sacred trees. We all know about the forest devastation held by Charlemagne and his nobles, but we don't often hear about the bear-hunt.

To the church, during medieval times, the bear was the personification of evil, ferocity and chaos, because the creature lived in the dense, almost unreachable, forests. The forests were the dwelling places of the pagans (in truth the forests were the places the pagans considered to be sacred, once, but now it was their refuge from the horrible acts of forced cristianization). But the bear started to enter in the christian mythology in another way. It became the symbol of the divine dominating chaos, because the only ones who could contact with these terrible creatures and turn them into docile animals, were the hermits; those who would seek the most inhospitable places to live in solitude, for spiritual reasons. Only through their faith, and the connection with the divine and the power of god, could they do such a thing, turning a ferocious beast into a docile companion. Thus the bear became the symbol of the victory of the divine over chaos, and we can actually see this representation in the story of Saint Columbanus and his many encounters with bears, and befriending them.

The bear was also associated with the Devil, and a symbol of the many vices and sins condemned by the church. There were many accounts of bears being the evil creatures of chaos, to the point that they became the creatures that would kidnap young beautiful maidens and would rape them. And we can still see this in many folktales; the bear being the "bad guy" in the story. This actually might be the beginning of the creation of the story of "The Beauty and the Beast", highly infantilized and softened by Disney, and thank the gods for that because no child would want to hear about the real account.

So, in conclusion, the fight of the church against the bear, was a symbolic, and in some cases a very real way to free territories from their pagan past and convert them to Christianity and order over chaos. Unfortunately, the bear had a very negative connotation during the middle-ages, but at the same time, the symbolism the bear had during pagan times, somehow prevailed till nowadays, and I'm sure all of us remember the childhood stories of the she-bear being a kind and caring mother, and it isn't a coincidence that many children to this day still sleep with their teddy-bear.

The Viking age in Bretagne

During the late years of the VIII (8th) century, the Scandinavian raiders were already sailing throughout the seas of the known world. They have settled in many places, and raided even more. The first recorded attack in Brittany was when the Vikings pillaged the monastery of Saint Philbert on the island of Noirmoutier. After such an event, few were the incursions until the 830's. Charlemagne at the time built defences along the coast, which provided ample protection for the rising western Frankish Empire. However, the defences briskly faded due to the poor leadership of Louis the Pious.

That region had a strong sense of Breton identity and frequently revolted against the Frankish Empire. By the early 9th Century, the Bretons had won their independence under the leadership of Nominoé. Unfortunately for the Bretons the timing could not have been worse for the Vikings were about to come into their recently independent lands. 

According to the Annales d’Angoulême, in the year of 843, Brittany experienced what might be interpreted as the end of days. The events of the 24th of June of 843 caught the Bretons by surprise during the celebrations of the festival of Saint John. The city of Nantes wasn't fortified, for the denizens of Brittany had not imagined that such a thing, which was about to happen, would disturb their festivities. When the people of Nantes realized what was happening, it was already too late for them to organize any kind of defences, let alone any resistance. The Viking raiders had entered the city posing as merchants, but under their clothes they bore their weapons. The bishop of Nantes (Gerhardus), continued his sermon on the steps of the cathedral until he was violently killed before the townsfolk. The Norsemen killed everyone they could get their hands on (or rather their axes). The city was brought to ruin.

The scandinavians attacking the city of Nantes were raiders of Westfold (a region on the continental coast of the Fjord of Oslo). Their movements had been traced and recorded as far as the Hebrides, and they ostensibly travelled through the Bay of Saint George to arrive in the Bay of Biscay where they led a raid on the Saint John festival. They continued along the Loire River and terrorized the Pays de Retz further inland. Once they had filled their ships they returned to the coast, but not without incident. Two of the fleet’s ships wrecked along the river, too heavy from their booty to keep afloat. Finally, the Northmen established a base on the nearby island of Noirmoutier where they stored and split their spoils. Some returned north, while others continued their voyage south. They avoided returning to the Loire thereafter, for the new count of Nantes, Lambert, fortified the Loire River’s banks to prevent a repeat of the monumental catastrophe in Nantes.

It is well known that some of the Norse people sailed as far as the Iberian Peninsula (Spain and Portugal), which unfortunately little is known about the Viking raids there, safe a few sea battles and raids to the northern christians and the southern muslims. The Viking terror reverberated across the Carolingian Empire, and nearly all the Annales, or chronicles, of the time make reference to the carnage of the sack of Nantes, so everyone across Europe already knew what these Norse men were capable of.

By 847 C.E. it became clear that the Viking invaders of Western Europe had developed political ambitions beyond the sporadic raiding of the previous three decades. Their sights moved beyond Britain and Normandy to other, less defended lands such as Ireland and Brittany. The Vikings used Noirmoutier, an island in the Bay of Biscay, as their base to launch a massive invasion attempt and to supply the warriors involved. The resources of the island (salt) was a necessary resource for any army of the time, and the Vikings were no exception. The Vikings exploited the rift along the Breton March between the Franks and the Bretons. A struggling Breton army even solicited the help of the Vikings to help defeat the Frankish army on two separate occasions. With Nantes under Scandinavian control, the great citadels of Brittany suffered the same fate. Cornouaille, Broweroch, Poutrocoët, Domnoée, and finally Saint-Brieuc were brutally raided. The Vikings expertly divided the lands and conquered them. By 854 C.E. a state of full military occupation was in place. So it would seem what Brittany would remain under Viking dominion.

In Normandy, the heavy influence and frequent raids of Vikings changed the political landscape. The Vikings themselves became divided and often tried to raid each other. Charles the Bald (the king of France of the time), began a campaign to use the variable alliances of the Vikings against themselves. On the Seine, Charles hired Vikings to defend certain areas of the river. Once secured, Charles turned his attention to Brittany where a powerful warlord (Salomon) ruled over a large area of the region. At first, Salomon appeared keen on an alliance with Charles; the Vikings in the Loire themselves had recently been troubled by raids from other groups of Vikings. Charles offered Salomon land rights and the status of vassal. Unfortunately for Salomon, a simultaneous Danish raid on Chartres and Tours following the new alliance sent the counts of Neustria (Western France) into revolt. Charles was forced to cancel his promises to Salomon. Free of the protectorship of Charles the Bald, the Vikings on the Loire suffered a heavy defeat by Robert the Strong, the leading Neustrian Count who had had enough of the Scandinavians invading his lands. The conflict ended in a stalemate. For the next 20 years, more or less, a similar political and military climate dominated the region. Along the Seine the Vikings continued to sack and pillage, and the Franks continued to rebuild and attempt to mount a resistance.

Salomon was finally murdered by his rival in 874. The ensuing power vacuum caused a civil war between the Vikings in which a Breton-Frankish alliance emerged to weaken the invadors. The raids intensified after Salomon's death. An internal struggle again erupted between the Bretons and the Franks, causing the resistance to dissolve. One leader remained with a guerrilla force to fight the Vikings - a man named Alain of Broweroch. Alain mounted an effective resistance and fought the invaders constantly. His greatest opportunity came when the Carolingians successfully pushed out the Seine Vikings who fled into Brittany and disrupted the power structure there. With a renewed civil war between the Vikings, Alain fielded two Breton armies and led them to repeated victories. By the year of 892, Alain had completely expelled the Vikings from Brittany. Along the Seine things for the Vikings weren't good either. The Great Danish Army left mainland Europe and sailed for England to focus on the kingdom of Wessex.

Alain the Great ruled over Brittany after the expulsion of the Vikings as a sovereign king not loyal to Charles the Bald. The Bretons saw the Franks as incapable of defending them, and thus loyalty to the empire served them no benefit. A period of peace ensued. Through military endeavor, judicious alliances, and payment of Tribute, Alain kept the peace in his lands. Upon his death in 907 C.E., his successor - Gurmhailon - would have no trouble keeping this peace. The system put in place by Gurmhailon’s predecessor quickly fell to pieces. Scandinavian invaders again sacked the Breton coast and began deep incursions into Breton lands. The Bretons began a long period of restoration to repair damage done by the Vikings. Still, the overlords from the north seemed a new permanent feature to the Breton landscape. Raids intensified in the continuing decades after Alain the Great  died without a suitable or qualified heir. The situation grew more difficult when a Viking force comprised primarily of Danes sacked and occupied Nantes a second time. Defeated, the Bretons retreated to their countryside where they squabbled in civil war over who should lead them to victory against the invaders.

In 913 C.E. the grandson of Alain the Great was born. The child received an invitation from his godfather, King Athelstan of Wessex, to live under the protection of his kingdom. The child was named Alain Barbetorte (Barbe-Torte). Upon Alain's return he laid claim to the throne of Brittany. The little resistance he encountered was squashed. It took little more than a fortnight for Alain to gain support from the entire kingdom. Thus began one of the more aggressive and seldom known military campaigns held during the Viking Age. Alain led an army beginning in Normandy where many Vikings entered into Brittany having been forced out of the Seine river valley by Charles the Bald. After cleansing the northern territories of Brittany of the Vikings, Alain marched south straight for Nantes. As they passed through Viking held villages Alain’s troops left a wake of devastation behind them. Further and further they marched into the Loire river territory. A fresh fleet of Vikings had sailed up the river to sack the city of Nantes. Alain recruited these Vikings to help him sack the city. His agreement with them included something unusual: a settlement charter. The agreement was that if these Northmen joined him in battle, Alain would grant them rights to fertile lands in the Loire River Valley; so long, of course, they also convert to Christianity. With a deal brokered, the two armies converged on a heavily fortified Nantes. Within two days the city was taken.

Thus the end of the Viking Age in Brittany was near. The Bretons had reclaimed their independence. Breton Sovereignty lasted until the 15th Century when the dukes of Brittany finally accepted to join the kingdom of France.

Vikings and the European economic crisis

As you well know, history has been written by the victorious, but in the particular case of the Vikings, history was written by their victims. As such, the Vikings have been portrayed as brutal, bloodthirsty barbarians, and so their terrible reputation went on even to our days. Fortunately, with the help of Archaeology and the profound study of the historical records, we now know that the Vikings weren't as brutal mindless barbarians as they have been portrayed.

The image we have today of the Vikings is both wildly off the mark, and ignores the major contributions they made in shaping Europe during the Middle Ages - or what we know nowadays as the European continent. Not only the Vikings are completely misunderstood, but they may have also saved Europe.

The Vikings were not so selective about the places they wanted to raid, but the treasures and ransom achieved by attacking monasteries resulted in the Vikings being relegated to the “vicious barbarian” category of history. The monks in those monasteries were the only historians around at that time, for the christian church had the monopoly on writing in that time, and so all the records concerning the vikings, were made by the terrified priests and monks. Since the Vikings attacked those with a monopoly on writing, all of their deeds concerning their victims have gone down in history, and so they became known as the infamous, irrational, and bloodthirsty murderers.

One of the reasons the Vikings are viewed so negatively is that their violence could seem wanton or irrational. Part of that lies in the lack of documentation of what the Vikings actually did during their raids. To many at the time, clerics in particular, attacking a monastery or church would have seemed irrational and an act of such evilness that only "Devil worshipers" could perform such a thing. Those who documented the raids, which were usually monks, had something to be gained by playing up the Vikings’ violence against religious figures, and they often resorted to broad, generic rhetoric about the “devastation” and “destruction” without specific detail. Also, some of the documentations we are left with were written centuries after the events, often without the true knowledge of the events, only by listening the accounts from generation to generation; we know that people always add something to the tales to enhance its importance.

It is important to take note that the Vikings were acting completely rationally with their raids. These men were not addicted to violence, the treasure gained from the raids was used by chieftains in the complex and even poetic gift-giving system of the Viking halls; it was no different than what Charlemagne did.

The contemporary ruler Charlemagne is today generally extolled as the founding father of Europe. France and Germany compete about who has the greatest right to claim him as their national founder; Charlemagne was the cultured hero of that age.

Charlemagne treated Saxony like his own personal punching bag. One day in the year of 782, Charlemagne ordered no fewer than 4,500 Saxons to be decapitated because they were oath-breakers. Meanwhile, because they attacked those who would control the written record, the Viking execution of 111 prisoners in the year of 845 lives on in infamy. Germany is so quick to extol Charlemagne, when their Saxon ancestors were among the longest-suffering of Charlemagne’s victims.

Charlemagne’s wars on his neighbors were not dissimilar from Viking raids in that their primary purpose, particularly the raids of Avar and Pavia, was booty for his currency-starved empire.

 Following the collapse of the Roman Empire, all of Europe faltered as trade and commerce dried up. While things had picked up by the height of the Viking era in the 9th and 10th centuries, two things were holding the region back. One was a negative balance of trade in Charlemagne’s kingdom and the region as a whole. This was largely due to currency being made of silver and gold, but the precious metals came from the East. The second factor was that in regions where currency was not used, the system in place was the barter system, which limits economic growth. However, the Vikings solved these problems in two ways:

The first, and less significant one, is that by attacking the monasteries and churches, the Vikings tapped into the sole major untouched source of precious metals in Europe. Those riches did not disappear, as the Vikings were well integrated in the European trade network. They used it to buy anything from Frankish swords or turn them into coins for the chieftains of the Scandinavian kingdoms set up in England and Ireland. More important than that, the early medieval resurgence of commerce in western Europe was the central Asian silver that Scandinavian merchants brought to Europe. The trade network of the Vikings stretched from Greenland and Iceland in the west all the way to the caliphate and Bolghar in the east. The Vikings prodigious exports, mainly fur and slave. The economic recovery in Europe was during the Viking Age.

Conversion of Scandinavia and Olaf Tryggvason

Charlemagne was the king who helped christianity spread more quickly through Europe, by force, by his armys and slaughtering many who wanted to keep their old faith and the beliefs of their ancestors. After his death, the empire that Charlemagne created, started to fragment, and so for a time people stood still and there was a considerable peace, the Frisians had been converted to christianity and the Franks had their own empire by the cost of many inocent lifes. There was peace now in the countries of scandinavia.


Along the ninth century, churchmen were afraid from the people of the north that still remained faithful to the old gods, and so they prayed to be relieved and be guarded from the fury of the vikings, that to these churchmen,  the peoples of the north were even more terrifying because they weren't christians, they were heathens, and for the church, these pagan people worshiped the devil and themselves were demons.


As the north countries and its people began to settling instead of raiding and pillaging, the church saw this as a good opportunity to bring the new faith into their northen neighbors, and many norse princes that were in refuge from the wars with the south and with the christians, saw this as a good  opportunity as well, because they realized that conversion to the religion of the kings with whom they had taken refuge, could win them suppot and alliance.


Denmark was the first country to fall under the new faith, king Harald Bluetooth took christianity and imposed it to his people, those that did not want to embrace this new faith and refused the orders of Harald, were forced to do so.


In Norway, at this time, an other king called Harald Hairfair, remained heathen to his death, however, he had many sons who fought over the kingship and sometimes they found in the christian alliances a very useful tool to ascend the throne.
The oldest of his sons, Eric bloodaxe was baptized with his wife, during their exile in the viking lands of England. Harald's youngest son, called Hakon, was fostered by King Aethelstan of England, who raised him as a christian. Harald's great-grandson, Olaf Tryggvason, was introduced to christianity, when he was still a very young man, when he took refuge in Russia. After taking power in Norway, all these kings tried to impose the new religion to their countrymen.


Hakon was the only one of these kings, to be tolerant, and the only one to be called "the good". Hakon was called to the throne by the heathen jarl, when his older brother, Eric, proved to be a tyrant, so king Hakon was indeed a good king, he respected the rights of his own people. When he told his people that they should be converted to chirstianity, they responded that they thought he was bringing them freedom, but now he wanted to take them prisoners into a new and strange religion, and made them forget the beliefs of their ancestors. The people had so far tolerated their king's strange ways in a strange new religion, but wanted him to join them in the autumn feasts, and so he did, a christian amoung pagans, being friends and sharing the heathen drinks to Odin. So Hakon kept the loyalty of his people. He was such a great and good king, that after his death in the last battle, the skald Eyvind sang in the old faith about Hakon and his deeds in the poem called "Hakonarmál".


Olaf Tryggvason came to power, throughout these years, any men had allowed themselves to be baptized, in order to trade with the Christian Europe, or agreed to do so when they were forced by a christian overlord. Many chieftains welcomed christian missionaries and built churches to encounrage christian merchants to come and trade with them, but even baptized, the norsemen still returned to their old ways. King Olaf resolved to put an end to that, the people should be entirely christians, or no christians at all, the old gods and old faith, should be forgotten. Those that weren't persuaded by threats or promises, he slew them, some he maimed, and some he drove  away from the land. Olaf Tryggvason pillage the heathen temples and destroyed the images of the gods, those people who were considered to do magic, he drowned, or killed them by setting a bowl full of hot coals on their belly, for exemple, there was a chieftain who was killed by being forced to swallow a poisonous snake.


In the years that followed, the new religion was very much implemented on the land. Churches had been built on the old sacred places and above the mounds of the dead, on the sites of demolished pagan temples, and bishops became powers in the land. The holy feasts became saints' days.

If you need more information or if you want to check my works, take a look at my Facebook page and make a like at --> www.facebook.com/ArithHarger