Around 1028 AD, King Canute (Cnut the Great) had his throne placed by the seashore and commanded the incoming tide to halt. When the tide continued to rise, he used the moment to demonstrate to his courtiers that royal authority has limits and that no king can command the forces of nature.
I want to believe he tried the latter, but once he realised it doesn't work he made something up like "Yeah, of course, a king can't control the sea! See, even we have our limits!"
I think it was in response to either an inability or a refusal to invade England. He had all the troops right by the coast and decided, let's fight the sea, then, since we won't fight the English.
or stuff said by those who didnt like him after he died. Looking through the lens of punishment, having them parade with the ''spoils of war'' (a bunch of sea shells) is a pretty harsh way to humble your officers and troops
There’s also versions of the story where he uses it to emphasize his piety. His inability to control the tide is used to show that God has final authority over all things, and he hangs his crown on the throne by the ocean, never to wear it again.
Likely embellished, but I like the moral of this story a little better.
Nah even in the original story he meant it as a moral lesson. Besides he was competent and intelligent enough I can't imagine he'd think something so stupid.
He's very much historical, he is well known here in Denmark for being one of our last great Norse kings. The kingdom of Denmark was arguably at its peak under his rule, at least in terms of size and influence. Today, his kingdom is known as the North Sea Empire, and it included Denmark, southern Sweden, the entirity of Norway, and England. Since his domain was so grand, we know him today as Knud den Store (Knútr the Great).
As far as I know, his father Sveinn Forkbeard died rather suddenly not long after conquering England, and his kingdom was divided between Knútr, who inherited England, and his brother Haraldr who inherited Denmark. When Haraldr died, Knútr also became king of Denmark. As such, since he technically was king of England first, his capitol was in England, in Winchester.
The account of his 'bout' with the sea, however, is probably ahistorical. Originally, the account was written to seemingly make it so, that Knútr really thought he was powerful enough to command the waves to not wet his clothes, only to be humbled and declare that the power of kings is hollow, and only God has any true power. Only in later reinterpretations and retellings is Knútr characterized as a wise man who knows beforehand that he has no such power, and only wishes to demonstrate that fact. Personally, I doubt this event actually took place.
While clearly being fictionalized history, Vinland Saga is actually relatively well researched in several aspects in regards to historical events, people, and semi-legendary stories from that time (at least the animated series is, I haven't read the manga). Thorfinn himself is based on Þórfinnr Karlsefni Þórðarson, a character from Eiríks saga rauða (Erik the Red's saga), who explored 'Vínland' with other Norsemen and dealt/fought/was driven back to Greenland by the local native american tribes, the 'skrælingar'. Vinland Saga simply expands and elaborates greatly on his life and lets him be part of several contemporary events to the time in which he would have lived (whether he and many other characters from Icelandic saga writing are historical, is a different can of worms and often hard or impossible to prove).
Sometimes it's wild for me to hear "XYZ conquered england" like England that went on to conquer the quarter of the world ? Then I remembered that back then it was not that strong
Apparently when Romans first discovered England , English were just in swamps cooling themselves and living in mud houses.
Vinland saga potrayed them as accurately as possible Canute , erik and Thorfinn I guess
Minor point, there weren't any English there when the Romans arrived. The English are (predominantly) Germanic immigrants that settled shortly after Rome withdrew.
It was the Britons that were there when the Romans arrived.
I hope so too, I really enjoyed it, especially season 2! I'm not at all into anime and manga, but it was just really well done, so much so that the few 'anime-isms' there were didn't bother me that much. It's one of the few examples I've seen where Denmark is properly represented in modern media based on Norse material and history. It actually takes place in Denmark (when appropriate), and Denmark doesn't look like Norway, hooray (looking at you, Vikings)! It's nice to feel recognized as part of that culture, I feel like everyone thinks of Sweden and Norway when thinking of vikings while Denmark was just as much a part of that culture and history.
I really hope that we will get to see Þórfinnr's part of the saga come to fruition in the series. It's one of my favorite parts in all saga writing, Þórfinnr's adventures in Vínland, interacting with the skrælingar.
Only major issue I have with Vinland Saga are literal Romans sailing with Roman style ships in Viking Age Britain, and how Þórfinnr insists on only using those dinky little knives, like he's supposed to be Viking Naruto or something. He'd be killed in an instant. I wish they'd give him a sword or an axe to fight with instead, then he can of course still have the knife as a token of his father. I think it's for these reasons I prefer season 2, it's a lot more down to earth and philosophical.
I love how there are two different versions of the story, and both of them are biased
This version paints Cnut in a positive light, portraying him as a wise ruler who's putting sycophants in their place by showing them he truly does not have power over all things
The other paints him as a power-mad fool who genuinely believed he could control the waves to stop, and then had his delusions put on full display
Which one is true? Are either of them true? We'll never know
This version is the real one. The other version is a weirdly popular mistake based on the original take being slightly ambiguous out of context. It was always framed as him being “graceful and magnificent”.
We're pretty certain it didn't happen; but is an anecdote meant to demonstrate something about humility and divinity, and attributing it to a fairly popular King at the time.
The earliest known version comes from Henry of Huntingdon's Historia Anglorum which is full of tales of half truths and moral lessons as most histories of the time were prone to doing.
In the post classical tradition, History as an academic subject that describes the past with a conscious attempt (and it will always be merely an attempt) at objectivity only really arose in the 19th century.
It's similar with Caligula making his horse a senator. Depending on the historian it's either a sign of his madness or a calculated insult to the Senate, implying that even a horse could do a better job than them.
Unfortunately since most of the sources on him are either from his political ennemies or christian historians not too fond of the habit of early Roman emperors to make martyrs out of them, it's usually the former.
I didn't know that anecdote about Cnut, it reminded me of Xerxes.
I honestly suspect that Xerxes whipped the sea as a show because the Persians just lost their pontoon bridge over the Dardanelles after a storm. He didn't whip the Dardanelles because he was angry at them, that I'm pretty certain. It could be an act of faith. According to Persian faith, storms weren't caused by gods anyways, they were caused by demons. Gods couldn't do evil things like natural disasters. The Humans' job on Earth was to do the right thing and back up the Gods in their struggle.
The Persians and most of their subjects didn't had an equivalent to Poseidon. The Persians who still believed in the Old Faith believed that Anahita the pure, goddess of fertility, health, wisdom and "moisture" also ruled over the sea. She's a gentle, understanding deity, who purified the world.
The Greeks didn't get what the King of kings was doing, it got lost over translation. For them, he did something deeply sacrilegious that broke their taboos. The Greeks, including Herodotus, were terrified by Poseidon and his tantrums, they couldn't even fathom people could joke about the Sea.
Around 1028 AD, King Canute (Cnut the Great) had his throne placed by the seashore and commanded the incoming tide to halt. When the tide continued to rise, he used the moment to demonstrate to his courtiers that royal authority has limits and that no king can command the forces of nature.
He was real for that
That was after he raised an army to attack the farm where his old friend Thorfinn lived.
Peak mentioned?!?!?
Vinland saga is so underrated, I mean it’s popular but it should be more popular
You have no enemies
Orders guards to stab the sea
Guards, seize him!
Seaze him
He knows what's up
KILL THE OCEAN
I heard historians still debate if this was indeed a more philosophical lesson or if he was really so full of himself that he believed it might work.
I think it’s generally believed to be the former
I want to believe he tried the latter, but once he realised it doesn't work he made something up like "Yeah, of course, a king can't control the sea! See, even we have our limits!"
That would be funny, but as a notably Christian monarch I think he was big on the ‘no one is stronger than god’ thing
a bit of a caligula ordering the army to fight the sea situation then...
Motive was kind of different if I recall. In Caligula's case, I think it was done in response to military failure or a commander's insubordination.
He could have also been actually insane, but the recent evidence shows that the madness was an act.
I think it was in response to either an inability or a refusal to invade England. He had all the troops right by the coast and decided, let's fight the sea, then, since we won't fight the English.
or stuff said by those who didnt like him after he died. Looking through the lens of punishment, having them parade with the ''spoils of war'' (a bunch of sea shells) is a pretty harsh way to humble your officers and troops
There’s also versions of the story where he uses it to emphasize his piety. His inability to control the tide is used to show that God has final authority over all things, and he hangs his crown on the throne by the ocean, never to wear it again.
Likely embellished, but I like the moral of this story a little better.
Nah even in the original story he meant it as a moral lesson. Besides he was competent and intelligent enough I can't imagine he'd think something so stupid.
Douple or nothing moment?
Or option C the whole thing is an apocryphal story told to make him look wise/crazy.
“Cnut cannot control the tide! He is not worthy to be king! Let’s depose him and replace him with me!”
Foolproof plan up until 0.2 seconds after the stabbing of Canute and crowning of u/FellGodGrima.
Unless you can control the tide. In which case you'll be fine.
Vinland saga has this scene tbh , they give a lot of development to Canute. Idk if That Canute is historic or not
He's very much historical, he is well known here in Denmark for being one of our last great Norse kings. The kingdom of Denmark was arguably at its peak under his rule, at least in terms of size and influence. Today, his kingdom is known as the North Sea Empire, and it included Denmark, southern Sweden, the entirity of Norway, and England. Since his domain was so grand, we know him today as Knud den Store (Knútr the Great).
As far as I know, his father Sveinn Forkbeard died rather suddenly not long after conquering England, and his kingdom was divided between Knútr, who inherited England, and his brother Haraldr who inherited Denmark. When Haraldr died, Knútr also became king of Denmark. As such, since he technically was king of England first, his capitol was in England, in Winchester.
The account of his 'bout' with the sea, however, is probably ahistorical. Originally, the account was written to seemingly make it so, that Knútr really thought he was powerful enough to command the waves to not wet his clothes, only to be humbled and declare that the power of kings is hollow, and only God has any true power. Only in later reinterpretations and retellings is Knútr characterized as a wise man who knows beforehand that he has no such power, and only wishes to demonstrate that fact. Personally, I doubt this event actually took place.
While clearly being fictionalized history, Vinland Saga is actually relatively well researched in several aspects in regards to historical events, people, and semi-legendary stories from that time (at least the animated series is, I haven't read the manga). Thorfinn himself is based on Þórfinnr Karlsefni Þórðarson, a character from Eiríks saga rauða (Erik the Red's saga), who explored 'Vínland' with other Norsemen and dealt/fought/was driven back to Greenland by the local native american tribes, the 'skrælingar'. Vinland Saga simply expands and elaborates greatly on his life and lets him be part of several contemporary events to the time in which he would have lived (whether he and many other characters from Icelandic saga writing are historical, is a different can of worms and often hard or impossible to prove).
I’m English and he’s one of my favourite kings of England.
Sometimes it's wild for me to hear "XYZ conquered england" like England that went on to conquer the quarter of the world ? Then I remembered that back then it was not that strong
Apparently when Romans first discovered England , English were just in swamps cooling themselves and living in mud houses.
Vinland saga potrayed them as accurately as possible Canute , erik and Thorfinn I guess
Minor point, there weren't any English there when the Romans arrived. The English are (predominantly) Germanic immigrants that settled shortly after Rome withdrew.
It was the Britons that were there when the Romans arrived.
Lets hope we get season 3!
I hope so too, I really enjoyed it, especially season 2! I'm not at all into anime and manga, but it was just really well done, so much so that the few 'anime-isms' there were didn't bother me that much. It's one of the few examples I've seen where Denmark is properly represented in modern media based on Norse material and history. It actually takes place in Denmark (when appropriate), and Denmark doesn't look like Norway, hooray (looking at you, Vikings)! It's nice to feel recognized as part of that culture, I feel like everyone thinks of Sweden and Norway when thinking of vikings while Denmark was just as much a part of that culture and history.
I really hope that we will get to see Þórfinnr's part of the saga come to fruition in the series. It's one of my favorite parts in all saga writing, Þórfinnr's adventures in Vínland, interacting with the skrælingar.
Only major issue I have with Vinland Saga are literal Romans sailing with Roman style ships in Viking Age Britain, and how Þórfinnr insists on only using those dinky little knives, like he's supposed to be Viking Naruto or something. He'd be killed in an instant. I wish they'd give him a sword or an axe to fight with instead, then he can of course still have the knife as a token of his father. I think it's for these reasons I prefer season 2, it's a lot more down to earth and philosophical.
He gets done so dirty by people who paint him as deluded
Holy shit, he actually said that!? I thought he was being extremely extra in vinland saga.
"I have no enemies"
I love how there are two different versions of the story, and both of them are biased
This version paints Cnut in a positive light, portraying him as a wise ruler who's putting sycophants in their place by showing them he truly does not have power over all things
The other paints him as a power-mad fool who genuinely believed he could control the waves to stop, and then had his delusions put on full display
Which one is true? Are either of them true? We'll never know
The true version is obvious. Cnut commanded the tides to halt and they did.
He is the sand guardian, guardian of the sand
"Poseidon Quivers Before Him!"
"F@#$ off!"-Sand Guardian
Sand guardian leviosa!
This version is the real one. The other version is a weirdly popular mistake based on the original take being slightly ambiguous out of context. It was always framed as him being “graceful and magnificent”.
What historical sources are there for it?
We're pretty certain it didn't happen; but is an anecdote meant to demonstrate something about humility and divinity, and attributing it to a fairly popular King at the time.
The earliest known version comes from Henry of Huntingdon's Historia Anglorum which is full of tales of half truths and moral lessons as most histories of the time were prone to doing.
In the post classical tradition, History as an academic subject that describes the past with a conscious attempt (and it will always be merely an attempt) at objectivity only really arose in the 19th century.
It's similar with Caligula making his horse a senator. Depending on the historian it's either a sign of his madness or a calculated insult to the Senate, implying that even a horse could do a better job than them.
Unfortunately since most of the sources on him are either from his political ennemies or christian historians not too fond of the habit of early Roman emperors to make martyrs out of them, it's usually the former.
Mustn't have been a dutch king
Nah, the Dutch king would have poldered the sea for disobeying him.
Canute merely used the occasion to demonstrate a rather obvious point to his clueless courtiers.
"God created the Earth. The Dutch created the Netherlands."
I wonder what the spectators thought. Were they genuinely shocked by this revelation? Or were they thinking "no shit, bro". In the inside at least
Dude.
I just watched Vinland Sage.
What a crazy coincidence. (they put that quote/scene on the before last episode of season 2)
baader-meinhof effect
More recency effect than Baader-Meinhof. It's not like I am seeing that scene everywhere and in everything.
I didn't know that anecdote about Cnut, it reminded me of Xerxes.
I honestly suspect that Xerxes whipped the sea as a show because the Persians just lost their pontoon bridge over the Dardanelles after a storm. He didn't whip the Dardanelles because he was angry at them, that I'm pretty certain. It could be an act of faith. According to Persian faith, storms weren't caused by gods anyways, they were caused by demons. Gods couldn't do evil things like natural disasters. The Humans' job on Earth was to do the right thing and back up the Gods in their struggle.
The Persians and most of their subjects didn't had an equivalent to Poseidon. The Persians who still believed in the Old Faith believed that Anahita the pure, goddess of fertility, health, wisdom and "moisture" also ruled over the sea. She's a gentle, understanding deity, who purified the world.
The Greeks didn't get what the King of kings was doing, it got lost over translation. For them, he did something deeply sacrilegious that broke their taboos. The Greeks, including Herodotus, were terrified by Poseidon and his tantrums, they couldn't even fathom people could joke about the Sea.
It's possible that it was Greek propaganda to make Xerxes look like a madman.
Thanks Vinland Saga for allowing me to understand this reference.
Xerxes?
100 lashes for getting my feet wet
You need to go the little prince route and command the tide to go down when it goes down and up when it goes up
Caligula: Amateur
Enter xerses
The sea is always right
Should have told the soldiers to stab the sea while he was at it.
Bellerophon: "You should have been the son of Poseidon if you wanted to control the seas, bozo!"
How dare you challenge the Ugandan dictator Idi Amin for such a title?
Yeah, but he can command his people to dump so much shit in the Sea it becomes toxic to aquatic life, so take that.
The closest thing to commanding the sea might be the Dutch making a country out of land that should be underwater.
Based story.
What a cnut!
Caligula would like to have a chat
🎶I used to rule the world
🎶Seas would rise when I gave the word
Clearly, this does not apply to the Dutch.
Is this where that line from Viva la Vida came from?
The sea doesn't obey.
Sentence: death
Caligula missed the memo
"Even kings have limits" but the Dutch don't