The looting of the ancient monument area Anundshög outside Västerås, Sweden has paradoxically led to new important discoveries about the site’s age. Carbon samples from the damage show that the area was in use already 1,500 years ago.
In May it was discovered that unknown perpetrators had dug a large number of pits in the ancient monument area, and archaeologist Sara Wisén Saveca was among those who felt great despair when the damage was uncovered:
– First you get angry, and then you just feel empty. It’s actually hard to find the words.
The looters had apparently systematically searched through the area with metal detectors and dug where they got signals. Nina Eklöf, director of Västerås museums, explained the extent of the loss:
– Some likely used a metal detector and dug into the ground where they got a signal. They have removed things that we would want to excavate archaeologically in order to gain knowledge about the Viking Age.
The incident led to a police investigation for suspected ancient monument crime and sparked strong reactions among both experts and the public. What objects the thieves actually made off with remains unclear.
Unexpected turn
But from the destruction came an unexpected scientific gain. When archaeologists documented the damage, they took carbon samples from a pit in one of the large stone ship settings. The analyses showed a dating to the Vendel period, around 500-650 CE – a result that strengthens Anundshög’s position as a key site for understanding the early power centers of the Mälaren valley region in central Sweden.
– Archaeology is more than finding objects or a single dating – it is scientific work that aims to understand our prehistory, our societies and our development. The dating is however important and valuable, it gives a glimpse of what a scientific archaeological investigation could have contributed, says Nina Eklöf to Svensk Historia (Swedish History magazine).
At the same time, the researchers emphasize what has been lost. A professional excavation could have answered crucial questions: Does the charcoal come from the ship setting itself or from an earlier activity? Was the monument a burial site or did it have other functions?
“A living place”
Andreas Hennius, archaeologist and incoming research coordinator at Västerås museums, emphasizes the site’s dual significance:
– Scientifically, the site is crucial for understanding societal development in the Mälaren valley and northern Europe during the Iron Age and medieval period – not least in relation to the emergence of the Swedish kingdom. At the same time, it is a living place for the public, where history can be experienced physically and directly.
Despite the damage, Anundshög remains one of the country’s most impressive ancient monument environments, where visitors can walk and experience a significant site from Sweden’s early history.
Anundshög is Sweden's largest burial mound and is located in Badelunda, approximately five kilometers east of Västerås in the central Swedish province of Västmanland. The burial mound measures around nine meters in height and has a diameter of 64 to 68 meters. It was constructed during the late Iron Age, sometime between 500 and 1050 CE, and is believed to have been a central place for the exercise of power and events during this period. During the medieval period, the area was also used as a thing-place (assembly site for local governance).
The area around Anundshög is rich in ancient remains, including several stone ship settings, smaller burial mounds, stone circles, a labyrinth, and a remarkable runestone – Vs 13 – which is over three meters tall. The runic inscription reads: "Folkvid raised all these stones in memory of his son Heden, Anund's brother. Vred carved the runes".
According to tradition, the medieval Eriksgata, the historic route that newly elected Swedish kings traveled along to be recognized by the provinces, passed by Anundshög, which has been marked by erected stones along the way. Today, Anundshög is a well-visited cultural heritage site with guided tours, information signs, and recurring events such as Archaeology Day.
TNT is truly independent!
We don’t have a billionaire owner, and our unique reader-funded model keeps us free from political or corporate influence. This means we can fearlessly report the facts and shine a light on the misdeeds of those in power.
Consider a donation to keep our independent journalism running…
Stamford Bridge – where Viking dreams were crushed
When the sun set over Stamford Bridge on September 25, 1066, Norwegian King Harald Hardrada and thousands of Nordic warriors lay dead on the battlefield. The blood that stained Yorkshire red that day marked the end of an entire historical epoch.
"The Battle of Stamford Bridge" (1870) by Norwegian artist Peter Nicolai Arbo, depicting the fall of Harald Hardrada and the symbolic end of the Viking Age.
The year 1066 was a dramatic year in European history, and England stood without a king after Edward the Confessor died childless in January. Several powerful men laid claim to the English crown, and among them was Harald Hardrada – Norway’s king and perhaps the last great Viking king.
For three centuries, the Vikings had shaped Europe’s development in decisive ways. They had established trade routes from Greenland to Constantinople, founded cities and kingdoms from Dublin to Kiev, and erected runestones that tourists and history enthusiasts can still observe and be fascinated by today.
Their advanced shipbuilding skills enabled journeys that no other contemporary culture could undertake, and the Nordic ting system had also introduced forms of popular participation in legal processes that were very unusual in Europe at that time.
Window with portrait of Harald in Lerwick’s town hall, Shetland Islands, Scotland. Photo: Colin Smith/CC BY-SA 2.0
Harald Hardrada himself was a complex ruler who combined military skill with administrative talent. He had served as a Varangian Guard in Constantinople, gained extensive experience in Byzantine statecraft, and since 1046 had developed Norway into a strong kingdom. Under his rule, Oslo was founded, trade flourished, and church building was promoted.
According to the sagas, he was exceptionally tall for his time, and with his broad experience from different kingdoms and cultures, he likely appeared as one of his era’s most worldly rulers.
England had simultaneously undergone its own development since the first Nordic contacts in the 700s. It was now a united Christian kingdom with strong institutions. The new king, Harold Godwinson, represented this Anglo-Saxon state formation – a nobleman and experienced military commander with ties to continental princes and support from the church’s most powerful men.
The Norwegian claim to England’s crown
Harald Hardrada’s claim to the English throne was not pulled from thin air. It was based on a complicated chain of inheritance claims and agreements stretching back decades.
The foundation lay in an agreement from the 1030s between Magnus the Good of Norway and Harthacnut of Denmark and England. According to this agreement, whoever survived the other would inherit both kingdoms. When Harthacnut died in 1042, Magnus claimed both Denmark and England according to the treaty. He managed to partially control Denmark, but never had time to formally claim England before he himself died in October 1047.
Harald, who had been Magnus’s co-regent since 1046 and became sole king after his death, believed he had inherited these rights. From a Norwegian perspective, the claim was legitimate – it was based on a formal agreement between two kings. That England did not recognize this was seen from the Norwegian side as a serious breach of contract.
Furthermore, Scandinavian influence in England had been strong during the time of Canute the Great (1016-1035), when England had actually been part of a North Sea empire together with Denmark and Norway. For many Norsemen, it seemed natural to re-establish these bonds.
Under Canute the Great’s time, England was Danish. Painting: R. E. Pine
Tostig and the alliance
The spark that ignited the expedition was Tostig Godwinson, Harold Godwinson’s own brother. Tostig had been Earl of Northumbria but was deposed after local complaints in 1065. When he sought allies to regain his position, he found a natural partner in Harald Hardrada.
For Harald, Tostig’s offer combined several advantages. He gained an English-speaking ally with local knowledge, legitimacy through a member of the English nobility, and the opportunity to realize both his inheritance claims and his vision of an expanded Norwegian realm. It was the type of grand state-building that had characterized the Viking Age.
In September 1066, Harald sailed from Norway with a mighty fleet – the sagas speak of 300 ships. With him he brought some of the North’s finest warriors, skilled diplomats, and his son Olav. They landed at the Humber River and marched north toward York.
The Battle of Fulford, where the Norsemen defeat a Northumbrian army. Painting: Matthew Paris
The first successes
Initially, everything went according to plan. On September 20, the Norwegian army met the English forces at Fulford outside York. The local earls Edwin and Morcar led the defense but could not withstand the Norwegian army. Harald Hardrada showed that he was still a skilled field commander.
York, the old capital of Jorvik where Scandinavian influence had been strong since the 800s, capitulated. The city had long ties to Scandinavia and many inhabitants had Nordic origins. Harald and Tostig made camp at Stamford Bridge, about eleven kilometers east of York, and waited for local nobles to come with hostages and provisions according to the customs of the time.
But Harold Godwinson acted quickly. When he heard of the Norwegian expedition, he was in southern England, where he was watching the coast for an expected Norman invasion. With impressive marching speed, he brought his army north, including his huscarls – professional warriors organized according to Scandinavian models.
The Battle of Stamford Bridge
On September 25, Harold Godwinson’s army unexpectedly arrived at Stamford Bridge. The Norwegian forces were unprepared – many had left their mail coats at the ships due to the warm late summer weather. According to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, the Norsemen were completely surprised.
The details surrounding the battle are disputed, as sources are few and often contradictory. According to a later tradition, a single Norwegian warrior is said to have defended the bridge over the River Derwent and held up the English advance. Regardless of its truthfulness, the story illustrates the intensity of the battle.
The English army was both larger and better prepared. Harald Hardrada led his people from the front as the customs of the time demanded, but fell pierced by an arrow in the throat. Tostig Godwinson was also killed in the battle.
At Stamford Bridge, the dream of Norwegian supremacy over England was extinguished. Painting: Matthew Parris
Short-lived triumph
The losses for the Norwegian side were extensive. Of the great fleet, according to the sagas, only 24 ships were needed to carry home the survivors. Harald Hardrada’s son Olav, who survived the battle, was allowed to sail home in exchange for promising peace with England.
For Norway, the outcome meant a deep loss. A significant part of the kingdom’s leadership had fallen together with their king. The country was thrown into a period of uncertainty that would mark the coming generation.
But Harold Godwinson’s triumph was short-lived. Just three days after the Battle of Stamford Bridge, William of Normandy landed on England’s south coast on September 28. Harold was forced to march south with his exhausted army. On October 14, they met at Hastings, where Harold fell and England got a Norman dynasty.
The Viking Age comes to an end
But why does Stamford Bridge specifically mark the end of the Viking Age? It’s about more than a single battle. Harald Hardrada represented the Nordic ideals of his time – the charismatic king who combined trade, diplomacy, and warfare to build strong kingdoms, and his expedition was also the last great attempt to expand Nordic royal power according to the Viking Age pattern.
After 1066, the Nordic societies changed fundamentally. Norway was thrown into internal power struggles after the loss of king and warrior elite, while Denmark made another (unsuccessful) attempt to attack England under Sweyn Estridsson, but then turned its gaze toward Wendish areas by the southern Baltic Sea.
Sweden, largely unaffected by the events in England, continued its gradual expansion toward Finland and would later direct itself toward the Baltic region. All three kingdoms were integrated more deeply into the European Christian community.
It’s important to emphasize that the Viking Age was never solely about military expansion. The Norsemen’s contributions to European trade, urban development, seafaring, law, and state formation were at least as significant, and trade, which had always been central to the Vikings, continued and developed further. The international networks that the Vikings built would enrich the Nordic countries for centuries to come.
The Norsemen continued journeys for trade, battle, and discoveries. But never again would a Viking army threaten England. Painting: Everhardus Koster
Focus shifts home
From a Nordic perspective, Stamford Bridge marks the transition from an expansive period to a time of consolidation and state-building at home. The Scandinavian kingdoms began developing more complex administrative structures according to European models.
The transition should not be overstated. Scandinavian merchants continued to be active from Iceland to Constantinople. Nordic warriors still served in the Byzantine emperor’s Varangian Guard. The knowledge and international contacts that the Vikings had built up continued to enrich the Nordic societies, but the time for large-scale Viking expeditions to establish new kingdoms was over.
When Nordic kings in the following centuries again led large-scale military expeditions, it would be as Christian crusades against pagans in the Baltic region and Finland – not as the Viking Age’s free conquest campaigns, but as holy wars sanctioned by the church and organized according to European patterns.
For Sweden, which did not directly participate in the events of 1066, the consequences were indirect but significant. Sweden could focus on its own development and its eastern connections to Finland and Russia, where Swedish merchants and warriors continued to be active for a long time to come.
The legacy of Stamford Bridge
The Battle of Stamford Bridge is counted as the Viking Age’s last great battle. It represents the transition from an epoch where Nordic kings could lead expeditions to establish new realms, to one where the Scandinavian countries developed into more centralized states of European type.
Ironically, it was the Normans – descendants of Norsemen who had established themselves in France generations earlier – who conquered England. But they came as representatives of a French knightly culture, not as the Viking Age’s free Norsemen.
Even William the Conqueror, who won England’s crown, was of Nordic descent. Photo: Matthijs/ CC BY-NC-ND 2.0
That Viking descendants ruled in Normandy, while Scandinavians served in Constantinople and Nordic dynasties reigned from Dublin to Kiev, shows how comprehensive Nordic influence over Europe actually was at this time.
When Harald Hardrada fell at Stamford Bridge on September 25, 1066, the Viking Age was over: three centuries of Nordic expansion westward ended in a few hours in Yorkshire, England.
But the Viking Age’s contributions to Europe persisted for a long time afterward: trade routes still in use, legal systems that influenced the entire continent, a rich saga tradition, and seafaring knowledge that later generations built upon. It became a legacy more enduring than many empires.
When Israeli terrorists murdered the Swedish king’s godfather
On September 17, 1948, UN mediator Folke Bernadotte was gunned down by Jewish terrorists in Jerusalem at the dawn of one of the world's most complex and protracted conflicts.
But the murderers were never punished. Instead, they were celebrated in Zionist circles, where several of the perpetrators went on to hold high positions in Israeli society.
The leader of the terrorist group, Yitzhak Shamir, who ordered the assassination, went on to become Israel's president, foreign minister, and prime minister.
Here is the dramatic story of the end of one of Sweden's most prominent diplomats, whose memory lives on far beyond the Swedish royal family.
The Swedish royal family has not visited Israel since the founding of the state – breaking the pattern for a Sweden that otherwise has extensive trade and other diplomatic relations with Israel. Behind the “boycott” of Israel lie deep historical wounds, as well as personal ones, dating back to the current Swedish king’s own godfather, Count Folke Bernadotte. The Count, who was a celebrated mediator in Sweden, was assassinated during an important UN mission by the Jewish paramilitary terrorist organization known in Hebrew as “Lohamei Herut Israel – Lehi” – translated into English as “Israel’s Freedom Fighters – Lehi”.
This article was originally published on September 18, 2024.
Bernadotte, a diplomat, had distinguished himself during World War II, gaining international recognition for his role in rescuing thousands of prisoners from German concentration camps on the “white buses” – many of them Jews. His achievements were considered by many authorities to be very impressive, and in 1948 he was considered a very suitable choice to become the UN mediator in the protracted conflict between Jews and Arabs.
Bernadotte’s peace proposal included a return to the partition plan previously proposed by the UN, whereby certain territories occupied by Jews in the area would be returned to the Arabs. The Swedish count’s proposal was based on the idea of two independent states, one Jewish and one Arab, where it was considered essential to quickly establish a cease-fire and ensure that hostilities would not resume in the future. It also focused on the right of displaced Arabs and Jews to return to their homes and that, if no agreement could be reached, the borders of the states would be decided by the UN itself.
Folke Bernadotte on the ground in Jerusalem.
Rejected by Jewish militants
While much of the outside world saw the proposal as sane and reasonable, militant Jewish radicals saw it as a threat to their ideas of a “Greater Israel”. The idea of returning some of the occupied territories to the Arabs was seen by them as totally unacceptable and something that had to be stopped at all costs.
Even some Arab militants who did not want a Jewish state in the region opposed the proposal – but it was mainly in Jewish extremist circles that the peacemaker Folke Bernadotte was portrayed as an existential threat to the Jewish people. It did not help that Bernadotte also advocated limiting Jewish immigration to Israel.
Before the establishment of Israel, Jewish terrorist groups and “underground militant networks” were common in the region. These terrorized not only the British, who controlled the Mandate of Palestine, but also Arab villages and sometimes other Jews who were considered too “moderate”.
One such group was the Lehi, whose stated goal was to “take over Israel by force”. In 1944, the group assassinated British Minister Lord Moyne, bombed British government and army buildings, and carried out a series of attacks on British and Arab targets both in the region and abroad, the massacre of 107 Palestinian villagers at Deir Yassin being perhaps one of the most famous.
Lehi decided that Folke Bernadotte should also be assassinated. In the eyes of the terrorist group, it was irrelevant that he advocated mediation, peace and consensus – Bernadotte was perceived as a threat to the group’s plans for Jewish supremacy in the region. The de facto leader of the terrorist group at the time was Yitshak Shamir, and the team that carried out the attack was led by Yehosha Zettler.
Members of Lehi protest against Bernadotte’s mediation. Photo: National Library of Israel/ CC BY 4.0
“Twisted by hatred”
On September 17, the perpetrators went into action, blocking the road in front of the diplomatic convoy in Jerusalem. Then 26-year-old Yehoshua Cohen steps forward and executes Folke Bernadotte and French soldier Andre Serot with several shots from a German 9 mm machine gun.
Major General Åge Lundström, who was sitting next to Serot on the left side of the car, described the terrorist’s expression as “twisted with hatred”. Bernadotte and Serot died suddenly from the shots and were later flown home in two white coffins to receive numerous posthumous honors for their efforts.
However, the murderers were never prosecuted or punished. Instead, the perpetrators were hailed as heroes in Zionist circles, and the few who were arrested were released almost immediately. The murderer, Yehoshua Cohen, eventually became the “unofficial bodyguard” and close friend of Israel’s first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion.
Terrorist members involved in the double assassination have also boasted about the deed on television and radio broadcasts. Yehoshua Zettler, who led the assassination squad, has never expressed remorse for killing Bernadotte.
– When we demonstrated in front of [Bernadotte] and told him, ‘Away from our Jerusalem, back to Stockholm,’ he didn’t answer, so we had no choice, he claimed in 1988.
Other Lehi members eventually rose to prominent positions in Israeli society – but none more so than the leader of the terror group, Yitzhak Shamir, who went on to become both Speaker of the House and Foreign Minister, and twice Prime Minister of Israel. The man who ordered the assassination of peacemaker Count Bernadotte became Israel’s supreme leader – most recently from 1986-1992.
Cohen, the murderer, became the bodyguard of a prime minister, and Shamir became prime minister himself. Montage. Photo: Yolene Haik/CC BY 4.0
No excuse
Shamir also escaped legal responsibility for the terrorist attack, and although the UN Security Council at the time dutifully condemned the murder as “a cowardly act which appears to have been committed by a criminal group of terrorists”, there was never any real political will in Israel to mete out punishment.
To date, Israel has not officially apologized for the murder, which is believed to be the main reason why Sweden’s King Carl XVI Gustaf has never expressed interest in visiting Israel during his long reign. In the same context, Crown Princess Victoria’s decision to name her daughter “Estelle” – after Folke’s wife – has also been speculated to be a symbolic mark to honor the memory of the king’s godfather.
On several occasions, Israeli leaders have met the King in Sweden, but these visits have not been reciprocated. At the funeral of assassinated Prime Minister Olof Palme in 1986, the king is reported to have said to Shimon Peres, then Prime Minister of Israel: “Let us not forget that Olof Palme was the second Swedish mediator in the Middle East to fall victim to an assassin’s bullets”.
Although not all Arabs viewed Bernadotte’s work positively at the time, the count seems to be remembered more fondly there than in Israel, where the West Bank city of Ramallah has a street named after him to commemorate his efforts to bring about a “just” settlement in the region.
Count Bernadotte’s street in Ramallah. Photo: Mohammed Abushaban/CC BY-SA 3.0
Decorative ribbon named after terrorist group
Lehi was disbanded in 1948 under heavy pressure from the outside world and later officially classified as a terrorist organization. In practice, however, this did not pose much of a problem for those involved, who instead became involved in other political organizations, joined the army, or joined a more officially recognized intelligence organization. Some members also continued on a militant path, participating in assassinations of public figures deemed to be “traitors” to the Jewish people, such as the journalist Rudolf Kasztner in 1957.
It is clear that Israeli officials have looked favorably upon Lehi’s long list of bloody attacks. In 1980, for example, then-Prime Minister Menachem Begin established a military decoration ribbon named after the terrorist group – the “Lehi ribbon”.
Begin himself also had a background as a leader of the Jewish terrorist group Irgun, which also carried out attacks against a large number of British targets in the 1940s. After the establishment of the State of Israel, the Irgun terrorists were largely absorbed into the IDF, which is still Israel’s official military.
Many terrorists were given a “second chance” in the IDF. Photo: IDF
Swedish peace agency bears his name
For Sweden, Bernadotte’s memory may have faded somewhat after decades as perhaps the foremost symbol of humanitarian diplomacy. But the echo of his name and commitment lives on, not least through the Folke Bernadotte Academy, which works for peace, development and security under the auspices of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Utrikesdepartementet – UD), and whose main focus is to resolve conflicts through diplomacy and negotiation – rather than arms and violence.
“As part of Sweden’s development assistance, we work to build peace in conflict-affected countries. We provide training, advice and research to support peace and state-building. We also contribute civilian personnel to peace operations and election observation missions, mainly led by the UN, EU and OSCE. We are named after Folke Bernadotte, the first UN peace mediator”, the agency says on its website.
For several decades, the two party blocs, the Hats and the Caps, had pursued a policy that had brought Sweden to its knees.
By the early 1770s, the treasury had been emptied and the country almost completely sold out to foreign powers. Dissatisfaction in the Swedish Empire was boiling under the surface.
One of the people who most deeply despised the state Sweden had fallen into was the new king Gustav III, who ascended to the throne in 1771 at the age of just 25.
Just one year later, the corrupt reign of the party bloc would come to an abrupt end as the "theater king" now staged a well-directed revolution.
After the death of Charles XII in 1718, the Swedish monarchy weakened considerably. The decline was so severe that power slipped into the hands of a parliament controlled by two parties, the Hats and the Caps, both of which were openly financed by foreign powers. Under the rule of the Hats and the Caps, Sweden was transformed from an independent nation into a puppet state for the geopolitical interests of the great powers.
The Hats, who dominated the Riksdag during the 1740s and 1760s, received direct bribes from the French embassy. Archives from Versailles state that the party’s leading representatives received large sums of money, among other things to pursue an anti-Russian policy. This also led to disastrous military campaigns for Sweden, first in the Hats’ failed Russian War of 1741–1743, in which Sweden suffered heavy losses and which, ironically, would instead strengthen Russian influence over Swedish politics. The Pomeranian War between 1757 and 1762, in which Swedish soldiers were sent to fight for French interests in Germany, was a conflict that emptied the Swedish treasury.
This paved the way for the party bloc known as the Caps, which was financed by Russia and Great Britain, to take power in Sweden in 1765. Advisers to Catherine II of Russia are also said to have argued openly that Sweden was easier to control through the easily manipulated Riksdag than through a king. Immediately after taking power from the Hats, the Caps decided in 1765 – partly under Russian pressure – to reduce the Swedish army to 17,000 men, which was a significant security risk for a country that had not long ago been a military superpower and had recently lost further territory to its enemies.
The Swedish government became so corrupt that foreign ambassadors could effectively buy votes in the Riksdag. British diplomats are said to have rejoiced in the 1760s that it was possible to push through virtually any motion they wanted, as long as they paid enough. Sweden’s foreign policy was no longer controlled from Stockholm, but from London, St. Petersburg, and Paris.
Gustav III makes a revolution
By the early 1770s, Sweden had become a bankrupt, divided, and internationally marginalized country. The power struggle between the Hats and Caps during the Age of Liberty had left the country weakened and despised – both by its own people and by the outside world. The Riksdag was paralyzed by factional strife, the army was degraded and underfunded, and power was in the hands of a parliament that resembled more a cackling court than a state institution. The riksdaler (Swedish currency) was virtually worthless, and the dominant nobility refused to contribute to the state treasury.
Beneath the surface, popular discontent was simmering. One of those who most deeply despised the state Sweden had been reduced to was the new, only 25-year-old Swedish king, Gustav III, who ascended the throne in 1771. During his upbringing, he had noticed and been outraged by how foreign powers systematically exploited the Swedish government’s weakness and was appalled that the Swedish kingdom had been transformed into a political marketplace where foreign ambassadors could buy laws and regulations that favored their masters.
A young Gustav III and his brothers Karl and Fredrik Adolf. Illustration: Alexander Roslin (1771)
His father, Adolf Fredrik, had neither the strength nor the ability to break the corrupt power of the political parties, but Gustav, as it turned out, was of a completely different caliber. He later earned his nickname, “the theater king”, in the history books for his deep cultural interest in theater, opera, and art, and it was also with a theater king’s flair for direction that, just over a year after his accession, he staged a spectacular revolution that would radically change Sweden’s political course.
Early in the morning of August 19, 1772, loyal officers gathered in the capital and, under the leadership of the young Gustav, they took the castle, arrested reluctant councilors, and took control of the kingdom’s institutions. Everything happened quickly and without a single drop of blood being shed.
The very next day, a new form of government came into force, which had been carefully formulated in advance by the new king. This abolished the Riksdag’s dominance over politics and instead restored supreme executive power to the king, who now regained control over lawmaking, appointing ministers, and foreign policy.
The new form of government was particularly strong in its opposition to the lobby in Sweden that had gained a foothold in the country’s institutions.
“Foreigners – whether princes, dukes or other persons – shall henceforth neither be employed nor appointed to any office of the realm, whether civil or military, with the exception of His Majesty’s court, unless they can, through their outstanding and great qualities, bring great honor and tangible benefit to the kingdom”, the text declared, among other things.
Gustav III begins his coup d’état. Illustration: Pehr Hillerström (1732-1816)
The revolutionary change of power brought Sweden into what history books describe as the Gustavian era.
“Hatred and division have torn the kingdom apart”
In his speech to the Riksdag two days after the coup, Gustav criticized how the country had been ruled by the Hats and the Caps. He emphasized that it was not freedom he intended to abolish through the revolution, but rather to end the misrule that had plagued Sweden for so long.
“It is a sad but well-known truth that hatred and division have torn the kingdom apart. For a long time, the nation has been divided into two parties, which in practice have made it into two different peoples, united only in tearing apart their fatherland. You know how this division gave rise to resentment, how resentment led to revenge, how revenge led to persecution, and how persecution in turn led to new revolutions – something that has ultimately become like a recurring disease, which has scarred and degraded the whole of society”, proclaimed the king, continuing:
“These upheavals have shaken the realm due to the power hunger of a few individuals. Streams of blood have flowed – at times shed by one side, at times by the other – and the people have always been the victims of conflicts that barely concerned them, but whose unfortunate consequences they were the first and most to feel. Securing their rule has been the sole aim of those in power; everything has been adapted to serve that goal – often at the expense of other citizens, always at the expense of the realm.”.
Securing their rule has been the sole aim of those in power.
When the laws did not suit those in power, they were distorted and ignored, argued Gustav III, who stated that “nothing has been sacred to a people’s assembly inflamed by hatred and revenge” which was ultimately convinced that it stood above the law.
“Thus, freedom – the noblest of human rights – has been transformed into unbearable aristocratic oppression in the hands of the ruling party, which itself has been subjugated and ruled at the whim of a few men within it. People have trembled before every new parliament, and instead of thinking about how the affairs of the kingdom could best be managed, they have only been concerned with securing a majority for their own party – to protect themselves against the lawless abuses and violence of the other party”.
“An aristocratic yoke – unbearable for every Swede”
“Born a Swede and King of Sweden, it should be unthinkable for me to believe that foreign interests could rule over Swedish men – worse still, that the lowest and most degrading means would have been used to achieve it. You know what I am referring to, and my modesty is enough for you to understand the shame into which your internal conflicts have plunged the realm”, continued the young king, lamenting how Swedish politicians had been seduced by both “foreign gold” and ”domestic hatred and self-will.”
The king’s revolutionary uniform is still preserved today at the Royal Armoury in Stockholm. Montage. Illustration: Lorens Pasch the Younger (1733-1805), photo: LSH
He further pointed out how he had previously tried to get those in power to change course – but without success, and that the “most virtuous, dignified, and foremost citizens” who tried to stop the misrule in various ways were opposed and sacrificed.
“Yes, even the people have been oppressed – their complaints have been seen as rebellion, and freedom has ultimately been transformed into an aristocratic yoke, unbearable for every Swede”.
“Some of the people have borne the yoke with sighs and complaints, but without resistance – they did not know where salvation lay, or how it could be attained”, continued the king, pointing to others who instead “lost hope and took up arms”.
Today, Gustav III watches over Skeppsbrokajen in Stockholm – albeit in immobile form. Photo: Manfred Werner/CC BY-SA 4.0
Gustav Vasa and Engelbrekt
According to Gustav III, not only were the freedom and security of the citizens in grave danger, but so was the very existence of the kingdom – and this, according to him, was the reason why he “resorted to the means that had helped other courageous peoples, and which had once helped Sweden itself under the banner of Gustav Vasa, to rise up against unbearable oppression”.
“God has blessed my work. I have seen how love for the fatherland has been rekindled among the people – the same fervor that once burned in the hearts of Engelbrekt and Gustav Eriksson. All has gone well, and I have saved both myself and the kingdom – without a single citizen coming to harm”, he continued, asserting that Sweden can only be ruled by an “unshakeable law – whose words must not be distorted”.
“Great and immortal kings have carried the scepter I now hold in my hand. It would be truly bold of me to try to resemble them in any way – but in my zeal and love for you, I compete with them all, and when you carry the same heart for your country, I hope that the Swedish name will once again gain the honor and respect it once earned in the time of our ancestors”, he concluded his famous speech.
Culture – and war
In many ways, Gustav III soon laid the foundations for a Swedish cultural treasure that is still present in Sweden today. He not only founded the Swedish Academy (1786) to promote the Swedish language and literature, but also the Royal Opera (1773). His passion for theater and art made Stockholm something of a Nordic cultural center.
Gustav III founded the Royal Opera House in Stockholm. Photo: Frankie Fouganthin/CC BY-SA 4.0
The king was at the same time no classic aristocrat but rather inspired by French Enlightenment ideals, introducing early versions of freedom of the press and abolishing torture as a method of interrogation – reforms that strengthened citizens’ rights.
He also often looked back at the Sweden that once was and dreamed of restoring it as a great power. Hoping to reclaim previously lost Swedish territories and to prevent further Russian interference in Swedish politics, he declared war on Russia in 1788.
According to some contemporary accounts and later historians, Gustav III allegedly had Swedish soldiers dress in Russian uniforms or Cossack-like clothing and staged an attack to create a legitimate and popularly accepted reason for war – claims that have not been substantiated and which other historians have dismissed as mere slander and propaganda.
The war began with mixed results, and discontent among officers led to the formation of the so-called Anjala League in 1788 – a group of commanders who opposed the war and demanded peace with Russia. The fighting continued, primarily at sea, where the Swedish navy won an important victory at the Battle of Svensksund in 1790, strengthening Sweden’s negotiating position.
The Peace of Värälä was concluded that same year and meant that the borders remained unchanged. Sweden managed to maintain its territorial integrity but did not regain any previously lost lands. Despite this, the king still tried to present the outcome of the war as a political success, but his questionable military venture had also shaken his position of power.
Stockholm. Swedish ships being equipped for war. Illustration: Louis Jean Desprez (1788)
The nobility conspires
Tensions between Gustav III and the nobility grew, not least because of the Act of Union and Security of 1789, which, among other things, stripped the nobility of their exclusive right to high office and privileges, and gave the king even greater powers to make decisions on foreign and military matters without the approval of the Riksdag. However, the changes were supported by priests, burghers, and peasants alike.
Dissatisfaction among the nobility continued to grow as Gustav III strengthened his power at their expense. Criticism of the king’s rule, his handling of foreign policy, and his attempts to reform society without the consent of the nobility had created deep divisions within the upper classes.
On March 16, 1792, the conflict reached its climax when Gustav III was shot at a masked ball at the opera in Stockholm. The attack was carried out by Captain Jakob Johan Anckarström, but the planning behind the assassination involved a broader conspiracy among disaffected noblemen. Among those implicated were prominent figures such as Adolf Ribbing, Claes Horn, and Carl Fredrik Pechlin – all with connections to oppositional circles within the aristocracy.
Pechlin, who is considered one of the masterminds behind the conspiracy, had long been involved in political intrigues against the king and acted as a mediator between the conspirators. Secret meetings were held where the king’s deposition – and ultimately his death – was discussed as the only solution to what was described as a threat to the rule of the kingdom and the rights of the nobility.
The official motives for the act were political: the conspirators believed that the king’s rule had violated the 1720 constitution, threatened the constitutional order of the kingdom, and undermined the traditional power of the nobility. By removing the king, the conspirators hoped to restore the old balance of power and put an end to the Gustavian autocracy.
Anckarström as a scapegoat?
Gustav III survived the initial shot, but suffered an infection and died of his injuries on March 29 of the same year.
The assassination was followed by extensive legal and political repercussions. Jakob Johan Anckarström was arrested the day after the crime, after being identified by several witnesses. During questioning, he confessed to his role as the assassin but initially refused to reveal the names of others involved. Over time, however, evidence and witness statements pointed to a wider network of conspirators behind the assassination.
Contemporary German interpretation of the murder, in which the king is surrounded and shot by a group of masked conspirators. Illustration: Abraham Wolfgang Küfner (circa 1792)
Adolf Ribbing and Claes Horn were arrested and exiled, while the politically influential Carl Fredrik Pechlin – whom many consider to be the actual organizer – escaped harsher punishment by withholding direct evidence. He was sentenced by the Supreme Court to be held in custody for the purpose of investigating his possible involvement, first at Karlsten Fortress and then at Varberg Fortress, where, according to sources, he was allowed to move relatively freely and remained until his death four years later.
Although several people were proven to have been involved in the planning, the authorities chose to focus on Anckarström as the main perpetrator. Anckarström was sentenced to death and publicly executed on April 27, 1792, after undergoing a prolonged and symbolically harsh punishment: he was flogged daily for three days in various locations in Stockholm before being beheaded and having his right hand cut off. His body was dismembered and parts were nailed up as a warning to others.
In retrospect, many historians have generally regarded Anckarström as a scapegoat, a man who admittedly fired the shot but who was acting on behalf of more powerful forces. The trial was also marked by a desire to quickly restore order rather than fully expose the political conspiracy behind the murder.
Copperplate engraving depicting Jacob Johan Anckarström and the mask, knife, and pistols he wore on the night of the murder. Montage. Photo: LSH/CC BY 3.0, Illustration: Unknown
The deeper they dug, the more names appeared in the investigation, but several of the others involved escaped prosecution altogether, which also contributed to the impression that Anckarström was in fact sacrificed to conceal a broader rebellion within the absolute upper echelons of the kingdom.
Popular cultural vindication
The Gustavian era came to an end with the murder, but Gustav III’s reforms, new institutions, and cultural policy initiatives had, in a short time, made an impression that would shape Sweden long after his death.
Although Gustav III is often praised by more conservative commentators as a strong leader and national defender who fought corruption and misrule, he remains controversial even among patriots. Like many other enlightenment-minded rulers of his time, he was a Freemason – just like his father Adolf Frederick, and the highest patron of the order in Sweden. According to sources, several of his closest allies were also members of the same Masonic networks. The motivations remain somewhat unclear, but Freemasonry evidently offered Gustav not only a vital platform and a network of influential men and international contacts – his defenders argue that his membership was rather a strategic move to monitor and influence the emerging Masonic movement in Sweden, and to ensure it did not become an independent power.
With this in mind, some critics have pointed out that Gustav III, despite his stated desire to reduce foreign influence over Sweden, was himself strongly influenced by French culture and the French political model. He was deeply fascinated by the French court and sought both diplomatic and financial support from France, which he saw as a model for how the Swedish monarchy could be and how the kingdom could be modernized, inspired by the ideals of the Enlightenment.
In modern historiography, historical figures who do not conform to the ideas of contemporary rainbow parties are rarely highlighted. Despite his inspiration from the French Enlightenment, Gustav III has often been perceived as belonging to this category and has been described by some as an anti-democratic despot or even a tyrant.
However, the theater king’s presence remains in contemporary popular culture. A prominent example is Stefan Andersson’s historical concept album Teaterkungen kronologiskt i text och musik (The Theater King Chronologically in Text and Music), which describes his revolution in 1772 until his death in 1792.
Sweden lost Finland and his son was deposed
In practice, Gustav III’s idea of an enlightened monarchy with supreme power had died with him. Despite strengthening his influence through the 1772 constitution and the 1789 Act of Union and Security, Gustav III failed to lay the foundations for lasting royal absolutism in Sweden, and his dreams of a powerful monarchy that could rise above party strife and the privileges of the nobility never came to fruition in the long run.
His son, Gustav IV Adolf, was only 13 years old when his father died, which meant that power passed to a regency government led by Gustav III’s brother, Duke Karl (later Karl XIII). The regency government ruled more cautiously and returned some power to the Riksdag and the nobility, which was a first step away from the model that Gustav III had sought.
Gustav IV (pictured here as a teenager) was a significantly weaker monarch than his father. Illustration: Per Krafft the Elder (1724–1793)
When Gustav IV Adolf took over the reins of power in 1796, he proved to be a weak and, among many, unpopular ruler, whose failed foreign policy – particularly the conflict with Napoleon – led to a catastrophic defeat: the loss of Sweden’s eastern half (Finland) to Russia in 1809. Gustav IV Adolf was deposed in a coup d’état, and Sweden adopted a new form of government that same year, which entailed a clear division of power between the king and the Riksdag. The king would still reign, but no longer alone.
His son lost both the throne and the trust of the people and his important allies, and his family was eventually replaced by the French Bernadotte family, which came to power with Charles XIV John in 1818. Sweden thus entered a new political era – still with a monarchy, but now in constitutional form, with the king today fulfilling an almost symbolic and politically insignificant role.
Over the past three years, researchers at Lund University have been sailing like Vikings to better understand how the Norse traveled. In their latest study, they have identified four possible ports used by our ancestors a thousand years ago.
Archaeologist Greer Jarret and her fellow researchers have sailed along the coast of Norway in boats similar to those used during the Viking Age (c. 800–c. 1050 AD). The first trip was a round trip to the Arctic Circle in 2022, and since then the researchers have sailed over 5,000 kilometers in search of answers about the Vikings’ routes.
Previous discoveries have shown, for example, that it was probably possible for the Vikings to reach remote parts of the Arctic with this type of boat to hunt walrus, suggesting that the Vikings encountered indigenous peoples long before Columbus “discovered” North America.
Smaller harbors
During their voyages, based on their experience of sailing Viking boats, they have developed various criteria for determining whether a place is suitable as a harbor or not. The researchers have also interviewed sailors and fishermen about the routes traditionally used in the 19th and early 20th centuries, when sailing boats without engines were still common in Norway. Digital reconstructions of what the landscape looked like at the time have then been used to identify four possible Viking harbors along the Norwegian coast.
The hypothesis is that it must have been easy to enter and leave the harbors in all wind conditions, so there must have been several ways in and out. Furthermore, there were probably a multitude of smaller harbors on small islands or peninsulas where the Vikings could stop and rest.
– We often only know the starting and ending points of the trade that took place during the Viking Age. Large ports such as Bergen and Trondheim in Norway, Ribe in Denmark, and Dublin in Ireland. What interests me is what happened on the voyages between these major trading hubs. My hypothesis is that this decentralized network of ports, located on small islands and peninsulas, was central to making trade efficient during the Viking Age, says Jarret in a press release.
Navigating with stories
Researchers believe that the Vikings did not navigate using maps or compasses, but instead had mental maps. They used their memories and experiences, as well as myths associated with different places. These stories were then passed down through generations of sailors.
– For example, there are Viking stories about Kullaberg in Sweden and the mountain Torghatten and the islands Hestmona and Skrova along the Norwegian coast. These stories describe the dangers lurking in the waters below the mountain.
The research expeditions have not been entirely without risk. It has often been freezing cold, and once a minke whale surfaced and slapped its tail just a few meters from the boat. In 2022, the spar (pole) holding up the sail broke when the researchers were 25 kilometers out at sea.
– We had to tie two oars together to hold the sail and hope it would hold. We made it back to port safely, but then had to wait there for two days before we could sail again because the boat needed repairs.
The researchers also conclude that while it is important to have a durable boat, the relationships on board are even more important.
– You need a boat that can withstand all kinds of weather conditions. But if you don’t have a crew that can work together and put up with each other for long periods of time, then you’re screwed, concludes Jarret.
