In many respects Erik’s government continued that of Margrete. Their styles, however, differed. Whereas Margrete preferred political means and never dealt with more than one major issue at a time, Erik had an inclination for legal action and allowed himself to get involved in new problems before old ones had been resolved. In Sweden, the resumption of alienated crown lands had aroused the opposition of the Church. In September 1412 the bishops protested openly against laymen trying cases concerning ecclesiastical property. Soon after Margrete’s death, Erik visited Sweden, where he realised the necessity of granting concessions to the opposition. Some of the most unpopular local administrators (fogeder) were dismissed, and new rules for the resumption of land made the local bishop the crown’s representative.
Erik’s concern about the crown’s fiscal interests is most clearly seen in his urban policy. Several settlements obtained urban status during his reign, some having already done so before Margrete’s death: in Denmark, Praesto 1403, Nysted 1409, and Landskrona was founded between 1410 and 1413. Here the developing urban economy was to provide opportunities for the mendicant friars who settled when the town was being built. Similar considerations lay behind the creation of towns at Vadstena (1400) and at Danish Maribo (1416) as support for the Bridgettine convents. In other cases, places of strategic importance were favoured: older settlements were moved closer to castles (Korsor 1425, Elsinore 1426); Malmo was fortified, as was Flensburg, when Margrete and Erik first won control over it in 1410.
More spectacular features were the collection of the Sound toll at Elsinore, perhaps transferred from Helsingborg (1429), and Erik’s acquisition of Copenhagen from the bishop of Roskilde, after the death of Peder Jensen Lodehat in 1416. In Denmark, Erik’s interest concentrated on towns close to the Sound and the Great Belt, both of them channels of international trade and shipping. The granting of urban status to certain settlements and the removal of others to more favourable sites were intended to offer better conditions to the urban economy and in its turn, through taxation, to the royal treasury. Likewise, the government claimed taxes from foreign craftsmen at Bergen (1415), and encouraged rural trade in some localities (1425), no doubt in the hope of seeing them develop into settlements which might achieve urban status.
At the same time, Norwegian trade with Iceland was dwindling, as Englishmen and Germans tried to take it over. In 1419 the althing accepted the presence of English merchants, provided they were active in both fishing and trade. Twelve years later, however, the althing felt foreign activities to be so intrusive that Englishmen and Germans were forbidden to stay in Iceland during the winter months. International price fluctuations made Icelandic trade profitable: during the fifteenth century the price of fish increased by 70 per cent, whereas that of imported grain fell by a third. Monasteries and the two Icelandic bishoprics played their part in increasing this prosperity, not least by trading with the English. Erik’s government could not tolerate this state of affairs, and in 1425 sent a commissioner to Iceland in order to stop English trade.
By 1416 Erik and Philippa had been married for ten years and still had no family. Although, according to Norwegian law, Erik’s uncle, Bugislaus VIII, was the heir to the throne, since Erik had been born in 1382, he could still expect to rule for many years to come. Consequently, from about 1416 he began to consider his cousin, Bugislaus IX of Stolp, a younger man, as his heir apparent.
In the summer of 1419 a treaty of alliance between Erik’s union and that of Poland—Lithuania had been concluded and ratified. The Teutonic Order was seen as the contracting parties’ mutual enemy, whose existence as a temporal power was to be eliminated. The treaty established three categories of territories which the Order would have to cede: those formerly taken from Poland or Lithuania, which were to be returned to them; those to which either party had a claim, and which were to belong to the country with the better title; other territories, which were perhaps to be ruled as a condominium. In practical terms, Prussia would belong to the first category, Estonia to the second (and would go to Denmark), whereas Curonia and Livonia would be jointly governed.
The projected co-operation against the Teutonic Order was completed by the plan of a marriage between Bugislaus IX and Princess Jadwiga (Hedwig), heir to the Polish—Lithuanian union. However, the scheme was thwarted by the rapprochement between Poland and Brandenburg and by the pressure exerted upon Erik by Sigismund, king of the Romans. As ruler over Germany, Sigismund could not accept the annihilation of the Teutonic Order as a secular state. But with the birth, in 1424, of a male heir to the Polish king, Jadwiga became less interesting in international relations.
At the same time, Erik tried to infiltrate Estonia and the northern part of Livonia, especially by winning allies among the clergy and the landed aristocracy. The towns very soon realised that their interests in Russian trade were better promoted by co-operation with Erik than with Lubeck and the other Wendic towns. This policy thus met with a certain success, but before the goal had been achieved, Erik allied himself with the Teutonic Order and the Hansa, no doubt in order to demonstrate his power to the Polish king, and to induce him to approve the plans for Jadwiga’s marriage to Bugislaus. In this, however, he failed. The other north European powers realised the danger inherent in the projected union of unions, and succeeded in opposing it. After 1425 the Schleswig question increasingly occupied Erik’s mind, and he was not able to continue his infiltration of Estonia. Thus he lost what he had won, without attaining the aim for which he had abandoned his efforts in Estonia.
From Margrete, Erik inherited the problem of Schleswig. By resorting to military force, the counts of Holstein could be considered guilty of high treason against Erik, and had consequently forfeited any right to the duchy. The Danish parliament (danehof) had not been summoned for many years when, in 1413, it met as the high court of parliament to hear the case of Schleswig. It adopted the royal point of view: as enemies of Erik, the counts had lost all their rights in Denmark. Belonging as it did to the Danish realm, the duchy of Schleswig could thus be confiscated. Two years later Erik had the verdict confirmed by his cousin Sigismund.
Although respecting the five-year truce concluded in 1411, the counts would not accept the verdict of 1413. Hostilities were reopened in 1416; in the following year Erik occupied the city of Schleswig, but could not take Gottorp castle. The Danes also captured Fehmarn in 1417, but they suffered a serious setback in the west, where the Frisians supported the counts of Holstein. For several years hostilities and truces succeeded each other, until, in 1421, the contending parties agreed to submit the issue to the arbitration of Sigismund, king of the Romans. After thorough legal investigations, Sigismund pronounced his verdict: Schleswig belonged to Denmark and to Erik, leaving the counts of Holstein with no rights as Schleswig was not to be considered a fief, but an integral part of Denmark (28 June 1424).
Two years later Erik began to execute Sigismund’s verdict, asking the Hanseatic towns for military support. Fearing Erik’s plans for domination of the Baltic, the Hanseatics offered mediation. In the summer of 1426 Erik opened hostilities, forcing the counts of Holstein to seek help from the Wendic towns, which, in September 1426, decided to enter the war against Denmark. Hanseatic vessels raided the coasts of southern Denmark in April and May 1427, but only in June did the Nordic navy reach full strength. A Hanseatic fleet was sent to the Sound in order to protect the westbound voyage of the convoy from Prussia as well as the entry into the Baltic of ships coming from western France. On the same day the united Nordic fleet threw back the Hanseatic fleet and captured the eastbound ships coming from France (11 July 1427). Events in 1428 confirmed that the Hanseatic fleet was only superior until Erik’s navy reached full strength; furthermore, that privateering harmed Hanseatics and Scandinavians alike, as the spectacular pillaging of Bergen in the spring of 1429 was to show. Consequently, the coalition of Wendic towns and the counts of Holstein concentrated on military operations which resulted in the conquest of Aabenraa in north-eastern Schleswig.
This success showed the Wendic towns that if they could help the counts of Holstein to win control over Schleswig, they would themselves be in a better bargaining position in their negotiations with Erik. At Easter 1431 the coalition succeeded in taking Flensburg, whose castle, however, held out until September. Erik had now lost almost all of Schleswig, and he agreed to a truce with the counts and the Hanseatics (22 August 1432). Three years later, on 15 July 1435, a formal peace treaty was concluded at Vordingborg: Erik retained the parts of Schleswig under his control, as did Count Adolf VIII of Holstein. In 1440 Erik’s successor, Christoffer III, recognised Adolf as duke of all Schleswig; the personal union of Holstein and Schleswig had thus been restored to what it had been in Margrete’s early years.
Erik’s unsuccessful and protracted war over Schleswig strained the resources of his kingdoms. In Sweden, in particular, the war effort was felt as burden some, and, other than in Norway, it was not compensated for by the government protecting other national interests such as trade in northern Norway or fishing around Iceland. The war also hindered the exportation of important Swedish goods, such as iron and copper from Dalarna or furs from Norrland. The debasement of the currency only made matters worse.
There were, moreover, other reasons for opposition by the native aristocracy to Erik’s government. Erik continued Margrete’s policy of using foreigners in local government, sometimes as governors of lesser fiefs (fgeder), but above all as governors of fiefs with civil and often military powers as well (lensmand). As the case of the brothers Thott shows clearly, a typical mid-fifteenth-century seignorial economy would draw more income from the fiefs (ten) granted by the government than from private property. Thus barred from an important source of prosperity, the native aristocracy risked estrangement from King Erik.
Like most of his contemporaries Erik tried to influence the appointment of bishops through collaboration with the pope. The Great Schism having undermined the authority of the Papacy, the general council emerged as the leading ruling body of the Church. One of the issues between pope and princes on one side and the council fathers on the other was the appointment of bishops, who, in principle, were elected by cathedral chapters. At least since the thirteenth century the pope had interfered with such appointments, but in July 1433 the Council of Basle decided to adhere strictly to the rules for election of bishops as described in canon law. Already, in 1432, the chapter of Uppsala cathedral, in a deliberate attempt to exclude Erik from the election, had chosen a new archbishop, who immediately, and without seeking royal recommendation, travelled to Rome to secure papal confirmation. In the subsequent conflict over the issue the ideas were also to win support from other Swedish cathedral chapters. Erik was beginning to estrange himself from the Swedish Church, upon whose collaboration he, like Margrete, had relied.
Further opposition was increasing. In Dalarna, dissatisfaction with the local royal administrator (foged) Jens Eriksen (Josse Eriksson) was growing; the squire, Engelbrekt Engelbrektsson, appeared as the leader of the opposition and travelled to Denmark in order to present its complaints to the king. Erik asked the Swedish riksrad to investigate the matter, and as a consequence the foged was dismissed. However, since he was not punished further, dissatisfaction grew, until it broke out in armed revolt (June 1434).
Having been informed of these events, Erik summoned the Swedish riksrad to Vadstena on 1 August in the hope that it would be able to come to terms with the insurgents. However, Engelbrekt forced the councillors to join him, and soon the Swedish aristocracy realised what benefits could be gained through alliance with the insurgents. Engelbrekt’s military campaign in the autumn of 1434 won them several important castles; in January 1435, he was admitted to the riksrad and appointed commander in chief.
Although the insurgents accepted the Union of crowns, they maintained a national programme. Sweden was to be governed according to Swedish law; administrative posts (whether as lensmand or as foged) were to be filled only by Swedes, and a seneschal and a marshal for Sweden were to be appointed. In the subsequent negotiations with members of the Danish rigsrad a compromise was reached (May 1435); as a result the Danes began to consider Erik’s administration in the same critical terms as their Swedish colleagues. An agreement between Erik and the Swedes was reached at Stockholm (14 October 1435), but Erik was slow in the execution of its terms. Early in 1436 this led the riksrad to withdraw its allegiance to Erik, entrusting the government to Engelbrekt and to the marshal, Karl Knutsson (Bonde). But the balance between the popular and the aristocratic parties in the revolt was soon overturned when Engelbrekt was murdered on 27 April 1436.
The significance of Engelbrekt’s revolt lay in the formation of a Swedish political programme with distinct national features, which was to be taken up again and again for the coming ninety years.
Before his death, Engelbrekt had declared himself ready to support revolt in Norway under Amund Sigurdsson Bolt, whose insurgents appear to have been strongest in the spring of 1436. An accord was made in June promising the eviction of Danes from Norwegian local government. According to the final terms made on 18 February 1437, posts in local government were to be reserved for Norwegians; the Norwegian seal would be kept in Norway; a seneschal was to be appointed; and the currency was to be kept stable. Harald Gratop’s rebellion (summer 1438) was aimed at the remaining foreigners in the Norwegian administration, and at the aristocracy as well. It was easily crushed, but in 1439 Erik recognised Norwegian claims, appointing a seneschal and a chancellor for Norway.
Engelbrekt’s death led to the success of the aristocratic party. Although the revolt’s political programme was upheld, the aristocracy, unlike Engelbrekt, was committed to the Union under one king with carefully circumscribed powers. The ideas expressed in the rejected Union Charter of 1397 now took on a new lease of life.
After long and hard negotiations at Kalmar, during which Hanseatic envoys and members of the Danish rigsrad mediated, Erik and the Swedish council were at length reconciled (August 1436). The terms, however, constituted a surrender by Erik rather than an agreement between equals. The governmental practice which aimed at drawing the three realms closer to one another was now considered illegal, and no binding rules for administration of the Union were adopted. When the king returned to Denmark in the autumn of 1437 it soon became clear that he could not accept his new role. He was weary of the struggle over the constitution of the Union, and he desired to see his cousin, Bugislaus IX, as his successor. According to Norwegian law Bugislaus was now, after the death of his father, Bugislaus VIII, the heir to the throne, whereas the Swedish riksrad could be expected to accept nothing jeopardising their free choice. The Danish council had tacitly recognised Bugislaus when, after ten years of married life, Erik and Philippa still had no family, but its members now took the Swedish point of view. A last attempt to find a way out of the crisis was made in July 1438, when Swedish and Danish councillors met at Kalmar. The agreement recognised Erik as king, maintaining that the individual states should be governed according to their national laws. They were bound to assist one another in case of war, but the country seeking help had to pay for it, as had already been established by the failed Union Charter of 1397. Now it was widely recognised that the recent agreement prescribed consultation between the countries before the election of a new king. On that occasion, it was to be decided whether the states should be ruled by one or more kings (9 July 1438).
The participants at the meeting had probably discussed the necessity of finding another king in case the constitutional conflict resulted in Erik’s deposition. To both Danes and Swedes Bugislaus was unacceptable, as he was descended from neither the Danish nor the Swedish royal family. On the other hand he was the next heir to Norway, despite the fact that he was not of royal Norwegian pedigree. This is why the Kalmar agreement of 1438 did not exclude the possibility of more than one king to rule over the three states. Were this to happen, the Union would have been replaced by a mere alliance. While Erik has often been seen as a supporter of legalistic form, in this case the Swedish and Danish councillors were no less so. Against Norwegian and Swedish statute law stood Danish common law; against the aim of preserving the Union stood the Danish and Swedish principle of election from members of the royal family. Legal considerations thus led to a stalemate, and any solution would have to be a political one.
Against this background the councillors assembled at Kalmar must have considered the possibility of electing the son of Erik’s sister, Duke Christoffer of the Palatinate, who like Erik, but unlike Bugislaus, was descended from the Nordic royal families. On 27 October 1438 the Danish rigsrad invited Christoffer to assume the task of regent of Denmark in Erik’s absence, and in the same month Karl Knutsson, marshal of Sweden and ringleader of the national faction in the riksrad, managed to secure appointment to the analogous post. Using all kinds of threats, Karl Knutsson tried to silence his political enemies, who, in turn, addressed themselves to Erik in Gotland. Strengthened by moral and material aid and by concerted action from Norway on Erik’s behalf, they sought to achieve Karl Knutsson’s overthrow.
Fear of Erik rallied the Swedes to the national cause, and the short civil war was soon over. Christoffer had offered his good offices to the Swedes, but although the Diet of Talje deposed Erik in September 1439, it elected no successor. Karl Knutsson continued to rule the country as regent.
Having accepted the Danish invitation Christoffer met Danish bishops, councillors and members of the aristocracy at Lubeck in June 1439. The Wendic towns and Duke Adolf of Schleswig took part in the negotiations. Their outcome was the deposition of Erik, and the recognition by the Wendic towns and Adolf that a new king had to be elected.
Thus, at the end of 1439, each of the three countries was ruled in its own way. Sweden had deposed Erik and was ruled by Karl Knutsson as regent; Denmark had acted likewise, but had a princely regent; only Norway remained loyal to Erik, who had agreed to appoint a seneschal and a chancellor to govern the country in his absence.