Ivar, Ingvar, and Ímar.
The infamous Ivar the Boneless, separating myth from history.
Many of you are familiar with my work on searching for the historical King Arthur, but there are a number of other historical figures that are steeped in varying amounts of myth. One of these is the famed Viking Warlord Ivar the Boneless. We have every reason to believe that Ivar was a real person, but the most detailed account of Ivar is by far the most inflected with myth.
So what can we draw upon for the real Ivar, and was Ivar Ragnarsson from the Norse sources the same as the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle’s Ingvar, and the Irish Ímar? Here we will take a look at some evidence trying to pin down a time and place for Ivar much as my work on Arthur has tried to do for him.
The Irish Sources
The Annals of Ulster
The Annals of Ulster are our earliest source for the Norse king in Ireland Ímar. The first entry to mention Ímar in the Annals of Ulster is in 857, of a victory of Ímar and his brother Amlaíb, over another Hiberno-Norse warlord Caitil the Fair. It has been suggested that this is the same man as Ketill Flatnose, although Ketill was a popular name at the time, and the evidence is limited. The brothers then are said to have led an army into the Kingdom of Mide in 859
857 Ímar and Amlaíb inflicted a rout on Caitil the Fair and his Norse-Irish in the lands of Munster.
859 Amlaíb and Ímar and Cerball led a great army into Mide.
Again mentioned in 863, this time with their younger brother Auisle (Óisle)
863 The caves of Achad Aldai, and of Cnodba, and of Boadán's Mound above Dubad, and of Óengoba's wife, were searched by the foreigners—something which had never been done before. This was the occasion when three kings of the foreigners, i.e. Amlaíb and Ímar and Auisle, plundered the land of Flann son of Conaing; and Lorcán son of Cathal, king of Mide, was with them in this.
This is the last mention of Ímar in the Annals of Ulster until 870.
870 The siege of Ail Cluaithe by the Norsemen: Amlaíb and Ímar, two kings of the Norsemen, laid siege to the fortress and at the end of four months they destroyed and plundered it.
Ail Cluaithe, is the Brythonic Alt Clut, and this siege was of the fortress at Dumbarton.
871 Amlaíb and Ímar returned to Áth Cliath from Alba with two hundred ships, bringing away with them in captivity to Ireland a great prey of Angles and Britons and Picts.
The last entry for Ímar is from 873 where we are told that Ímar died.
873 Ímar, king of the Norsemen of all Ireland and Britain, ended his life.
So we have what seems to be a credible history here outlining Imar’s kingship and life in Ireland. There is another Irish source however that seems to flesh things out more.
The Fragmentary Annals of Ireland
The Fragmentary Annals of Ireland were compiled from older chronicles sometime in the early 11th century, and were compiled slightly later than the earlier parts of Annals of Ulster. Here we can start to see more meat added to Ímar’s story, possibly pieces from other chronicles, or maybe some small parts of myth seeping in already. The Fragmentary Annals start off earlier in Ímar’s life than the Annals of Ulster
849 Also in this year, i.e. the sixth year of the reign of Máel Sechlainn, Amlaib Conung, son of the king of Norway, came to Ireland, and he brought with him a proclamation of many tributes and taxes from his father, and he departed suddenly. Then his younger brother Ímar came after him to levy the same tribute.
They mention Ímar again in the years 858, and 867
858 A victory by Cerball son of Dúnlang and Ímar over the Gall-Gaedil in Ara Tíre.
867 There was an encounter between Óisle, son of the king of Norway, and Amlaib, his brother. The king had three sons: Amlaíb, Ímar, and Óisle. Óisle was the least of them in age, but he was the greatest in valor, for he outshone the Irish in casting javelins and in strength with spears. He outshone the Norwegians in strength with swords and in shooting arrows. His brothers loathed him greatly, and Amlaib the most; the causes of the hatred are not told because of their length. The two brothers, Amlaíb and Ímar, went to consult about the matter of the young lad Óisle; although they had hidden reasons for killing him, they did not bring these up, but instead they brought up other causes for which they ought to kill him; and afterwards they decided to kill him.
This killing of Óisle(Auisle) is corroborated by The Annals of Ulster, which mention that ‘Auisle’ was killed in 867 by "kinsmen in parricide". This fleshing out of the earlier entry is possible something taken from another chronicle, but also could be part of the already growing legend. Curiously Ímar disappears after this entry until 871.
871 Amlaíb and Ímar came back from Alba to Áth Cliath, bringing many British and Scottish and Saxon prisoners with them. They numbered two hundred ships.
Here we see almost the exact word for word entry from the earlier Annals of Ulster, which shows that the Chronicler was clearly drawing from it.
871-872 In this year, i.e. the tenth year of the reign of Áed Findliath, Ímar son of Gothfraid son of Ragnall son of Gothfraid Conung son of Gofraid and the son of the man who left Ireland, i.e. Amlaíb, plundered from west to east, and from south to north.
Amlaíb leaves to aid their father in Norway, after which Ímar was sole ruler. Here we also get a short genealogy for Ímar. One name here stands out above the others, Ragnall, Ímar’s grandfather here. Ragnall is sometimes equated with Ragnar Loðbrók, who is, according to The Saga of Ragnar Loðbrók, Ivar’s father.
After this Ímar disappears from the Fragmentary Annals. The interesting part here is the seven year gap in the Annals of Ulster, and the question is, do we have anything other than the 867 entry in the Fragmentary Annals for this period of time?
The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle
This is where the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle seems to fit, with it’s figure Hingwar. The ASC tells us that The heathen army under the leadership of Hingwar(Ingware, Hingwar, Iuuar, Ingwar and Inguar) and Ubba, was active from 865-870
A.D. 865. This year sat the heathen army in the isle of Thanet, and made peace with the men of Kent, who promised money therewith; but under the security of peace, and the promise of money, the army in the night stole up the country, and overran all Kent eastward.
A.D. 870. This year the army rode over Mercia into East-Anglia, and there fixed their winter-quarters at Thetford. And in the winter King Edmund fought with them; but the Danes gained the victory, and slew the king; whereupon they overran all that land, and destroyed all the monasteries to which they came. The names of the leaders who slew the king were Hingwar(Ingware, Hingwar, Iuuar, Ingwar and Inguar) and Hubba. At the same time came they to Medhamsted, burning and breaking, and slaying abbot and monks, and all that they there found. They made such havoc there, that a monastery, which was before full rich, was now reduced to nothing. The same year died Archbishop Ceolnoth; and Ethered, Bishop of Witshire, was chosen Archbishop of Canterbury.
There is some question as to whether the battles in East-Anglia, and the siege of Dumbarton would have been possible, as the siege supposedly took four month, but I think the timeline works out fine here to have Ivar back in Ireland in 871.
There is a small hiccup with Æthelweard’s version of the ASC known as the Chronicon Æthelweardi, which mentions that Inwær(Ingvar) died in 870. This is possibly trying to account for him seemingly disappearing from the record, i.e. Going back home to Dublin.
870 After a year they moved again, and struck across the kingdom of the Mercians to East Anglia, and there laid out a camp in the winter season at Thetford. And King Eadmund decided on war against them, and after a brief interval he was killed by them there. And his body lies entombed in the place called Bury St Edmund’s. And then the barbarians had the blessing of victory as the death of their king grew near, for their king, Inwær, also died in the same year. Archbishop Ceolnoth also passed away in that year and was buried in Canterbury.
This fills in the gap quite nicely, and seems to recount history more than myth. It definitely seems as if Ímar and his brothers decided to invade the Anglo-Saxon Heptarchy in 865, and return to Dublin in 871. It almost seems too good to be true, and others have claimed that it is unlikely, as the timeline seems too compressed. I do think it is likely that these two figures, Ímar and Ingvar are likely the same person. Sadly this is where what we can really glean as purely historical ends.
The Norse Sources
Ivar appears in a handful of Norse Sources, with the main portion coming from The Saga of Ragnar Loðbrók. The Saga of Ragnar Loðbrók is not a chronicle like our other entries so we are not given dates, and they read less like history and more like an entertaining story, it also dates to the 13th century and thus is the latest of our sources, and as such seems to start blurring the lines between history and legend. Ivar appears here as the eldest of Ragnar’s sons by his wife Aslaug, and seemingly their leader, similar to how he appears in the ASC. Upon his birth he was found to be “Boneless”
Then Kráka became pregnant and in due time she gave birth to a boy. The boy was sprinkled with water and given the name of Ívar. But the boy was boneless, and it felt as though there was only gristle where the bones would be. And while he was still young, his height was such that there were few men as tall as he was. He was the handsomest of all men, and so wise that it is unlikely there was ever a wiser man than he was.
I will not go into the meaning of Ivar’s epithet “hinn Beinlausi” as there is probably enough material on that speculation for another article in and of itself. There are a number of different explanations and not all of the references to him even agree.
From here the Saga recounts the early exploits of Ivar and the other sons of Ragnar, but is there any corroboration between the Irish Annals, the ASC, and this Saga?
After their fathers death at the hands of King Ælla of Northumbria, the sons of Ragnar decide to invade in retaliation. Ivar takes no part in the early campaign but instead asks for land, but no more than an oxhide could cover. Ælla agrees, and through clever cutting and stretching Ivar is able to cover an area large enough to build a city as big as London with room to spare. Here we have a clearly legendary scenario showing how clever Ivar is. Ivar then plays Ælla and the other sons of Ragnar against one another, goading his brothers into attacking Ælla, ultimately defeating and capturing him, upon which they executed him via The Blood Eagle.
The ASC does not corroborated this exact execution for King Ælla instead noting that he fell in battle in the entry for 867
A.D. 867. This year the army went from the East-Angles over the mouth of the Humber to the Northumbrians, as far as York. And there was much dissension in that nation among themselves; they had deposed their king Osbert, and had admitted Aella, who had no natural claim. Late in the year, however, they returned to their allegiance, and they were now fighting against the common enemy; having collected a vast force, with which they fought the army at York; and breaking open the town, some of them entered in. Then was there an immense slaughter of the Northumbrians, some within and some without; and both the kings were slain on the spot. The survivors made peace with the army. The same year died Bishop Ealstan, who had the bishopric of Sherborn fifty winters, and his body lies in the town.
This would seem to partially reconcile the accounts here, so if Ivar was one of the leaders of the Heathen Army, then it is likely he had a hand in Aella’s death, with the added flourish of a revenge story. The Saga then ends with Ivar staying to rule over England.
As for Ívar, he ruled England until his death-day, and he died of sickness. And while he lay in his final sickness, he ordered his body to {129} be taken to the place where a raiding army would land, and he said he expected that they would not win the victory when they came ashore. When he died, it was done as he commanded, and he was buried in a mound there. Many people say that when King Harald Hard-Ruler came to England, he landed where Ívar was buried, and he was killed in that expedition. And when William the Conqueror came to England, he went to Ívar’s mound and broke it open, and there he saw Ívar’s body undecomposed. William had a bonfire built and then burned Ívar’s body on that pyre, and after that he fought for the rule of the kingdom and he won it.
Here we seem to have unfortunately more legend seeping in.
Conclusions
I think what we have here are three accounts of the same general series of events, but through very different lenses. The Irish Annals and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle are all trying to record history as they know it. The Chroniclers were doing their best to create a history, not a legend, and as such we can see only a little bit makes its way in the further we get from the period they are discussing. The Norse sources only corroborate events as far as the basic outline of a Viking invasion in the later half of the 860s, and a handful of deaths that can be attributed to the Heathen Army.
So how do Ímar of Dublin, and Ingvar of the Heathen army become Ivar Ragnarsson? This happened just like it does time and time again, stories, even historical, slowly grow in the telling. It would be easy for someone to have known the accounts of this famous King Ímar and draw the conclusion that the Ragnall in his genealogy is in fact Ragnar, and add him to the laundry list of Sons that are attributed to Ragnar. This linking of figures happens often with both history and legends attributed to historical figures. From there the conflation begins, and where things don’t line up the writer gets to add in whatever they want. In the end can we say that all three figures are 100% the same person, no, but Ingvar and Ivar certainly seem to be, and it seems extremely like that Ímar is as well.
My good friend Tocharus is tackling the man behind the myth of Charlemagne’s very own Lancelot, Roland. Maybe you read this teaser and give his article (which is much more well researched and written that mine) a look?
And so Roland blew his mighty Oliphant with his dying breath. Cursing the men who attacked him, his men, as well as King and country. Though dying, he could rest knowing the Moors would never have his legendary sword Durendal, nor would they take his honor, for he took thousands of their lives. So was the legend of the holy paladin of France, sacrificing his own life for his king Charlemagne, but how did this heroes’ journey begin? How does man become myth?
