Come with me to Sweden, if you will. Come to the country’s capital, Stockholm, a beautiful city situated on a series of islands where the waters of Lake Mälaren flow into the Baltic Sea; a city so close to nature that anglers may be seen casting their lines into the waters immediately next to the Parliament buildings and the Royal Palace.
But let us focus further. Let us go to the oldest part of the city – Gamla Stan – where the streets are narrow and winding, and vestiges of the medieval age abound. You may stroll the Old Town, if you wish, but if you can’t make it, you may take your walk on YouTube (for example, here, here, and here; also see map.)
And finally, if your imagination will allow it, let us take a further leap, a leap backwards into history. Let us visit Stockholm as it was half a millennium ago – specifically, on November 8, 1520.
Why this place and time? Well, it is of great interest to me because on this day my great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather, Erik Karlsson Kuse (pronounced Ku-seh) was executed – beheaded – by order of the King, at the central square in the Old Town of Stockholm.
Of course, Stockholm was very different in that day. But then again, many things were the same. Take the climate. November would have been cold, but not frigid. Daylight would have been short, and the sun would have tinged the clouds with an orange hue as it traversed its way low on the horizon.
The buildings of the city would have been different, but the lay of the land was the same. The twisting streets would have been much as they are now. The central square — the Stortorget (you will surely encounter it on your walk) – is still there. This was a gathering place for the people — a place of commerce, where merchants would transact deals in copper, iron, salt, grains, and cloth; where official decrees would have been read, and the power of the state displayed and exercised. It was also the site of public executions. (And today … tourists sit blithely eating croissants, spilling crumbs on the very site of heinous crimes of state, maybe on the very locus of my ancestor’s demise.)
So let us go back to 1520. It was raining at the time we are contemplating, but it was not just rainwater that coursed down the guttered streets of the Old Town – no, it was rain mixed with blood. November 8th and 9th were the days of the Stockholm Massacre, or Bloodbath. At least 82, and probably more than 100 persons, were murdered by decree of king Kristian II of Denmark.
But wait a minute, you are probably saying. What was a Danish king doing murdering Swedes in Stockholm? To answer that question will take a little history. I will try to be brief.
THE BACKGROUND
Ancient and early historic Scandinavia was, of course, tribal. It took a long time, but after centuries of warfare three concrete nation-states evolved: Norway, Sweden and Denmark (Finland was another matter: essentially it was a colony of Sweden). Now, these nations had much in common. They spoke a similar language, had a similar culture, and a similar outlook vis-à-vis the rest of Europe. So why not unite these three countries into an empire? Surely, such an empire would become an impressive power.
In fact, over time, there were several attempts at unification. There were wars, alliances and marriages – the usual means of achieving relationships and dynasty. But nothing concrete elapsed until Queen Margaret of Denmark came along.
Now Scandinavian women have always been intelligent, persuasive and formidable. We know that. But even by Scandinavian standards Margaret was exceptional. By dint of political acumen, allure, and intrigue, she did the nearly impossible: she united Norway, Denmark and Sweden under a single crown. Her achievement is known as the Kalmar Union of 1397.
As long as Margaret was alive, the Union succeeded. But Margaret died in 1412, and none of her successors had her degree of political skill. The Union faltered. Not everyone benefitted equally. Tax revenues flowed from the hinterlands to the center of government in Copenhagen. Danish nationals were appointed to government positions in Norway and Sweden. Tensions pulsated incessantly. There were peasant’s revolts as well as occasional outright war.
Perhaps an analogy to the American Revolution is appropriate. On one side were the Unionists, who, like America’s Loyalists, benefitted from their positions in the hierarchy, and supported the monarchy and the idea of empire. On the other side were the anti-Unionists, who, like American Patriots, wanted independence and freedom from overseas taxation and political control.
To get some idea of the turmoil during this period, just look at the list of Swedish rulers at the time. Outright monarchs were rare; instead the highest position in the land was more often a regent (or, in Swedish, riksföreståndare – a position more like a president than a king). And these regents typically lasted for only a few years. Factions were replaced with a rapidity that resembled chaos.
Further, consider as well that the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries were a period of religious tumult. The Protestant Reformation had not yet begun, but the rumblings were there. In addition to doctrinal quarrels, there was an economic issue that paralleled the Unionist one: i.e., wealth was flowing out of the country, this time to far-off Rome. Roughly speaking, the anti-Unionists were Protestant leaning, while the Unionists supported the established Catholic institutions.
But I said I’d be brief (although if you are interested in more detail, check the references at the end of the Kalmar Wikipedia article). So let’s move forward to King Kristian II of Denmark, who assumed the throne in 1513 upon the death of his father, King Hans (also called John).
KING KRISTIAN II
To be blunt, Kristian was a psychopath. He thought nothing of killing or creating havoc if it furthered his ends. But he could also be charming and conciliatory, as psychopaths can be, when necessary. In this sense he was not much different from other psychopathic rulers: Ivan the Terrible, Henry VIII, or several of the Ottoman sultans, to name a few.
In addition, Kristian might be considered a Machiavellian Prince – although, in the end, not a very good one. Brute force he understood, but the other attributes of a successful prince, he lacked. He was unable to put together a successful propaganda machine, could not build consensus, and was utterly incapable of projecting a positive vision. In fact, Kristian comes across more like Hans Kristian Andersen’s emperor without any clothes – the perfect parable for a failed Machiavellian prince. Well, Andersen was Danish. Was Kristian, in fact, a model for his naked emperor?
In any event, the driving force behind Kristian’s ambition was to revive the faltering Kalmar Union: to become unquestioned king of a unified Scandinavia. In fact, he was groomed for this role by his father, Hans, who appointed him viceroy of Norway in 1506. In this position, Kristian acquired robust experience in political coercion: he removed Norwegians from their established statuses and positions, replacing them with his Danish supporters; he increased taxes and directed the flow of the nation’s wealth toward Copenhagen. Norwegians liked none of this, of course. There was rebellion. So Kristian moved in with his mercenary troops, executing scores. Accordingly, the despot had great experience in tyranny and killing (Norwegians) well before he became king.
In the interests of brevity I will skip over the period of 1513 to 1520, primarily an era of warfare between the Unionist and anti-Unionist factions in Scandinavia, interesting though that history is. (English speakers might find Vilhelm Moberg’s History of the Swedish People, translated by Paul Britten Austin, to be useful.)
In short, although for many years Swedish anti-Unionists succeeded in staving off Unionist forces, they eventually lost their leader, Sten Sture the younger, at the Battle of Bogesund, in early 1520. The result was disillusionment and retreat. As an analogy, we may liken the situation to America having lost George Washington in the midst of the Revolutionary War.
But then we come across another of those remarkable Scandinavian women, Sten Sture’s widow, Kristina Gyllenstierna, who rallied the troops and essentially took control of the anti-Unionist faction in Sweden. Continuing our analogy, it’s as if Martha Washington would have taken over leadership of the Continental Army had George died.
But alas, in the immediate-term, success was not to be. Although Kristina was able to take command of the city of Stockholm and its formidable castle, she was not able to withstand the siege that King Kristian imposed shortly thereafter.
But at the same time, Kristian also found himself in a bind. Winter was coming, and he had a large mercenary army to feed, pay, and satisfy. As is usually the case, mercenaries are not impelled by ideology or honor; they want money and booty, and if they don’t get it, they might just leave or maybe take matters into their own hands, and who knows what would happen then.
So Kristian knew he had to make concessions. But … he had a plan; he had a plan.
KING KRISTIAN’S PLAN
First of all, Kristian had to be conciliatory. He offered extremely favorable terms if the Swedes would capitulate and accept him as king. He would allow Swedes to keep their traditional privileges. They could, in large, rule the country via their national assembly. He would not raise taxes. And most importantly, he promised complete amnesty toward his opponents. There would be no repercussions toward anyone who had fought him. All would be forgiven, and in fact a document was drawn and signed declaring these provisions publicly.
But behind the scenes, Kristian had hatched a very contrary strategy. Specifically, with the help of his man-in-the-church, Archbishop Gustav Trolle, he would draw articles of heresy against his enemies. After all, during the course of the war, many properties of the church, including Archbishop Trolle’s castle, had been appropriated by anti-Unionists – and anyone who steals possessions from the hierarchy of the church must be a heretic, right? And of course, no one needs to keep promises made to heretics, right? The logic, in the eyes of Kristian and his stooge archbishop, was impeccable.
Of course, Kristian realized that he could not release his articles of heresy right away. His opponents would simply flee to their strongholds in the hinterlands. But Kristian had a plan for that as well. He would invite his former enemies as well as his friends to his coronation, which was to be on November 4. There would be a great celebration, with feasting and abundant entertainments. But not at Uppsala, the traditional location for Swedish coronations. No, Kristian wanted to celebrate his coronation in Stockholm. There was a reason for this. Stockholm Castle was a much more secure site – thickly walled with well-guarded locations of entry and exit. Once you were in, you couldn’t easily get out.
Unfortunately, the Swedes fell for the ruse. Most of them anyway. One exception was young Gustav Eriksson Vasa, who smelled a rat. He went up north, to the province of Dalarna, where he would eventually raise an army and later become the first king of an independent post-Kalmar Sweden (but that is a story for another time).
And so the coronation proceeded. The feasting continued through November 5th and 6th. King Kristian is reported to have been quite jovial, mixing well with his former opponents as well as his friends. But at noon on November 7, the king called for his guests to gather at the banquet hall. Another feast, they must have thought. But the mood immediately went somber. Archbishop Trolle read his articles of heresy, citing each of his “heretics”, one after the other, by name.
After the preceding days of revelry, many of the victims probably had pretty good hangovers. But the reality of the situation hit them quickly. They were locked up. You can be sure no one slept well that night.
THE BLOODBATH
Consequently, the next day, November 8, Stockholm’s Bloodbath began (see here and here for a couple of YouTube versions of the event; here for a Wikipedia article). The condemned, including my ancestor, were led to the public square and executed. For good measure, even those who had worked for the accused were included in the execution queue: servants, craftsmen, business associates, etc.
What’s more, even to grieve the killings was a crime: consider the fate of Lasse Hass, who was observed wiping his eyes while watching the spectacle. Hey, anyone who weeps at the execution of heretics must be a heretic himself, right? – so off with poor Lasse’s head, as well.
We even know the name of the executioner: he was Jürgen Homuth, one of Kristian’s German mercenaries – an archetypal Nazi if one there ever were. (In my mind’s eye I see him as a corpulent, leering Herman Goering, leaning on his bloody axe.) Jürgen even submitted a bill to the king for his services, which I presume was paid. Just business as usual, I guess.
Oh, and old Kristian was not done yet, not by a long shot. Next came the looting that occurred after the executions. After securing the best of the booty for his own use, he set his mercenaries loose to plunder the houses and belongings of his executed victims. Gold, silver, and household objects – all fell into the hands of Kristian or his troops. Nothing was left.
THE AFTERMATH
And so, the massacre was over. Now it was time for Kristian to celebrate his presumed victory, his brave new world. Again, Stockholm Castle was organized for revelries, fetes and amusements to last for several more days. It was as if the massacre had only been an annoying interruption in a continuing, lavish party. (Although the invitees were certainly those deemed to be Kristian’s supporters, one has to wonder whether, under the circumstances, they felt completely at ease. But to refuse the invitation, well, that might have been dangerous, too.)
Finally, after a few days of political appointments and realignments, Stockholm was under the full (so he believed) control of Kristian’s allies. It was time to get back to Copenhagen. But Kristian did not leave by sea; instead he went overland. It seems that there were still a few rebellions to quell, a few more scores to settle. So he and his troops marched south, stopping to execute perceived enemies here and there. Particularly egregious was his behavior at a monastery in Nydala, where he ran into an abbot and some monks who displeased him. “I have an idea! Let’s drown them!” And so they were. Better men than he, by a thousand-fold, but drowned they were by his foul statist thugs.
Finally, Kristian arrived in Copenhagen. Without going into detail, let us note that he began to persecute members of his nation’s nobility. Eventually, to the credit of the Danes, Kristian was deposed and a new king crowned. Kristian spent the rest of his life in custody of some sort – in prison or under house arrest. He tried to make a comeback a few times, but failed. He didn’t get what was coming to him, but at least he was unable to resume his reign of evil.
ERIK KARLSSON KUSE
And now, with this historical background complete, let us get back to Erik Karlsson Kuse. Who was this man? How did he become involved in the intense Scandinavian power struggle of the early 1500s? How did he become a victim of the Stockholm massacre? (The best internet information about Erik comes from the Svenskt Biografiskt Lexikon, here. Unfortunately, the article does not auto-translate well because of the Lexicon’s concise, abbreviated style.)
We don’t know much about Erik’s origins. He was born around 1470 at Almby manor, in the parish of Jäder, Södermanland, Sweden — about 100 km (60 miles) west of Stockholm. His family belonged to the landed gentry. Thus, his origins were neither humble, nor were they elite. They were in-between. He understood well the dreamy passions of the masses, and no less, the ossified conservatism of the aristocracy. He could communicate comfortably with either social extreme, and was thus advantaged.
In one way or another — we don’t know the details, but probably because of innate talent — Erik advanced his position over the years. By 1504 he had become district judge for his home province of Södermanland. It should be noted that this position (in the unique Swedish legal system) was at least partly democratic in that the first stage in appointment was by lay judges who were selected by farmers in the district. Only then could the king make his choice – selecting solely from candidates nominated by the people. The district judge’s position dealt in large part with real estate transactions – here, for example Erik endorses a land sale on May 2, 1510. (For a more complete documentation of records relating to Erik Kuse, see here.)
But inevitably, in that polarized age, Erik became involved in the Unionist/anti-Unionist struggle. Both sides would have been eager to recruit a young, talented champion. So it was that the Unionist Sten Kristersson Oxenstierna wrote a letter in 1505 to Sweden’s regent at the time, Svante Nilsson, saying about Erik, essentially, “We want this guy on our side.” But they didn’t get him. Erik was anti-Unionist through and through.
By 1509, Erik’s stand had become abundantly clear. One of the most unpleasant requirements of his post was to collect and deliver the tribute imposed on his province by King Hans; but, by excuse, subterfuge, and thanks to some political realignments, he refused to make the payment. From afar, Hans and the future king Kristian must have seethed. Surely from this point on (if not before), Erik was a marked man.
But just as Erik was generating enemies from above, he was acquiring friends from below. The year 1511 saw a period of noteworthy unrest. The peasants were particularly incensed at their worsening condition. In fact, they saw Erik as an enemy. He held an important government position, did he not? And so it happened that an angry mass appeared in the marketplace that summer, demanding that Erik relinquish his judicial post. So what did Erik do? Well, first, he gave up his lawbook, saying, essentially, “Well, if you don’t want me, here is the symbol of my power. You take it.” A few days later, at the markets in Eskilstuna on June 24 and Strängnäs on June 29, he offered the peasants free beer. After a few good draughts, his enemies gave him his position back, and became his friends. (Well, that’s what the record says; you can’t make this stuff up.)
We don’t know what Erik said to the peasants, but it probably went something like this: “Look, I agree with you that your taxes are too high and go to support a lavish lifestyle in a capital far away. I also dislike foreign troops sallying to and fro across our land. And I abhor the attempt to alter our home-grown political institutions in favor of an autocratic monarchy. But I and others in the anti-Unionist camp are attempting to do something about it. So be patient and stick with us. In fact, when the time is right, we will call on you for help. Together we can forge and independent, justly ruled nation.” (Hmm, sounds a lot like the American Revolution again…)
Still, Erik sought a nonviolent, peaceful solution to the impasse, if possible. He made some sincere efforts at negotiation, attending several meetings and conferences to that end, even meeting with Archbishop Trolle in 1516, and with Kristian’s representatives at Riddarholmen in 1518. None of this worked, needless to say.
The major turning point in the situation was unquestionably the death of Sten Sture in early 1520. The anti-Unionists had to retreat, taking refuge in the strongly fortified Stockholm Castle, which was very soon after besieged by King Kristian’s troops. At some point, as a supporter of Kristina Gyllenstierna, Erik was appointed bailiff of the castle. A bailiff, in the Middle Ages, was essentially a majordomo, a manager, an organizer of the affairs of an estate, or in Erik’s case, a castle. And why Erik? Perhaps the words of Hemming Gadh explain this: Erik Kuse was an “honest, good man. He is kind in his mind and heart, and does not let the slightest word go unnoticed. He prevails more than ten others; what he does is done”.
As previously mentioned, the beleaguered Swedes ultimately succumbed, regrettably taken in by Kristian’s lies. In fact, Erik Kuse was among the negotiators to the surrender. He was meticulous in detailing the capitulation terms, particularly the provisions for amnesty. To an honorable man, assuming honor among his opponents, things seemed to be going well. But as related above, Kristian had his own plans, and Erik was probably high on the list of the king’s targets. Indeed, Erik was among the first to be led out of the palace to the grounds of the public square to be executed, a victim of that lust for power that so distorts our politics and social relations; a victim of that pall of evil that surrounds us and can devour us at any time:
“For man also knoweth not his time: as the fishes that are taken in an evil net, and as the birds that are caught in the snare; so are the sons of men snared in an evil time, when it falleth suddenly upon them.” — Ecclesiastes 9:12
THE GOOD SIDE: THE GIRL, BRITA BEATA
So far, this story has been negative and bleak. Must evil always win? It sometimes seems so, but surely not completely, and not in the long run. So here is something positive (though it starts negatively).
We will mention the young girl involved in these events. (Well, surely there was more than one, but at least there is one of whom I am aware.) We don’t know her exact age – she is estimated to have been born in 1510, so maybe she was 10. Her name was Brita Beata Eriksdotter Kuse, my thirteenth great-grandmother, the daughter of Erik.
I can only begin to conceive the trauma. How must Brita have felt, to have her father gone in an instant, killed at the whim of an egotistical, psychopathic king? (Her mother, Bengta Nilsdotter, had died sometime earlier, while her stepmother was likely a prisoner in Stockholm castle). How did this event affect Brita in the coming years?
The image in my mind is that of a young girl standing in the rain on a street-corner, watching as a group of drunken soldiers ransack her house, casting her dolls and toys into the street, trampling them underfoot. But then – what did Mr. Rogers’ mother say? – “Always look for the helpers”. And yes, someone must have helped Brita; someone must have whisked her away. I don’t know who. Maybe it was a relative; maybe some good Samaritan. (Whoever it was, over the generations that have passed, I thank him or her.) But somehow Brita survived. She later married, had several children, and numerous grandchildren and further descendants. (Otherwise I wouldn’t be here today.)
So in this respect Kristian was unsuccessful. And we may conclude that although the typical malevolence that recurs throughout history is loud, obnoxious, and too often triumphant, we should recognize that there is good, too. It occurs not on the grand scale of evil, but on the small, seemingly insignificant level of the individual, and in small groups of individuals. You just have to look for it. (Check out Reinhold Niebuhr’s Moral Man and Immoral Society, if you have a chance.)
CONCLUSION
And now this story is over, so if you wish, you may continue your stroll through Stockholm’s Gamla Stan and ponder what further tales the town’s bricks and cobblestones, so steeped in history, may hold.
On History, Verity, and Seeking the Noumenon 
