In August 1009 an army lands at Sandwich that the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle simply calls "Thurkill's army". Three years later the same man is in the English king's pay with 45 ships; in 1017 Cnut gives him East Anglia, in 1021 he is outlawed, in 1023 he is entrusted with Denmark. Few leaders of the Viking Age changed sides so often, and few are so thinly documented. This article sets the testimonies side by side: the Chronicle, Thietmar of Merseburg, a rune stone and the later sagas. Where the evidence runs out it says so plainly: this cannot be established with certainty.
Thorkell the Tall is a case for source critics. Look for him in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and you find "Thurkill", later "Thurkyll", in the entries for 1009, 1013, 1017, 1020, 1021 and 1023. The Chronicle gives no father, no homeland, no nickname. It shows a commander who acts: he lands, he demands tribute, he enters the king's service, he receives an earldom, he loses it. Everything else (descent, epithet, links to the Jomsvikings, his end) comes from other texts or later tradition, and carries very different weight.
That is typical for the years around 1000. The great accounts of the Danes in England were written by English clergy interested in churches, monasteries and silver payments, not in biographies of their enemies. The Norse sagas were composed only in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, more than 150 years after the events. Between the two lie a few chance survivals such as a rune stone in Uppland and the report of a Saxon bishop. The picture below is assembled from these fragments, and where a fragment is missing the gap stays visible.
For the wider setting see the Vikings in England and Danegeld and Maldon. The Danish royal house behind the story is covered in Sven Forkbeard and Cnut the Great.
In Old Norse he is Þorkell inn hávi, in English usually Thorkell the Tall. The English sources write Thurkill or Thurkyll; Thietmar of Merseburg writes "Thurkil". All forms go back to the name Þorkell, a short form of Þórketill, "Thor's cauldron". The name was common in the North, which creates a trap: the Chronicle also knows a Thurkytel Myrehead under 1010 and a Thurkytel, son of Nafan, under 1016. By the Chronicle's own wording these are other men and must not be confused with the commander.
Whether Thorkell was in fact unusually tall cannot be shown. No contemporary description of his body exists, and the epithet appears in the surviving sources only in Norse literature, where stature is a popular way of expressing prestige. "The Tall" may therefore refer to rank and bearing as much as to height. Only the name itself is secure.
The standard account makes Thorkell a son of a Scanian chieftain, Strut-Harald, and a brother of the jarl Sigvaldi and of a certain Hemming. This kinship rests on Norse tradition; Snorri Sturluson names Sigvaldi as leader of the Jomsvikings in Heimskringla and mentions brothers. The English sources say nothing of it, and neither does Thietmar, who wrote about the events of 1012 shortly after they happened. Identifying the commander of 1009 with Sigvaldi's brother therefore joins two source worlds. It is widespread in scholarship, but it remains a combination, not a documented fact.
One addition deserves caution. Some accounts say Thorkell's campaign of 1009 was meant to avenge his brother Sigvaldi, who may have died in England. That is a suggestion found in the literature; no source reports it, and nothing is recorded about Sigvaldi's end. It is equally uncertain whether his brother Hemming came over with him in 1009 and died in England in 1014; genealogical compilations say so, but the Chronicle does not clearly name a Hemming in this context.
The Jomsviking link is the most-quoted part of his biography, and the least secure. Jómsvíkinga saga describes a warrior brotherhood at Jómsborg near the mouth of the Oder, a vow, a naval battle at Hjörungavágr around 986 against the Norwegian jarl Hákon, and a leader, Sigvaldi, who flees with his squadron. Historians disagree about how much of this has a real core. Archaeology points to fortified sites and trading places on the southern Baltic, not to a brotherhood with vows. More in the article on the Jomsvikings.
Anyone who calls Thorkell a "Jomsviking" relies on later texts. That he succeeded Sigvaldi at Jómsborg is asserted in modern accounts without a named source. That he fought at Hjörungavágr in 986 or at Svolder in 1000 appears in popular surveys that appeal to the sagas; the sagas themselves make Sigvaldi the central figure. "Jomsviking milieu" fits the evidence best: Thorkell's family is associated with that world, while he himself is not attested as a Jomsviking.
When Thorkell appears in the Chronicle, England has been a target of Danish armies for some two decades. Maldon in 991 had shown that resistance was expensive, and payments to attackers became routine. In 1002, as the Chronicle and later texts report, King Æthelred had Danes in England killed, which Sven Forkbeard used to justify new campaigns. No English text says anything about Thorkell's life before 1009, and the Chronicle names no Thorkell in the earlier years.
A faint trace comes from a Swedish rune stone, U 344 at Orkesta in Uppland. According to the description I read, it commemorates a man named Ulfr who took Danegeld in England with Thorkell. Whether the stone means the commander of 1009 is not stated explicitly; the name was common. I did not check the inscription's original wording. What is certain is only that Danegeld appears on rune stones as a subject of glory and that men from Sweden and Denmark took part in these campaigns, a picture that fits the background of the England-farers.
The Chronicle opens 1009 with an English effort. The king ordered ships built everywhere: one ship for every 310 hides of land, a helmet and corslet for every eight. The fleet gathered at Sandwich, but a quarrel in the circle of Ealdorman Eadric wrecked it. Eadric's brother Brihtric accused the South Saxon thegn Wulfnoth; Brihtric sailed with 80 ships to seize him, a storm shattered the squadron, and Wulfnoth burned the stranded remains. The Chronicle watches court politics sharply at this point.
After Lammas, that is after 1 August, "Thurkill's army" came to Sandwich. The Chronicle ties this "formidable army of the enemy" directly to the name Thurkill. It threatened Canterbury; East Kent made peace and paid 3,000 pounds. The army then wintered on the Thames, attacked London and, after midwinter, burned Oxford. The Chronicle gives no figures for the army's size in 1009. Modern accounts speak of a very large fleet but stay vague on ship numbers; nothing reliable can be built on them.
Why Thorkell came, no source says. A common assumption is that Sven sent him; the Chronicle does not say so. An independent leader with his own following, looking for opportunity and silver, fits just as well. One study cited in the summary I read calls him "probably the leader of a gang" based somewhere on the Baltic, a verdict that describes the state of the sources rather than proving anything.
In 1010 the army turned north. After Easter, the Chronicle says, it came into East Anglia and landed at Ipswich. The local ealdorman Ulfcytel faced them; on Ascension Day the English line broke, several nobles died, and the Danes held East Anglia. They burned Thetford and Cambridge, moved through the Fens and into Bedfordshire, and returned to their ships with plunder. The passage matters for what follows: Thorkell learned East Anglia as a theatre of war, and seven years later he received it as an earldom.
The Chronicle names the causes of the collapse in defence: bad orders, hesitation, treachery. In 1011 it says the king and his council sent to the army, sought peace and promised tribute and provisions, while the Danes kept plundering. For the chronicler the fault lay with English counsellors who decided too late.
Between 8 September and Michaelmas the army besieged Canterbury; the Chronicle names treachery by Ælfmær, who delivered the city. After its fall the Danes seized Archbishop Ælfheah, the king's reeve Ælfweard, Abbess Leofrun and Bishop Godwine of Rochester; Abbot Ælfmær they let go. The cathedral was plundered. For the spiritual centre see Canterbury.
The archbishop stayed in captivity for seven months. A prisoner of such rank was leverage against the king. Thietmar later says Ælfheah was kept in chains and hunger, a statement resting on an informant discussed in a moment.
In 1012 the tribute was assembled. The Chronicle gives 48,000 pounds, received by the Danes after consultations in London. Then, after Easter, the army turned on the archbishop because he would not promise money and would not allow a ransom to be paid. The men were, the Chronicle says, drunk with wine from the south. They dragged him to their hustings (a Norse loanword for "assembly"), pelted him with bones and ox heads, and one struck him on the head with the back of an axe. His body was taken to London and buried in St Paul's.
The Chronicle does not mention Thorkell in this context. Thietmar of Merseburg, bishop and chronicler, tells the story differently: an informant named Sewald reported how a band of heathen Northmen under "Thurkil" held the archbishop. When they meant to kill him, Thurkil offered them all his property if they would spare him, in vain. In the rendering I saw, Thietmar gives the archbishop's name as Dunstan; the editors identify him as Ælfheah. The slip shows how far from Canterbury the report arose. The scene protects Thorkell's reputation, but it comes second-hand from an author writing in Saxony. Later tales add a detail: a Dane converted to Christianity, named Thrum, delivered the merciful blow. That belongs to eleventh- and twelfth-century hagiography and cannot be checked against the Chronicle.
After the archbishop's death the army broke up. The Chronicle says that once the tribute was paid and the peace oaths sworn, the force dispersed, and 45 ships submitted to the king and promised to defend England if he supplied food and clothing. That Thorkell led these ships is inferred from 1013, when the Chronicle names him in London beside Æthelred. There is no separate report of the switch; it is deduced.
Why he changed sides cannot be established with certainty. Suggested reasons include horror at the archbishop's murder, as one can read it out of Thietmar's account, the prospect of regular provisions, rivalry with Sven, or the wish to leave an army that no longer promised plunder. Each is a modern interpretation. The plainest finding is this: a commander with ships and followers entered the service of the king who could pay him. Popular accounts make him leader of the "Thingmen", a household force of the king; the Chronicle does not use that term for him.
In summer 1013 Sven Forkbeard landed at Sandwich, sailed up the Humber and the Trent and was accepted by Uhtred, the Northumbrians and the people of Lindsey. He turned south: Oxford, Winchester, London. London at first held out, the Chronicle explains, "because therein was King Ethelred, and Thurkill with him". Then the city submitted. Æthelred fled with Queen Emma to Normandy; his sons Edward and Alfred went ahead. On Emma see Emma of Normandy.
The Chronicle adds for 1013 that Thurkill asked the same (tribute and provisions) "for the army that lay at Greenwich". The wording shows him as commander of those ships, negotiating with the new master. What became of Thorkell and his ships after London fell, the Chronicle does not say outright. Many accounts say he fought against Sven and then passed to Sven's son Cnut. For the first part I lack a clear Chronicle passage; the second belongs to the time after Sven's death.
Sven died on 3 February 1014, Candlemas. The fleet chose Cnut as king, but the English counsellors invited Æthelred back, and he returned in Lent. Cnut mutilated the hostages left at Sandwich and sailed away. In the same year England paid 21,000 pounds to the army at Greenwich. That this is the army of 1013 is likely, but the entry does not say so expressly.
In 1015 Cnut came back. Eadric Streona took 40 ships from the king and went over to Cnut. In 1016 Cnut arrived with 160 ships, besieged London and fought Edmund Ironside, chosen king after Æthelred's death on 23 April. The Chronicle describes Brentford, Sherston and Assandun, where Eadric again appears as a traitor and Cnut wins. The peace of Olney followed and, after Edmund's death on St Andrew's Day, Cnut's sole rule.
As far as I have read the Chronicle, Thorkell is not named that year. That he fought five battles against Edmund appears in modern accounts; the Chronicle does not name him in its report of the fighting. Whether he changed sides before or after Æthelred died is open. The Chronicle gives only the outcome: in 1017 he is an earl under Cnut. For the victor it was a practical step, since an experienced commander with ships was more dangerous as an enemy than as a vassal.
In 1017 Cnut divided England into four parts: "Wessex for himself, East-Anglia for Thurkyll, Mercia for Edric, Northumbria for Eric." Eadric was killed in London soon after; Eric received Northumbria. Thorkell thus became an earl, Old English eorl, in the land he had ravaged in 1010. Cnut married Æthelred's widow Emma the same year. About Thorkell's own marriage the accounts differ: some consider a daughter of Æthelred as his wife, others speak of an Eadgyth. Nothing here is certain, and a genealogical collection records an Eadgyth expelled with him in 1021 while adding that her parentage is unknown.
In 1020 "Earl Thurkyll" accompanied the king and Archbishop Wulfstan to Assandun, where Cnut had a church built for the men killed in the battle. The Chronicle ranks him here beside the archbishop. Apart from this, no deeds of Thorkell between 1017 and 1020 survive in the Chronicle.
For 1021 the Chronicle records in one sentence that King Cnut outlawed Earl Thurkyll at Martinmas, 11 November. It gives no reason, and no other source I could consult does. "Outlawing" meant the man lost the protection of the law and his property and had to leave the country. A genealogical compilation citing Florence of Worcester says his wife was expelled with him; that is second-hand and later than the events.
Much has been guessed about the cause: distrust of a powerful man with his own following in a region where Cnut was still consolidating; a dispute over shares of booty or power; jealousy. All are modern conjecture. That the sources are silent is itself a finding: either the occasion seemed obvious, or it was awkward enough not to be written down.
"This year King Knute, at Martinmas, outlawed Earl Thurkyll" – "This year returned King Knute to England; and Thurkyll and he were reconciled." Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, years 1021 and 1023, English translation as printed by the Avalon Project (Yale), nineteenth century; excerpts, read in part
The year 1023 brings the turn. The Chronicle says King Cnut returned to England "and Thurkyll and he were reconciled". According to the summary of the wording that I read, Cnut entrusted the earl with the government of Denmark and took his son with him to England. The son probably served as a pledge: a man administering Denmark was bound to loyalty. How many sons Thorkell had is not clearly attested; one genealogical source names a Harald Thorkilsson, said to have been murdered in 1043.
Other accounts add that Thorkell also took charge of Cnut's son Harthacnut and became his foster-father. Secondary literature links this role to the Denmark office; the Chronicle does not state it. I did not check the source behind the claim myself, so I give it as probable but unconfirmed. That Cnut set an old companion over Denmark while he himself operated in England and, from 1028, Norway fits the structure of his realm. See also Nordic kings.
In the same year, 1023, Cnut had Ælfheah's remains exhumed from St Paul's and carried in solemn procession to Canterbury; Emma and her son Harthacnut joined it. In that very year the archbishop killed by the army in which Thorkell had served is honoured, and Thorkell himself stands again in royal favour. Whether the two events are connected the sources do not say.
After 1023 the trail goes cold. The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, as I understand it from the summary, states that the time and manner of his death are unknown. One genealogical collection claims that the Chronicle reports him killed by the Welsh in 1039; this agrees neither with the ODNB finding nor with the secondary literature's state of knowledge. I could not check that passage and do not offer it as fact. Contemporary narratives and sagas are unproductive on this point; Knýtlinga saga and Jómsvíkinga saga do not help me here, since I know them only through summaries.
His family stays visible: in 1042, after Harthacnut's death, Thorkell's wife and two sons are said to have been expelled from England. That is a late report in a secondary account whose source I could not check.
Thorkell the Tall illustrates the independent commander whose following mattered more than any allegiance. He took tribute and served those who paid him. The sources do not describe his convictions; they show only how unreliable alliances were when an army demanded silver and a king could not deliver quickly enough. The same mobility marked the Great Army of the ninth century: bands that attached themselves to one lord or another as circumstances required.
A discreet word from the workshop: in our manufactory in Alsdorf near Aachen we laser-engrave Nordic motifs. With figures like Thorkell it shows how important it is to separate sources from legend before making an image of them.
Who was Thorkell the Tall? A Danish commander who came to England in 1009 with a large army, entered King Æthelred's service in 1012 with 45 ships and became earl of East Anglia under Cnut in 1017.
Was he a Jomsviking? It is often claimed but cannot be proved. His family is linked to Jómsborg; he himself does not appear in that role in the early sources.
Did he kill Archbishop Ælfheah? According to the Chronicle, no; it does not name him in connection with the killing. Thietmar says he tried to prevent it.
Why was he outlawed in 1021? It is not recorded. All reasons given are conjecture.
How did he die? Unknown. After 1023 his trail disappears from the secure sources.
Jomsvikings · Sven Forkbeard · Cnut the Great · Canterbury · Danegeld and Maldon · The Great Army · Nordic kings · Emma of Normandy · Vikings in England · Olaf the Saint
The Jomsvikings · Cnut the Great · Sweyn Forkbeard · Canterbury · Danegeld & the Battle of Maldon.
All History & Finds articles →
Thor's hammer stands for protection and blessing: Mjölnir is the thunder god's weapon for smashing giants, but also the …
Read more →Thorstein the Red (Old Norse Þorsteinn rauðr) was, according to Icelandic tradition, the son of Olaf the White of …
Read more →The Thuringians are one of the few peoples of the Migration Period who built a realm of their own and whose name still …
Read more →Thyra Danebod (runic Þyrvé) was a tenth-century queen in Denmark, wife of Gorm the Old and mother of Harald Bluetooth …
Read more →