Storia Islandese / Iceland, History Of

Iceland is one of the few countries where the historias can study the history from the beginning. The settlement of Iceland is a recent fact  in the human history: the norvegian viking Ingolfur Arnason is traditionally considered the first icelander. He lived in Iceland, with his family and many irish slaves, since 874, in the area he called Reykjavik (5). Before those days, Iceland was unhinabitated by people and animals, except for few races of marine birds.
The foundation of the first farms was a success, and from 930 Iceland is considered to be stablily colonized; few thousands of people, living of breeding and fishery, close to springs of hot water and drinkble water. The community used to gather annually, in the area called Þingvellir, 40 km wast of Reykjavik; the meetings, successively institutionalized, were the basis for the Alþing, the parliament, which was in that times the supreme court to resolve the quarrels, and a moment of encounter for most of the population of the Isle during the summer. Still today, the modern parliament consider itself has the direct heir of the first Alþing, maintaining the name, as the most ancient parliament in activity of the entire world.
This primitive institutional order lasted for three centuries: it is the icelandic golden age, of freedom and sagas. These stories, with their legends, traditions and heroes, written in a old style icelandic understandeble for every native speaker, represents the essence of the national identity and the cultural heritage of the country.
From the XIII century, the situation suffers a changing. The economic development of the society sees a preferences for rural activities, which cause a decline of maritime activities, and consequently reduced contacts with the scandinavian lands. The effect of this was the dependency from external agents for transports and trade routes. Moreover, the order established by Alþing could serve for a primitive society, not for a more complicated one: the biggest limit was that this parliament had legislative and judicial function, but the executive power was left in the hands of the singles chiefs of clan and not centralized in a statual institution; so, as every clan had interest to defend, the rate of disorders in the icelandic society increased. Weak of the national system and disorders were the reasons of the loss of independence, in advantage of the norwegian crown. With the Pact of Fidelity of 1262, the norvegian kink Haakon IV Haakonson (1204-1263) imposed his authority, but also gave guarantees that not less than six ships would have been sent to Iceland every year. From that time on, the destiny of icelanders will be always tied to the one who exercises a predominion of the sea in North Atlantic.
In 1380 Norway and Denmark were united under the danish crown, and also Iceland passed under the authority of Copenhagen. During the XIV and XV century, english ships and hanseatican vessells used to fish near the icelandic coast, teeming with fish, but foreigner seemed to practise commerce as well as piracy.
Between XV and XVI centuries, pirates reaching Iceland did not find resistences in the sea, but on the land icelandic warriors seemed to be great heirs of the viking traditions. In choricles of 1431 appears the record of a battle between english pirates and icelanders, where 80 pirates were killed (6). Maybe a little battle, apparently with no significance, but it can be taken in consideration, if compared with what happened few years later.
Curiously, the first geographic map of the country was map by the venetian cartographer Benedetto Bordone: a small map of 7,4 x 14,6 cm in his geographical treaty Isolario, dated 1547. Just a basic drawn, with small towers representing main cities with no name, and the title “Islanda”.
During the XVI century, Iceland faced a heavy humiliation which changed its history forever: the loss of the army and weapon circulation in its territory. Basically, things happened as follow: the danish crown decided to impose a rigid monopoly on the icelandic commerce with english and german traders to achieve the maximum profit. Icelanders did not appreciated this form of economic control and limitation. Thus, the crown decided to play an astute move: instead of sending in Iceland a large garrison to control the people and suffocate revolts, decided to disarm the icelanders, maintaining as less soldiers as possible: the possession of any weapon for icelanders was prohibited, and the people become totally disarmed, since 1570, in spite of appeals against the unforseeble consequences of this decision.

A little episode shows the absurd consequences of the act, without the proper defence for the population. Choricles of 1578 (7) reports an accident of piracy in the west: a small contingent of some 70 pirates were able to attack and territy the population for weeks, meeting almost no resistance. Later, in 1627, two vessels from North Africa plundered many villages in the South and in Vestamann isle, robbing and killing some 400 people (8).
With the rise of the english empire, North Atlantic was a more stable area, and Iceland did not suffer anymore from piracy. Danes, however, maintaned the control af the economy of the country with the monopolistic policy, aggraving the living condition of the population, still severe for climate and isolation. According to figures, in the eighteenth century, the population was 35.000 to 50.000 inhabitants, in a moment often considered the worst of the entire icelandic history. In 1800 the danish king Christian VII arrived to dismantle the Alþing, even if it was already reduced to a mere symbolic institution.
Few years later, the situation got even worst. In 1807 the Britons, fearing the support of the danish fleet to Napoleon, attacked Copenhagen, and 16 boats directed to Iceland were blocked. A small act of war risked to be a mortal accident for icelanders, which were depentents to extern supplies, and risking a severe famine. The risk was avoided for the influence of Sir Joseph Banks (9), president of the Royal Society, who joined and supported the request of Magnus Stephensen (head of the Landsyfirretur, the court which substituted the Alþing after the dissolution in 1800) in front of the british government: the vessels to Iceland were released, after the promise of neutrality in the european conflict by the icelanders (who were, formally, part of the danish crown).
During the summer of 1809, many english battleships reached Iceland. Being the country totally disarmed, it could be easily included in the english empire. But a report of Capitain Francis Knott, of the HMS Rover, put forwards many doubt about the opportunity of the inclusion: living conditions and difficulties of many kind made suppose that Iceland could bring more expenses than profit for the english crown (10); anyway, noted Knott, the smallest ship of the british war fleet could take the country anytime.
In this backgroung, the adventurer Jørgen Jørgensen (1780-1841) (11) found his place in icelandic history. He arrived in Reykjavik the 21st june 1809, on board of a vessell of the londoneer merchant Samel Phelps. As the danish authority refused the permission to trade with the population, his men arrested the danish officials, and Jørgensen proclaimed himself “lord of the nation”. Giving the impression of acting on behalf of England, this want-to-be Cromwell declared the indipendence and neutrality of Iceland, considering himself the king of the renewed country. One month later, the capitain Alexander Jones, of the HMS Talbot, attracked in Reykjavik and put Jørgensen under arrest. He was sent to the penal colony in Australia, where he died in 1844. His reign lasted just for few weeks, and it in remember as “hundadagakonungr” (reign of the days of the dog, the warmest weeks of year) (13).
The grotesque episode of Jørgensen reproposed the difficult situation of the island, completely disarmed and in a weak position in every emergency; however, in the february of 1810 Iceland obtained from Denmark the status of neutral territory (14).
 The nineteenth century was the moment of the nationalism, and the firts movements for real independence; initially the positions expressed by the richer bourgeoisie were moderates, aiming not to a separation from the Danmark, rather then a freedom to commerce and the control on the local affairs. As every nationalists, many people would have preferred a total indipendence, but the weakness of Iceland needed to be counterbalanced by the protection of a great power (15)

From the beginning of 1843, in force of a decree of the king Christian VIII (1839-1848), the Alþing was re-established to exercise its functions as an advisory institution. In this period a season of reforms was engaged: many political powers were tranferred from the danish officials to Icelanders, who were given all the structures to exercise in authonomy their affairs. In 1903 the role of the danish governor was substituted by the icelandic prime minister; moreover, the danish court would have continued his role of last degree of judegment untill Iceland could set up its own indipendent jurisdictional system (which happened in 1920). Denmark engaged itself in the safeguard of territorial waters while an icelandic coastguard was to be created. On the other hand, international relations and ties of Iceland were to remain under the responsibility of Copenhagen, with the contribution of icelandic delegates.  
At the breaking of the first world war, the Icelanders still enjoyed the status of neutrality. But a prestigious exponent of the Alþingh, Guðmundur Björnson, raised with force the problem of the effectiveness of this condition:
“We really believe that the absence of any defense is the better defence? The sole protection of the Luxembourg was this lack of defense. The Germany and the other powers guaranteed its security and the respect of its neutrality, but now the dispacths say that Germany has incorporated the Luxembourg in the Reich, as an independent state. (…). Who guarantees for the Iceland? No one” (16).
The fears of Guðmundur, without any doubt, were justified. Nevertheless, Iceland not only remained outside the conflict, but had an indirect advantage: in May 1918, the first Danish minister announced the institution of a commission to negotiate the future of the island. The works carried to the historical “Action of Union”.
The great war was a factor of acceleration in the indipendece process, started long before, and the Danish people, moved by the issue of their own compatriots in the German Schleswig-Holstein, could not remain insensitive to the cause of the national freedom.
The negotiation was opened in July and after little weeks the agreement was ready, approved by the Alþing for 37 yes and 2 no, and ratified from a popular plebiscite.
The velocity and the intense activities of the negotiation may suggest a problem free process, but it was not so (17); the Danish delegation proposed a federation between the two states, maintaining therefore the common management of some fields. The Icelandics instead were inflexibles on the complete separation. Article 19 of the Action of Union, at the end, established that Denmark recognized the Iceland as a sovereign state, and Iceland was engaged to guarantee perpetual neutrality and not to institute any banner of war.
The two parliamentarians who voted against the ratify were the publisher Benedikt Sveinsson and the judge Magnus Þòrfason. Through the transcriptions of the verbals (Alþingìstiðindi), it is understood that their dissidence was not based on the issue of independence, but on the neutrality obligation, that could easly become a non sense:

“This action does not defend us. Iif a belligerent nation has intention to occupy our territory, it will make it without any consideration of an agreement between we and Danish” (18).
The debate was lively also out of the Parliament. The jurist Magnus Arnbjarnarson, taking cue from some comments of the first minister Sigurður Eggerz (who voted favorably), published a pamphlet in which he remembered the recent facts of Belgium and Greece, whose neutrality had been held in no account.
The Njördur newspaper, published regularly in Isafjordur (western fjords north), in the comment column of 18 October 1918 writes:
“There is no reason to believe that England wants to invade the Iceland, but should they want it, the Action of union cannot certainly prevent it”.

Anyway, the first December of 1918, prime minister Eggerz could announce to the crowd the royal decree establishing the Icelandic national flag, and the signature of the Action of Union between Denmark and Iceland; the country, even if formally associated to the Danish crown, got the status of independent, sovereign and eternally neutral nation. After a period of 25 years both the parts could have asked unilaterally the dissolution for the union.
At this point, the path to indipendence could be considered at its end, because no one could doubt that, at the expire of the 25 year period, the two countries would be separated. Relations with Danmark remained good and friendly. During the ‘20s Iceland was very little involved in international affairs. Obtained the indipendence, icelandic parties turned their attention to domestic problems, to strenght the economy and building internal infrastructures, which was one of the main issue in the political agenda of that period.
In these years, the opportunity of joining the League of Nations was discussed, but this step was generally considered premature. Iceland had no army, and decided to confirm this position (just like Luxembourg); the membership of Iceland in the League of Nations was not implemented. (19). 
One could say that the involvement of Iceland in international relations and in the history of the western world begins with the end of the periphery condition and isolation, which marked the life of icelandic society for centuries.
There are two main reasons for this changing, a political one, and a technologic one. The former was expressed by a crescent interaction between Europe and North America, turning the atlantic routes as main lines of communication (during and after the WWII this aspect will become crucial). Iceland, geographically, flanks these channels, and fastly its position turned from isolation to strategic, representing a key point also for traffic between the North Atlantic area, the Barent Sea and the North Sea.
The technological progress completed the job: more afficient and realible means of transportation, and the introduction of trans-atlantic aviation, reduced the distance between continents. The new context marked a strong difference from the past, and the icelandic neutrality, intended to be “perpetual”, lasted for only 22 years.
 “Whoever has the Iceland, holds a gun aimed at England, America and Canada” (20).
This sentence well anticipate what was happening: in war time Iceland faced the military occupation by the allied forces, and later the country was included in the defensive system of the North Atlantic during the Cold War till recent days.

Note al testo:
 
 

5) Il nome significa letteralmente “baia del fumo”, per i vapori che le sorgenti d’acqua calda sprigionavano nella zona.

6) Böðvar Guðmudsson, A history of iceland and icelanders from the very beginnings to the present day, Reykjavik 1995, p. 128.

7) Boðvar Guðmundsson, A Short History, cit., p. 168.

8) Boðvar Guðmundsson, A Short History, cit., p. 169.

9) B. Groendal, Iceland, from Neutrality to Nato membership, Oslo 1971.

10) Alan Boucher, An Icelandic Revolution, in Atlantica and Icelandic Review, num. 3, 1968, Reykjavik.

11) Cfr. anche Guðmundur Halfdarnarson, Historical dictionary of Iceland, Londra, 1997.

12) Alan Boucher, An Icelandic Revolution, cit.

13) Cfr. Iceland, Admiralty for Official Use Only, 1942.

14) Ciò non aveva alcuna implicazione di indipendenza, ma si riconosceva semplicemente che l’Islanda non voleva, ne avrebbe potuto avere, un ruolo attivo in nessun conflitto.

15) Voce interessante fu quella del periodico Fjolnir, fondato nel 1835 da un gruppo di giovani intellettuali che facevano leva sullo spirito nazionalistico per un rinnovamento della letteratura e per la purificazione della lingua islandese dalle contaminazioni estere. Ancora oggi una apposita commissione linguistica ha il compito di trovare termini islandesi per parole nuove come computer, internet etc.

16) Alþingìstiðindi (verbali del parlamento), anno 1914, sez. B bis, 551.

17) La fretta degli islandesi nel chiudere il negoziato poteva ben spiegarsi con il timore che, a guerra ancora in corso, la questione dell’indipendenza potesse finire sul tavolo delle trattative fra le grandi potenze.

18) Magnus Þorfason, Alþingìstiðindi, verbali anno 1918, sezione B 166. Da notare come anche interventi di parlamentari che votarono a favore dell’Atto sollevarono perplessità e dubbi sulla clausola di neutralità. Cfr: Einar Arnarson, ibidem, 1918 sez. B 61.

19) Solo nei primi anni trenta la questione venne riaperta da personalità di spicco, come il ministro di giustizia di allora, Jònas Jònsson (1885-1968), ma questo nuovo impulso internazionalista non andò oltre trattati e accordi stretti con gli altri stati scandinavi.

20) Questa frase viene spesso erroneamente attribuita a Winston Churchill, il quale in realtà riprese quanto detto dall’analista politico nazista, Karl Hausofer, amico personale di Rudolf Hess.