There was limited political development in Denmark, Norway and Sweden throughout the period c.790 to 1066. How far do you agree?
The period c.790 to 1066 witnessed significant changes in the political landscape of Scandinavia. While there was limited political development in some areas, particularly in the early stages of the period, significant strides were made in consolidating power and establishing strong kingdoms. The extent of political development in this era is a complex question that requires careful consideration of the evidence.

Arguments for Limited Political Development
Supporting the hypothesis that political development was limited, it can be argued that the fundamental structure of Scandinavian society remained largely unchanged throughout the period.

Evidence for a Highly Stratified and Hierarchical Social Structure: The Viking Age was characterized by a highly stratified and hierarchical social structure, with power concentrated in the hands of a small elite. This social order, based on lineage and wealth, remained largely intact throughout the period. The elite wielded considerable influence and control, ensuring that their power base remained secure. While the role of the king may have evolved, the underlying social structure remained remarkably stable. This limited political transformation and prevented a radical shift in power dynamics.

The Unification Process: In Denmark, the unification process was largely completed by c.800. This suggests that the political landscape was already relatively settled by the beginning of the Viking Age. While there may have been some further consolidation of power, the fundamental structure of the Danish kingdom had already been established.

Regional Autonomy: Although some kingdoms emerged, regional autonomy in custom and law persisted. This suggests that the centralizing force of the emerging kings was not always absolute and that local practices and traditions continued to hold significance. This localized power structure represents a constraint on political development, and signifies a lack of complete central control.

Survival of Older Political Systems: The persistence of older political systems in some parts of Scandinavia, such as Greenland and Iceland, further supports the argument for limited political development. These regions maintained their own systems of governance, largely independent of the emerging kingdoms. Despite the growth of kingdoms in other parts of Scandinavia, these areas remained relatively autonomous, indicating that political development did not necessarily apply across the entire Scandinavian landscape.

Gendered Politics: The gender dimension of Viking politics further supports the notion of limited development. Regal power, and political authority overall, remained solidly within the realm of men. This lack of change in the balance of power based on gender, further indicates that political development was constrained.

Instability and Weak Chieftains: Older arguments about the instability of Viking politics also support the hypothesis of limited political development. While some chiefs and kings rose to prominence, their power was often precarious. They were heavily reliant on the support of aristocratic factions and needed to constantly appease their followers through gift-giving and other acts of generosity. This weak foundation for the power of kings, meant that political development was more likely to be unstable and erratic.

Arguments for Political Development
Despite the arguments for limited development, there is significant evidence to suggest that the period c.790 to 1066 witnessed substantial political change in Scandinavia. The most significant transformation was the shift from chiefdoms to kingdoms.

Emergence of Kingdoms: The unification of chiefdoms and their amalgamation into great kingdoms, like Norway, by the end of the period, demonstrates a clear development in political structures. This process, in which smaller power centers were incorporated into larger, more centralized entities, marked a significant evolution from the earlier, fragmented political landscape. This demonstrates the growing power of kings and the consolidation of authority.

Rise of Powerful Kings: Evidence suggests that individual kings emerged with considerably more power than their predecessors. The archaeological evidence from Jelling, for example, illustrates the growing influence of kings. These sites demonstrate the increasing power of kings, and their ability to project power through large scale building projects. Their martial achievements abroad, such as the raids on England and France, also highlight their growing power and influence.

Administrative Development: Further evidence of political development is found in the emergence of administrative structures within Viking kingdoms. While the extent of administration likely varied between kingdoms, the formation of bureaucratic institutions, such as tax systems and military organization, suggests a growing need for centralization and control. This reflects a shift towards more sophisticated forms of governance.

Military Development: The development of larger armies and bands of warriors also signifies political development. As kingdoms emerged, the need for larger and more organized military forces grew to protect their territories and project their power. This shift from smaller, localized bands of warriors to more structured armies reflects a growing sense of national identity and the consolidation of power beneath a single leader.

Opportunities for the Elite: The development of Viking kingdoms created new opportunities for the elite. Political power, and influence in royal courts, became more important, and provided a pathway for advancement and wealth. The emergence of strong kings, created an environment in which ambitious individuals could compete for power and influence.

Political Consequences of Viking Activity: Viking activities abroad, had profound political consequences on Scandinavia. The raids on England, France and other areas, brought wealth and prestige to the Viking rulers, which they could use to consolidate their own power back home. These military successes helped legitimize their rule, and contributed to the process of state building.

Christianization: The process of Christianization had a significant impact on Viking politics. Kings like Olaf Tryggvason of Norway, used Christianity as a tool to consolidate their power. It provided a new source of legitimacy and helped to unite the Norse people around a common belief system. Christianization also led to the development of religious institutions, which provided a new platform for the exercise of authority.

Conclusion
The period c.790 to 1066 witnessed both limited and significant political development in Scandinavia. While some aspects of the political landscape remained relatively unchanged, such as the social hierarchy and the reliance on gift-giving, other fundamental transformations occurred. The emergence of strong kingdoms, the rise of powerful kings, and the development of administrative structures all indicate a major shift in the political landscape. These developments, driven by ambitions for power, wealth and religious influence, led to the foundation of stable centralized kingdoms that laid the groundwork for future political developments in Scandinavia. The extent to which political development was limited or significant depends on the specific focus of analysis. However, it is clear that the period witnessed a complex interplay of continuity and change, ultimately leading to the emergence of powerful and centralized kingdoms.