Modern-day academic historians commonly feel more comfortable attributing important events to broad and impersonal social, cultural, and economic forces than the actions of ‘great men’ or ‘heroes’. Many prefer to discuss social or economic structures and long-term trends instead of political or military decisions that changed history overnight. If individual political or military leaders nonetheless happened to take decisions the effects of which cannot be ignored, then many historians find it eminently preferable to interpret these decisions as no more than the inevitable result of overwhelming waves of smaller events that influenced and carried the individual leader with them.
But, is this the right approach? This is the first in a series of brief essays on those individuals whom I unapologetically call Legends of the North. The focus will not be on Kings and Generals, but on lower-ranking veterans who became legends in their own lifetime. In battle, they had a definite and undeniable effect on friends and foes alike. They were legendary soldiers, yet their exploits were mostly genuine, not myths, and we read of them in credible primary sources. Can modern-day trends in historiography do justice to their somewhat nebulous but nonetheless very real feats?
One such legend was Olof Andersson Silfverlood (1584-1676), a Swedish veteran of many wars and a legendary soldier.
