Why were the Vikings so successful?

[Nikos]

If we look at the history of the Viking raids, we see an almost unstoppable force ravage Europe. Why were the Vikings so successful in their attacks. Apart from Stamford bridge and their failed attack on Byzantium. Why couldn't most contemporary armies deal with them?

[Goofan]

Most of the times, peolpe wouldn't have time to see them coming. With their effective boats they could sail up rivers fast and then attack a settlement without the citizens having the time to organize a good defence

[rusina]

Their boats were fast, they could navigate well in rivers. I don't know very much about vikings, but these things helped them alot.

Edit. Goofan was faster.

[Ishoss]

Europe was a bunch of independent fiefdoms during the Viking times. Most of the times they didn't face an organized resistance. They would just sail up a river, pillage a village or two and go home.

[Watchman]

Not quite, Isshos. It's in fact often argued the Viking raids were one of the major pressures that led to the decentralisation of military defense, ie. feudalisation - the countermeasure found to be effective against such fast-moving and far-ranging raiders (the Magyars who set up shop in Hungary and the Moors from the Iberian peninsula being another two such menaces) being extensive fortifications across the provinces and standing local fast-response forces, ie. heavy cavalry. Which duly led to the local-level leadership effectively taking over the military defense role from the post-Carolingian central governements and duly de facto becoming more or less independent by the virtue of being in possession of strongly fortified domains and what amounted to private armies.

Anyway, most of the posters on this thread are indeed very much on the right track - the key to the Vikings' success was indeed the strategic mobility afforded by their excellent ships. Moreover, they were first and foremost raiders - while they were willing enough to face armed and organised opposition if need be, by preference they struck, looted and left before such response could be mounted. Over the time such predations at least in England led to whole provinces being virtually abandoned, which was around the point when the Scandinavian marauders first started setting up bases there to stay over the winter and later unceremoniously began moving in and settling down in the available real estate...

[Ishoss]

Not quite, Isshos. It's in fact often argued the Viking raids were one of the major pressures that led to the decentralisation of military defense, ie. feudalisation - the countermeasure found to be effective against such fast-moving and far-ranging raiders (the Magyars who set up shop in Hungary and the Moors from the Iberian peninsula being another two such menaces) being extensive fortifications across the provinces and standing local fast-response forces, ie. heavy cavalry. Which duly led to the local-level leadership effectively taking over the military defense role from the post-Carolingian central governements and duly de facto becoming more or less independent by the virtue of being in possession of strongly fortified domains and what amounted to private armies.

Anyway, most of the posters on this thread are indeed very much on the right track - the key to the Vikings' success was indeed the strategic mobility afforded by their excellent ships. Moreover, they were first and foremost raiders - while they were willing enough to face armed and organised opposition if need be, by preference they struck, looted and left before such response could be mounted. Over the time such predations at least in England led to whole provinces being virtually abandoned, which was around the point when the Scandinavian marauders first started setting up bases there to stay over the winter and later unceremoniously began moving in and settling down in the available real estate...

I'm just reciting what my school history book told me some weeks back.
But I doubt it's the most historical correct book ever made.

[StarDreamer]

It could also be said that they often ignored too strong targets opting for weaker and whealthy targets. Hence why they often attacked monasteries, lots of silver(maybe gold too) and barely anything standing in their way.

[Rædwulf]

Heres some:

* Some of the best armor in the world was created by the vikings.
* They were perhaps the best saliors of their time with some of the best ships of the time.
* When it came to shock infantry none was better then the berserker.
* It was almost impossible for anyone to gather an army in time, because the Vikings were so quick in their raids.

The Vikings downfall was their own doing because they began to conquer instead of raiding and when it came to that area the Anglo Saxons etc, were much better with land battles involving large armored armies on both sides.
Brilliant tacticians, such as Alfred the great won the day.

[Watchman]

* Some of the best armor in the world was created by the vikings.

What, mail ? Which had been used in Europe from at least something like 400-300s BC, spread widely, and was even at the time being made in rather better and more varied versions in say the Middle East...?

Fail.

* When it came to shock infantry none was better then the berserker.

It is rather debated if the whole berserkagangr thing in fact even existed to begin with, but in any case even according to the sagas and other reasonably contemporary sources was a trait of a rare few warriors...

I'm not sure if their weapons where better, certainly of high quality, but as for personal skill I believe the average Scandinavian was a more potent fighter during these times than the contemporary European peasant...

Not necessarily, since both were more or less part-time peasant-soldiers. At least the early "Viking Period" was still the era of powerful commoner militias in much of Europe, the shift to feudalised heavy-cavalry basis yet having to happen.

All kinds of minor fighting and raiding was however so endemic in Scandinavia that the average Viking marauder may well have been rather more experienced peasant-soldier than his mainland peers, but not rarely the point was more that said peers simply weren't present in enough numbers where needed due to the time it took to muster the militias and move them to the scene.

Which is of course exactly what the more or less constantly ready, highly mobile feudal cavalry forces developed for.

5. Unlike a kingdom, vikings are seperate group who's homeland is far away, this meant it is hard for rulers to push them diplomatically to stop raiding.

Straight bribery worked quite well, when properly done - after all the raiders were out to get rich, and if they could do so without risking life and limb in battle that much the better. The Frankish kings were on occasion able to persuade one band to attack another that way... Here is a nice study on the topic.

If i recall there was a viking defeat where a few units of kataphractoi just steam-roll a huge army of them in a fight with the viking captain crying that their warriors can't do anything against "iron-clad horsemen"

Nah, that was the Rus city-princedoms of Russia, which cannot be regarded as properly "Viking" anymore. The specific incident was the battle of Dorosthelon(sp?), mentioned in passing in "The Byzantines In Battle" here.


In any case, I would recommend parsing through the impressive collection of articles here; a fair few discuss matters Viking or the contemporary period.

[Edelward]

Not necessarily, since both were more or less part-time peasant-soldiers.

What a misconception, self-made one too!
Vikings were from minor land-owners,free-men, not levies of serfs ,like the peasants on Continent.
That is your answer ,Nikos-Rouvelas, too.
Viking were free men not lord's military or lord's peasant levies as their counter-parts on continent.
As free men they just have initiative,interest and will,the qualities the feudal rest of Europe lacked.
Got it wrapped up.Next.

[razor-]

Yep, not enough organisation in Europe, Russia and UK to properly counter them. (too little or too much centalization)
As for the fighting it self I read somewhere that the vikings in general were taller and stronger because of the climate. Violence was also glorified in viking culture due to their religion. If you died on the battlefield you came straight to paradise, but if you died of natural causes you would spend all your time in the underworld. The concept of honor was also very strong in norse society and fleeing from a battle would leave all your family dishonored. So their morale might have been superior to other armies as well. I think I saw a documentary once that said their weapons where also better made, but then again I read the opposite in my school history book.

[God-Emperor of Mankind]

I think I saw a documentary once that said their weapons where also better made, but then again I read the opposite in my school history book.

Well depends on who you compare them too really.
As far as I know their weapons were well-made but not the best.
Their craftmanship took it's shape in their boats which were probably the best ships at the time.

[Watchman]

As for the fighting it self I read somewhere that the vikings in general were taller and stronger because of the climate.

Climate my foot. If it was due to something it was the diet - more fish, meat and other sources of animal protein, which is the key ingredient in size growth. Scandinavia was fairly sparsely inhabited back then - and remains so today - and the "everyman's right" to make use of the wilderness is a rather ancient custom.

I think I saw a documentary once that said their weapons where also better made, but then again I read the opposite in my school history book.

That documentary had no idea what it was talking about, then. The main source of iron in period Scandinavia was "bog iron" nodules that could be without great difficulty fished up from lakes and bogs - cheap and readily available, but not of particularly good quality. (Sweden for example at least used to have high-grade iron ore veins in the fells, but AFAIK those only began to get mined rather later.) Moreover the region was relatively poor and technologically backwards, so there quite simply wasn't much of a domestic market for high-skill weaponsmiths to make a living in - duly for example high-quality sword blades were mainly imported. The Frankish kings in fact repeatedly tried to curb the sale of high-grade pattern-welded sword blades to the Scandinavians, presumably to no great effect given that the edict was repeated several times...

For most of the period the common Viking raider would in fact have been rather cheaply and indifferently equipped - with an axe and a spear, both very much household items back home and very cheap to make, and maybe padded leather armour and an iron helmet if he was reasonably well off. Swords and metal body armour were the purview of the nobles and their household troops, and similar wealthy and priviledged warriors.

[rusina]

Yep, not enough organisation in Europe, Russia and UK to properly counter them.

UK didn't exist in those times.

[razor-]

UK didn't exist in those times.

I meant the British Isles and all their anglo-saxon kingdoms

[Dromikaites]

The main reason is the one stated by Ishoss - there was no real force to oppose their raids. The Germanic tribes of Denmark were close enough from the northern borders of the Roman empire to attempt similar expeditions against Britain or Germania Inferior (nowadays Belgium) but they somehow didn't. Or at least not to the scale of the Viking raids because they were aware of the consequences.

[Wagnijo]

The main reason is the one stated by Ishoss - there was no real force to oppose their raids. The Germanic tribes of Denmark were close enough from the northern borders of the Roman empire to attempt similar expeditions against Britain or Germania Inferior (nowadays Belgium) but they somehow didn't. Or at least not to the scale of the Viking raids because they were aware of the consequences.

It took the development of the norse sailing ship for the vikings to gain supremacy at sea and the ability to operate over large distances.

This was first accomplished in the early 8th century.

That said coastal-rading along the atlantic/north sea coast of the
roman empire was done by both germanics, picts and irish without
the romans being able to do much about it.

See e.g. Dark Age naval power by John Haywood

[Holger Danske]

I'm not sure if their weapons where better, certainly of high quality, but as for personal skill I believe the average Scandinavian was a more potent fighter during these times than the contemporary European peasant, and at least physically large when speaking of average heights, which may also have been a contributing factor to their success. I mean the bloody Byzantine Emperors had Scandinavians as body guards for a long time.

One thing is certain about them. They where damn good sailors.

[frontier-auxilia]

Im gonna go with a list

1. Same reason why the mongol have so much sucess with the incursion into Western Xia and Jin imo. Big sedentary states took time to mobilise a professional army effective enough to fight or face a threat. This involves training the civilians..the Vikings tend to hit these people least expected.

2. With a strong warrior tradition and every young brat in the villiage wanting to quest of hard liquor/killing/pillaging and phat loots, vikings contains a population of males who will readily take to the field.This generally makes them better fighters then your average militia. One guy just want to grow his crops while the other is a somebody who be killing for a living.

3. Long boats are fast and can transverse river. Not only that they are very reliable. For people don't have phone those days, the vikings can just simply hit hard and run.

4. Bjork the Jormviking is just in any sense and ways a better fighter then bob the milita.

5. Unlike a kingdom, vikings are seperate group who's homeland is far away, this meant it is hard for rulers to push them diplomatically to stop raiding.

As for some failings against Byzantium, the Byzantine empire during that period was at its strongest.Thematic troops were still of high quality, able to react quickly to raiders and so was the professional army who excel in pitch battles. If i recall there was a viking defeat where a few units of kataphractoi just steam-roll a huge army of them in a fight with the viking captain crying that their warriors can't do anything against "iron-clad horsemen" #link to the source will be here before viking fan boys start flaming me for this xD #

[dogukan]

as far as I know they didN't go for open field battles generally but preferred raiding?