The Vikings were big strong warriors, but what exactly made them so successful? Their technology wasn?t all that superior to that of their foes, their number didn?t overwhelm their enemies, and their combat strategies were also not superior. Why was it they could defeat anyone they came across?
1) They picked their targets well – they started off attacking monasteries on the outskirts of civilization which were weakly defended (if at all) but which were lucrative because they possessed objects made of precious metals.
2) Raiding – they started out attacking near the coastline before moving in via rivers. This allowed them to choose their targets, attack, and leave before any effective resistance could be organized.
3) Timing – the peak of the Vikings’ activities seems to correspond with the fragmentation of the Carolingian empire. With the sons of Louis the Pious battling it out, less attention was paid to defending the northern coast.
They were ferocious and did not stop. It is difficult to fight someone who is willing to keep fighting until they win when you are not. The will to win is just as important as any tactical or operational considerations in combat. Napoleon himself said it best when he said “In war, the moral is to the material as 3 is to 1.”
In support of Phid's reply, a “hit-and-run” manoeuver often, if not always, keeps your opponent in deep disarray as they ignore where and when the next raid is about to occur.
In support of Phid's reply, a "hit-and-run" manoeuver often, if not always, keeps your opponent in deep disarray as they ignore where and when the next raid is about to occur.
That depends on your opponent and only works when the force using the "hit and run" maneuver has the speed or maneuverability advantage. For an example of a pitched battle where this tactic worked well see the Battles of Carrhae, Manzikert, or the 1940 Blitzkrieg across France; all are variations of Hit and run.
Not everything was about hit & run with them. Didn't the Vikings settle too, like in Ireland?
The Vikings only started settling after a while. They started out raiding during the summer months, and then they would return to their homes in Scandinavia. Eventually, they started to winter closer to the places they were attacking, and these may have turned into permanent settlements. Places like Normandy were given to the Vikings by the Franks for strategic reasons.
The pattern of Norse settlement almost makes it look like a strategy if you put it on a map coded for extent and time of settlement. Often the Norse were granted privileges and land as a way of buying them off to get them to stop attacking, a form of tribute if you will. They were definitely fierce raiders, sacking a town and pillaging it thoroughly and then destroying what they could not take with them. They raided as far up the seine as Paris and as far south as Spain. I don't think it was Norsemen that took Sicily but rather Normans, the descendants of Norsemen who had settled Normandy. To my knowledge the Norse raiders never went beyond Gibraltar and into the Med for anything but short lived raiding.
Not everything was about hit & run with them. Didn't the Vikings settle too, like in Ireland?
The Vikings only started settling after a while. They started out raiding during the summer months, and then they would return to their homes in Scandinavia. Eventually, they started to winter closer to the places they were attacking, and these may have turned into permanent settlements. Places like Normandy were given to the Vikings by the Franks for strategic reasons.
e.g. Charles the Simple and Rollo agreement in AD 911.
I don't think it was Norsemen that took Sicily but rather Normans, the descendants of Norsemen who had settled Normandy. To my knowledge the Norse raiders never went beyond Gibraltar and into the Med for anything but short lived raiding.
I have a professor this semester who a few months ago referred to "Vikings" as those who settled in southern Italy. At the time I thought this was unusual - I wondered whether one should really call the Normans "Vikings" at this point in time. I was thinking of posting something about it here but must have forgotten.
Looks like every modern army should study the Vikings. How about the Berserkers? I?ve read that the frenzy that they worked themselves up to was accomplished through drugs. What type of drugs from that era could do something like this?
This is just a stab at a counter argument but were the Vikings very successful? Today, apart from a few cold northern islands, nothing remains of anything truly Viking. They very quickly adopted the culture of any land they settled and their armies were often defeated once their opponents were properly organised. They might have killed the rulers of Northern England but they had nothing to replace them with. Even Canute left the English Witan to govern the Country. There was no unity in the term Viking as both opposing forces often contained warriors from the Scandinavian lands. Wulfstan, the English Archbishop of supposedly Viking York (Jorvik), used everyone, northern English and Viking, in his personal feud with the southern English. Recently in Dorset, UK a mass grave was found that contained fifty-four bodies. They had been tossed into the grave after their heads had been cut off. Tests on their teeth show they came from Scandinavia between AD 910 and AD 1030 and they were all in their early twenties. The Vikings never had it all their own way. Their fearsome reputation comes from literate Churchmen, as it was their Monasteries the Vikings sacked. When Harold fought William in 1066, after Harold had defeated the Norwegians, both men had Viking ancestry but one considered he was English the other nominally French. I believe the Normans owed their success to the quality of their horses. English Kings were constantly trying to improve the standard of their horses but normally they were only strong enough for transportation, e.g. to and from the battle. Normandy was ransacked barely one hundred years after 1066 and stopped being a major power. Now if the question was were the Vikings successful pirates I would have to agree.Incidentally were there actually real berserkers. They appear in the sagas and poems doing magical things, like the valkyries of myth, but are there any proofs that they actually existed.
Another “Berserker” warrior group may have been the Moros of the Philippine Insurrection after the Spanish American War. Supposedly they tied their penises tightly so they could not urinate and charged crazed into the Americans. The bullets of the .38s fired by our soldiers failed to knock them down before they reached their targets with bolo knives. That is why the .45 was created. So I was told while serving.
Incidentally were there actually real berserkers. They appear in the sagas and poems doing magical things, like the valkyries of myth, but are there any proofs that they actually existed.
Among a group of people who lived off of pillaging, raping and burning, it would not be surprising to see a few wild individuals hooked on drugs and going crazy. It?s pretty safe to say that the berserkers existed. What they actually were is clouded by myth, probably to add to the intimidation factor they created. Perhaps the Vikings stumbled upon a narcotic, or some sort of natural steroid.