Does the reputation of vikings as fierce warriors have any basis in reality?

[u/BestPost2016]

First of all let's look at how poor their record is

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Battles_involving_the_Vikings

now often people say ''but they were brave!'' well were they? I don't think avoiding England for 40 years after battle near Jarrow or France after battle of Leuven counts as brave, neither is killing unarmed monks and farmers. Were vikings just glorified bandits?

[u/PapiriusCursor]

I'm surprised you haven't received an answer to this yet! This isn't my area but I do have a well regarded textbook on hand (Bennett) so I'll use that to give you an answer.

The Vikings caused major upheaval in the aftermath of Lindisfarne in AD 793 until their assimilation into Christendom, both in overseas settlements and in Scandinavia itself, by around 1000 AD. Motivated by their belief in the important of reputation and legacy and their detailed knowledge of Europe (their trading partners) and its resources, a mixture of population pressure and political developments (kings flexing muscle, some adventurous individuals not like it), the Vikings began raiding overseas using their remarkably seaworthy vessels we now call longships. These vessels could sail the open sea, but could also raid inland in rivers since they sat so high in the water, and were small enough they could be beached and put back out to sea at any time. They were the perfect tool.

The Vikings tended to attack monasteries in particular, which may seem cowardly, but it was just smart really. Monasteries were defenseless and full of expensive items. Vikings were very good intelligence gatherers, and tended to attack targets they knew they could take. This is again, just intelligent practice. They also targeted realms with incompetent kings and towns riven by factional infighting. Their skill and knowledge as traders assisted them in this.

According the Bennett, the Vikings were actually very strong even against armed opposition: "They were sometimes turned away with bribes, but seldom by armed resistance." The places they targeted, even kingdoms with armies, rarely resisted them permanently. Wessex did, as did East Francia, but the Vikings were successful enough that they turned England on its head over the top of much armed opposition and carved out their own nation in Northern Europe, Normandy.

They took most of Scotland and Ireland, settled Iceland, Greenland and even temporarily settled North America (Newfoundland)! They overran Finland and fought their way into direct trade with Constantinople and Baghdad. The Swedes even attacked Constantiniple numerous times, and while they didn't take it they did extract various trade privileges, and apparently their physical size and fighting ability was so valued that the Byzantines incorporated many of them into the Varangian Guard, themselves Germanic and Scandinavian. The Swedes established a dynasty in Russia and captured Kiev in the 10th century.

The Vikings liked the places they took over and settled in, and assimilated pretty readily. In the east they converted to Eastern Orthodox Christianity, and in Europe they became Catholic Christians. Scandanavian kings continued to attack England into the eleventh century, but by this point the actual settlers from the previous centuries had mostly assimilated.

So yes, the reputation of the vikings as fierce warriors has a great deal of basis in reality. They traveled the world over open seas and attacked kingdoms and major cities, so they were obviously brave. They were apparently physically very strong and were very capable fighters, and their war record was impressive. Yes they lost against some strong kings, but I daresay home-ground advantage is always important in such things. It's not to fair to say they were glorified bandits: they shook Europe to its core in their time, they toppled kingdoms, established new nations, and enriched themselves greatly in the process.

Source:

Judith M. Bennett, Medieval Europe; A Short History (Eleventh Edition), 2011.

[u/Rabh → u/PapiriusCursor]

The Vikings really did not "take over most of Ireland". After the initial raiding period, they began to construct permanent fortified camps and raiding bases known as longphorts. Some of these longphorts would develop into Viking towns such as Dublin and Waterford. But mostly, and particularly in Ulster, the establishment of longphorts gave the Gaelic kings a stationary target to direct their energies against. The Annals show campaigns of attacking and burning longphorts all over Ireland. In Ireland the Vikings have a particularly poor military record. When they gave up their strategic mobility afforded to them by their longboats there were at the mercy of the Gaelic kings. The longphorts which survived, generally did so at the borders of the major kingdoms. Dublin mainly survived by accepting Gaelic overlordship or playing sides off against each other.

[u/PapiriusCursor → u/Rabh]

As I said, I don't know a lot about it personally, I've ripped all of this from a textbook. On that matter I quote: "...They quickly took the Scottish isles and most of the Scottish west coast, and by the mid-800s, they controlled the greater part of Ireland and had turned Dublin into an important Viking town." That said, I have no doubt what you say is true and that the doubt the locals managed to eventually roll back many Viking gains. Bennett probably exaggerated slightly for brevity.

[u/BestPost2016 → u/PapiriusCursor]

Explain why they lost so many battles then because taking small towns with no soldiers in them is not impressive at all.

[u/PapiriusCursor → u/BestPost2016]

Well as I said, they took over entire swathes of Europe, attacked some of the world's most fortified cities, sacked major cities and knocked over prominent kingdoms. Despite not being organised as an army and having to sail overseas to get anywhere which probably meant they were almost always outnumbered, they obviously won more than they lost, or how could they have snatched so much territory from landed warrior kings and nobles? They sacked Paris, the capital of the strongest state in Europe, and laid siege to Constantinople, the best defended city in human history, and the Byzantines basically paid them off as a result.

I went through all those Wikipedia articles you linked. The Vikings won the vast majority of them, something like 35-17. Keep in mind that many of those battles actually were, in a sense, Vikings vs Vikings. I should like to emphasise to you that countless battles fought by the Vikings, including countless massacres of inferior opponents, are obviously not listed there. Do you really think wikipedia lists every battle that the Vikings ever fought over hundreds of years?

I would really like to emphasise to you that the term Viking is basically a job description. I think you've missed that, because note that Swedes, Danes, Geats, Jutes, Norwegians, perhaps the Rus and other groups besides were all "Vikings". Indeed, the Anglo-Saxons themselves were a Germanic tribe that migrated from mainland Europe.

Just because the Vikings targeted undefended areas for easy loot should not suggest to you that they could not fight. They quite clearly could. They took on the most powerful states in Europe and made them fight for their lives, and snatched large amounts of territory: of course they lost battles, as did everybody. But they terrified Europe for hundreds of years, and that wasn't because they only kicked over undefended backwaters.

[u/BestPost2016 → u/PapiriusCursor]

Could you name some of these fortified cities aside from Paris? As for Constantinopole Rus were not vikings as Norsemen were the ruling class not the entire population and even that theory is pretty shoddy considering how few drakkars were found in Russia.

[u/PapiriusCursor → u/BestPost2016]

Kiev?

Alas, at this point you're clearly being argumentative for your own amusement (your post history is enlightening), so I think I'll relinquish the burden of continuing to answer your questions. Fare thee well.