Vikings afraid of Scots?

[Morris at Heathfield]

This appears to be the kernel of truth behind the headline:

A new analysis of the classic Icelandic Sagas (Islendingasagur) has unearthed the following counsel: "Icelanders who want to practise robbery are advised to go there ... but it may cost them their life."

I'd be surprised if there weren't some Norsemen who were afraid of some Scots at some time, but I'm not sure this bit of practical advice counts as even a single instance of such.

[Woodsheal]

This appears to be the kernel of truth behind the headline:



I'd be surprised if there weren't some Norsemen who were afraid of some Scots at some time, but I'm not sure this bit of practical advice counts as even a single instance of such.

The quote is from the 13th C. - well after the "Viking Age." The Northmen probably had a healthy respect for Celts, but abject fear? Didn't stop them from conquering and occupying significant swaths of Celtic territory...!

[Morris at Heathfield]

I found a couple of similar articles here and here. All have similar, but not the same, content. The latter is by the same author as that of the article linked to in the original post.

I have a few observations:

First, no sources are cited. Citing the "classic Icelandic Sagas (Islendingasagur)" is about as helpful as citing the "Arthurian legends", the "British muster rolls", or the "American passenger lists". Given that this is not a new find, but a rereading and reinterpretation of "classic Icelandic Sagas", is it too much to ask that the author of the article actually name the specific sagas quoted rather than give us the Icelandic name for the entire corpus?

Second, both articles I linked to (as well as Brian in the post above) noted that the Vikings established colonies in Gaelic lands: Scotland, Ireland and (if I may add it) the Isle of Man. According to the Telegraph article, "Mr Sigurdsson believes the Norse Vikings were particularly nervous about the Gaels of Ireland and west Scotland." There's probably a good reason the Norse were more nervous about the Gaels of Ireland and West Scotland than, say, the Khitans of the Liao Dynasty, but I'm not sure if I can put my finger on it.

Third, one of the unnamed sagas tells the story of Icelandic merchants being surprised by a force of 13 Scottish ships. In this case there was apparently genuine fear (and genuine reason to be afraid) but, well, these are merchants we're talking about. This is where the several meanings of "Viking" (sea raider; early medieval Scandinavian) can be misleading if not kept straight.

Fourth, the title of the Independent piece: "Why even the fiercest Viking warrior steered clear of Scotland". Given the evidence presented in the subsequent article, I would have to say this headline is not only incredibly misleading, but outright wrong. From the same article: "At the height of their power the Scandinavian seafarers claimed Orkney, Shetland, Iceland and Greenland as their own. They had also established powerful colonies in mainland Scotland, England, Ireland, France, North America
and Russia." And they did it all without their fiercest warriors!

Fifth, I believe this set of articles had a good point to make that was buried under all the sensationalistic rubbish: namely, that the Vikings weren't a bunch of unconquerable killing machines without mercy and without fear, as they tend to be depicted, whether sympathetically or unsympathetically, in popular culture; that they were as capable of fear, self-preservation, and calculating costs as anyone else.