Question on Viking Berserker

Actually western slavic tribes didnt fear the vikings at all. Whats more, western slavic tribes were raiding scandinavians so much that some harbour areas were completelly depopulated. Most of the vikings were afraid to sail too close to isle of Rugen which was a base of western slavic pirates.   I think it is very imporatant to keep in mind that not all scandinavians were raiding Vikings. Lots of them were farmers and traders. These would indeed have feared the slaic pirates, but also the Vikings, as Vikings from Norway, for example, would have little scruples to attack a tradersettlement in Denmark or Sweden. As to the question of Slavic pirates were more fearsome than Scandinavian pirates there is probably no answer... How would you possibly compare? I'm pretty sure none of them wrote their opinion down, so we can just guess.

Also, the peoples on Saaremaa were quit ferotious pirates, they burned Sigtuna and raided other Scandinavian and Finnish places quite often.

Originally posted by Aelfgifu Here you are wrong. Most informations we got about slavic vikings comes from scandinavian sources. From scandinavian saga's we know that in the army which sailed to raid Norway, majority of wariors were Slavs and minority were Scandinavians. "KING OLAF TRYGVASON'S SAGA" says that it were 60 long boats of which 40 were slavic and 20 were from Skane (so were scandinavian). But the Norwegians were waiting for them with 150 ships and defeated them.   Yes, but the problem is that most saga's date from the twelfth century, 150 to 200 years after the event took place... I know, cause I am working on my masters thesis on the Vikings in England, and the complete absence of contemporary Scandinavian sources is a well known but annoying fact within Viking studies.

I think it is hard to determine something as personal and unfixed as 'Who fears who'. The only thing you can state is that farmers and traders everywhere probably feared all violent warriors who could attak them. As for the warriors themselves: I believe there would have been very little warriors of any group who would ever admit to being afraid of anything, as it does not fit into their battle ethics or image. Cowardice is not a good asset in any culture

Olaf Trygvesson - you're forgetting that the Jomsvikings betrayed him and deserted his fleet after leading him into the trap in which were hidden the ships of the combined Norweggian - Swedish - Danish alliance. I don't think we know whether the Jomsvikings fought for Svein Forkbeard or not. Olaf had eleven ships compared to anywhere from seventy to two hundred on the other side. (Do note that three of Olaf's ships were the three biggest in Scandanavia.) The Danes and Swedes showed themselves to be cowards, but the Norwegians under Earl Erik eventually overwhelmed them. Yes, I just finished a book about it.

The Mongols never met the Vikings, though they might possibly have faced descendents of Scandanavians when they went through Central Asia. Some of the Swedish Vikings, after learning Constantinople was too hard a nut to crack, went east to Baghdad, looted around the countryside, traded, and went on to Afghanistan, where they depleted the silver mines. It's quite possible they left some descendents behind. It's one of the great what-if's of military history - who would have won? Kind of like what if Joan of Arc and the Hussites actually did meet in battle.

How dare you call me a NOOB!!  My ego will never recover from such a blow.

Mosquito - that is correct, by betray I meant betray Olaf's trust as he thought they would be faithful in fighting the Danes, whereas in actuality they brought him straight into the trap.

Originally posted by Aelfgifu Yes, but the problem is that most saga's date from the twelfth century, 150 to 200 years after the event took place... I know, cause I am working on my masters thesis on the Vikings in England, and the complete absence of contemporary Scandinavian sources is a well known but annoying fact within Viking studies.

Oh yeah, though it's only natural for a historically inclined person to want to fill these texts with as much credibility as possible, as it's an easy way of acquiring some excellent sources.

Are you on some medieval master's program btw? I'm on one such myself, and my dissertation will probably deal with the impact of crusading ideology in medieval Scandinavia, but nothing's settled yet.

Originally posted by Aelfgifu     The trouble is, you cannot look this close into sagas when looking for historical facts. They are simply not reliable enough, certainly not in the details. - They were mostly written down in the twelfth century, twohundred years after events took place. - They were written in Iceland, so by another people, who might have had another agenda on the subject. - And they were written by authors, not scribes, so they are not even precise representation of oral tradition, but they are a carefully composed construct made as much for purposes of entertainment as for preserving history.   You just cannot make such a detailed study of the sagas and say it is fact, all you can say is it is the story as known.