Were viking monastery raids ever contested?

[Wachaza]

Putting all players on the Viking side with the aim of maximising their personal loot,

One of the best games I ever played was like that about thirty years ago know. The players were raiders and the opposition run by GM and random actions. Wit the right players it runs really well.

[FifteensAway]

Ah, yes, Kristmanbogga, a rather odd past time of the era.

a wee bit for the Old Norsk scholars.  Or careful readers of our hobby's magazines.   

[dinohunterpoa]

The Seven Samurai / The Seven Magnificent / De Syv Pragtfulde is a great idea! 

[Patrice]

As others have said, Viking raiders would prefer to attack undefended targets, and avoid taking unnecessary risks if possible — as a fox quickly raiding a hen house.

But it's quite easy to make scenarios where the raiders are not immediately spotted, and local people can react only when they have spotted them, and the Vikings have a short time to act before defending forces sent by a nearby lord arrive.

An exemple here (with no monks in it, but some could easily be added)
http://leadadventureforum.com/index.php?topic=84126.msg1033648#msg1033648

[Cubs]

Perhaps a minor lord and his retinue are making a pilgrimage to a monastery when an attack is launched.

Maybe there are a few sick warriors being cared for at the monastery who could be persuaded to rise out of their sick beds and grab their spears.

Perhaps the abbot isn't as holy as he could be and harangues the several dozen monks into taking up staves and gardening tools to defend their relics!

 

[RichyBee]

The thing about Vikings is that historians made out they were great warriors.
Yet all the times they are mentioned the are killing priest or they are slaughtered in
large and important battles!!!!
Lindesfarne was contested in Vikings TV series!!!!!

[Cubs]

Oh no, they did plenty of slaughtering of armed warriors too. Militarily they were powerful. But they were also very wary of taking casualties, partly because their ships needed men to row them out of danger; if too many men were killed or wounded, the ship wouldn't have enough oars to get away quickly. But also because raiding forces tended to be relatively small and a jarl's power was defined by how many warriors served him. He would have to weigh up the risks and decide when to get away with the loot to preserve his numbers. It's just good sense to attack the weakest target that gets you the most gain for the least risk.

[Gracchus Armisurplus]

The thing about Vikings is that historians made out they were great warriors.
Yet all the times they are mentioned the are killing priest or they are slaughtered in
large and important battles!!!!
Lindesfarne was contested in Vikings TV series!!!!!

Well, as far as warriors went they were pretty standard for the times. They won some, they lost some. However in terms of attitude they were miles ahead of anyone else.

Sure, they lost some of the land they claimed, but in between times they conquered all of England, and held onto York/Northumbria/Dublin for like, 150 years? Every battle they fought was either in enemy territory, or against their Scandinavian allies. No one ever had the stones to kick them out of their captured territories and take the fight to them on their own terms. They fought on practically every continent in the northern hemisphere, including North America, sold Irish slaves in Africa and African slaves in Ireland, they were known in the lands south of the Baltic as the Rus, and Russia bears their name to this day, they formed the famed Varangian Guard, and this dare-devil attitude allowed them constantly project force onto ALL their targets, quickly recovering from defeats and either winning battles, or extorting truly enormous amounts of wealth from their foes. It was a cultural attitude practically never to be repeated.

[dinohunterpoa]

Well, as far as warriors went they were pretty standard for the times. They won some, they lost some. However in terms of attitude they were miles ahead of anyone else.

Sure, they lost some of the land they claimed, but in between times they conquered all of England, and held onto York/Northumbria/Dublin for like, 150 years? Every battle they fought was either in enemy territory, or against their Scandinavian allies. No one ever had the stones to kick them out of their captured territories and take the fight to them on their own terms. They fought on practically every continent in the northern hemisphere, including North America, sold Irish slaves in Africa and African slaves in Ireland, they were known in the lands south of the Baltic as the Rus, and Russia bears their name to this day, they formed the famed Varangian Guard, and this dare-devil attitude allowed them constantly project force onto ALL their targets, quickly recovering from defeats and either winning battles, or extorting truly enormous amounts of wealth from their foes. It was a cultural attitude practically never to be repeated.

Well said! 

[Brummie]

Oh no, they did plenty of slaughtering of armed warriors too. Militarily they were powerful. But they were also very wary of taking casualties, partly because their ships needed men to row them out of danger; if too many men were killed or wounded, the ship wouldn't have enough oars to get away quickly. But also because raiding forces tended to be relatively small and a jarl's power was defined by how many warriors served him. He would have to weigh up the risks and decide when to get away with the loot to preserve his numbers. It's just good sense to attack the weakest target that gets you the most gain for the least risk.

I think this point isn't ever said enough.

One thing that struck me about the Vikings is they were generally quite keen to preserve their troops, something that doesn't seem to be the case necessarily for the people they were fighting against.

Its been nearly 10 years since I read alot about them, but I remember something that when Wessex went on the offensive and started getting really aggressive, the Vikings tended to back off.
In terms of attitude I'd have said they were more a peoples who were incredibly savvy (read sneaky) in how they went about their business.

I also have to point out that in order for a group of people to repeatedly conquer a territory, they also have to repeatedly lose it. 

[Patrice]

Only two kinds of people can manage to have most of their troops killed to reach an objective: wargamers, and kings/governments. Clan leaders and petty chiefs who earn their living with small-scale raids must avoid casualties if they can.

[Gracchus Armisurplus]

Only two kinds of people can manage to have most of their troops killed to reach an objective: wargamers, and kings/governments. Clan leaders and petty chiefs who earn their living with small-scale raids must avoid casualties if they can.

Very true! A force may be able to win a battle, and handily, but the estimated casualties may be high enough that the attacker doesn't consider the battle worth-while.

[YPU]

The Seven Samurai / The Seven Magnificent / De Syv Pragtfulde is a great idea! 

I'm glad you agree.