We all know that vikings did not really wear horned helmets. However, I have a feeling that there are many more myths about vikings that historically literate people still believe, perhaps due to games like Mount&Blade/Medieval Total War and Series like Vikings, e.g that viking were inferior bowmen compared to other cultures at the time. Perhaps some altruistic historian would like to update us on the current thinking about Viking tactics, strategy, hierarchy, equipment etc?
One major misconception I often encounter is the idea that Vikings were spoiling for a fight, looking for combat. In fact the majority of "Viking" warfare involved nothing more than hit and run activity against unarmed or very poorly armed people. The point, after all, was to make money, not to get cut up.
Viking raiders did not seek out battle and in fact in almost every case where they were confronted by an equal or superior force and could get out of it without fighting, they did. This might involve running away, giving hostages, paying a "ransom" or giving back the booty they took, heck it often even involved getting baptized and swearing allegiance to the very king whose lands they had been attacking.
When full scale conflict did break out it was almost always because there was no better option or because the Vikings were confident that they could win either through ambush or sheer numbers.
And here is the other dirty little secret... The same holds true for those fighting against the Vikings. Frankish lords much preferred to pay off raiders and avoid fighting than to involve themselves in a fight which they could not guarantee winning. Generally it was only in situations where the odds seemed heavily in their favor or where there seems to have been little other option that combat was the go-to option.
Some primary sources worth looking at (all of which are in translation now)