Why were the Vikings and Saxons incapable of conquering (modern day) Scotland?

by stevie_janowskii
  1. Why was that the case?
  2. Can you describe how the Vikings and Saxons perceived the various tribes in (modern day) Scotland? Were some more feared than others? Or did they not discern between the various tribes?
  3. Is it true that they were highly respected by the Vikings for being fierce warriors? In Bernard Cornwell's Saxon saga, the main character frequently mentions just how deadly the 'Scottish' (anachronistic, I know) are.
  4. What type of training would your average warrior go through growing up?
  5. What were some of their favored tactics? And would they be equipped somewhat similarly to the Vikings of the 8th-11th centuries? What did their weapons/armor look like?
  6. Was the terrain perceived to be especially harsh by the Vikings?
  7. How closely allied were the 'Irish' and the 'Scottish' during the early middle ages? Did they frequently assist one another in their wars against the vikings?
  8. Can you recommend some non-fiction books focused on the warfare of early medieval Scotland and the Scots (or Picts, etc, etc).

Thanks!

cazador5

Alrighty I'll try and answer as many of these as I can, though the records are (as usual) pretty scarce for this era.

Why were they incapable of conquering Scotland? Well I would venture to say that the underlying assumption here is false. There is historical evidence that the Northumbrians conquered large areas of what is now modern Scotland, including Lothian (with the modern day capital of Edinburgh) and Galloway. In fact they may have penetrated even further north, and the location of the battle of Dun Nechtain, while disputed, could have been as far north as Badenoch. I mention Dun Nechtain because it is a battle between the Picts and the Northumbrians, supposedly because of Northumbrian expansion in the region. While it was apparently a victory for the Picts, nonetheless it proves that the Northumbrians, a Saxon Kingdom, were capable of invading that far north. Also it should be noted that the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of England brought the Scots to heel in the 10th and 11th centuries, with successful battles at Brunanburh and elsewhere. However the Anglo-Saxons were incapable or unwilling to truly 'conquer' the territory.

I think the big point that needs to be made is that Scotland as an entity we know today was not one contiguous 'nation.' Even after the line of Scottish Kings had been established, areas like Moray, Caithness, Orkney, the Hebrides and Galloway remained more or less independent of the Scottish Crown. For a long time the real heart of Scottish territory was the eastern seaboard from Buchan down to Lothian, with the coronation center at Scone and the 'capital' at Edinburgh. And, as we've established, the Northumbrians had been able to take control of these areas for at least a short amount of time, thus disproving the assumption that the Saxons were incapable of conquering 'Scotland'.

Now why were the vikings incapable of conquering it? Again I think the underlying assumption is somewhat misguided. The vikings did eventually control large swathes of what we now consider Scotland. Caithness, parts of Moray, Orkney, the Shetlands, the Inner and Outer Hebrides as well as the Isle of Man and parts of Galloway were all under viking domination at one point or another. To give you an idea, almost the entire western seaboard of Scotland, and significant portions of the inland areas were all subject to viking settlement and influence. The Vikings controlled almost all the sea-lanes of the Irish Sea, and their hold on these areas were strong. In fact, after the consolidation of the Norwegian crown, Norway exerted influence in the Hebrides and Man up into the 13th century! To this day Scandinavian culture is mixed into the Hebridean way of life, and in the high and late middle ages the Viking tradition (raiding, pillaging, sea borne raids and such) thrived in the western seaboard of Scotland, independent of the Scottish or English attempts to stop or curb it.

I have no information on 2 or 3, but I will definitely search for any descriptions. Certainly the medieval English considered the Scots (particularly the Galloway contingent) to be wild warriors, as one account of the Battle of the Standards testifies.

And I know of Cornwell's saga (honestly the first three books are some of my favorites). The Scots were definitely thought of as a people by that period in time, so its not necessarily anachronistic to name them as such. The Scotii were a tribe that the Romans named, who originated in Ireland. They are presumed to have moved to what is now Scotland during the early medieval period, and either conquered or assimilated with the existing Pictish population.

We have precious little information on the training of a early medieval Scottish warrior. We know from later sources that a sort of levy system was in place wherein the local lord or leader could raise his military forces from the rural population, but this isn't terribly different from similar systems present in Anglo-Saxon England, for example. One can assume that your average Scottish farmer had about as much military training as his English counterpart. Lords would probably have access to better training and equipment. In addition it should be noted that in coastal areas raiding and looting quickly became a supplement to farming or fishing, especially after Scandinavian traditions and culture had permeated the area. Thus your average Hebridean or Gallowegian peasant may have had more experience with fighting than peasants from other areas.

5 I have no idea about.

6 is interesting, just because the Scottish terrain probably wasn't terribly different from the Scandinavian regions that the Vikings had left behind. It's rugged, but not significantly more rugged than Norway. I think the similarities of the Western seaboard are probably part of the reasons so many vikings seemed to have settled there.

The Irish and Scottish probably had very minimal contact during this period, pursuant to question 7. Honestly the Irish were not a contiguous body but instead were divided between many different subkingdoms and kingdoms. There was some contact during the pre-Viking era because of the importance of Iona in ecclesiastical affairs in both areas. But after the sacking of Iona and the viking presence in the Irish sea there was probably very little contact between the two peoples. However there was much contact between the vikings and both groups - including cooperation as well as violence. The Vikings were well known to ally themselves with various factions in order to gain an advantage, and the famous battle of Clontarf in Ireland featured both sides possessing contingents of viking warriors.

In terms of reading? A lot of what I know stems from either the Ulster Annals or the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, at least for primary documents. You can find translated copies online. Also for more information on the medieval Hebrides in particular I would recommend Michael Brown's The Wars of Scotland, 1214 - 1371 as always. A good brush up on the Vikings in general could be advantageous for the period. A History of the Vikings by Gwyn Jones is a good general overview of everything having to do with the Vikings, though its not necessarily a scholarly source. Also for Pictish or early Scottish history, I can direct you to James Fraser's The Pictish Conquest: The Battle Of Dunnichen 685 and the Birth of Scotland as well as From Caledonia to Pictland: Scotland to 795. I haven't read them in their entirely but they are definitely good overviews.

I hope some of this is helpful!