How much wealth did Viking kingdoms ultimately gain in profit as a result of raiding? Was there a noticeable difference in wealth behind kingdoms that pursued different approaches to raiding and chose different targets?

by currentmadman
BRIStoneman

The real money wasn't in raiding, but in the threat of raiding. In the mid-9th Century, many Anglo-Saxon kingdoms paid a Gafol, which was paid as a tribute to the Vikings in order to prevent them attacking. This could be extremely lucrative, and indeed when Æthelred II re-institutes the gafol as hostile Viking activity re-emerges during chaotic periods of his reign, it inflates rapidly year on year to the extent that the Bishop of Worcester writes to him to complain that the taxes to pay the tribute are so exorbitant and punishing that the people would much rather refuse to pay and take their chances in battle, as the losses would probably be lesser.

A similar system exists for some time in Germany between Otto I and the Magyar raiders who repeatedly ravaged across Western Europe. Both Otto with the Magyars and Alfred of Wessex with the Vikings use the tribute as a means to stave of the threat of attack for long enough to create a serious and substantial defensive network, and then refuse to pay any further, as the threats can no longer be effectively acted on.