Were Vikings harder than Romans?

Question

Or were the Persians harder than both of those?

Or what is the hardest race we know of from ancient times? Spartans, Persians ... Mongols?

I'm open to different definitions of hardness - whether people think it means discipline, physical robustness, martial skill or whatever.

Answer 1

The Vikings certainly were tougher than the Romans. Rome was a civilized ancient state, so the male population also got involved in areas like politics, law or art (it wasn't necessary for all the men to join the army and become legionaries). The Vikings, well they were all barbarian warriors, probably even some of the women.

As for the Persian men, I can tell you that the ancient Greeks called them "women like creatures, and weaklings" because, they said, Persian male folk were so afraid of the heat and cold that they retreated to the mountains during summer, and then back to the plains during winter (of course they did this because they were shepherds, but it's interesting to see how jealousy among nations spreads).

Answer 2

Never, the Roman military was one of the most complex and disciplined militarys of all time. The vikings raided its victims in a fashion similar to Hitlers Blitzkrieg, while the Romans fought in in small fighting groups called legions. The addition of a highly trained cavalry and siege warfare technology would make the Romans a badder and harder force than the Vikings. The vikings in their own right were very dangerous and powerful, but could not take territory and defend it, rather that raided and only took valuables. Their power was limited, while the Romans until the the 4th century A.D was infinite.

Answer 3

Im not sure what you mean by 'Harder". Do you mean tougher?...thats difficult to judge. The Vikings were marauding seafarers and explorers who raided England and other areas extensively. The Romans were the most sophisticated empire of the Ancient world. In a fight? pick the Romans. The Vikings were tough and incredibly brave but the Roamn war machine was the most disiplined, best trained army of the Ancient world.

Answer 4

The difference is a professional, well disciplined and experienced army versus an experienced warrior willing to die because their religion pretty much deified it - it was the only way to Valhalla and glory. One on one or small groups the Viking would have the upper hand because of their ferocity but since Vikings were clannish and primarily small groups with pretty much sledghammer tactics, large scale confrontations would go to the Romans.

A similar comparison can be made between coalition forces in Iraq versus the insurgents.

Answer 5

Romans were about as hard as you can get. Their soldiers were well trained fighting machines and their battle maneuvers are still discussed and taught today. They governed over a vast area unlike the Vikings.

The Vikings were fierce fighters but they tended to arrive from the sea, carry out reckies, rape, pillage and return to their lands. They did, although colonize some of the riverside lands in Europe.

Answer 6

The hardest folk are those who need to be so and have the wherewithal and training to back it up. This could derive from having to face up to an overwhelming physical circumstance, or being true to a strong inner conviction. This is something all people potentially share. But true hardness starts in the mind, by developing the will.

Answer 7

Well I'd say the Scottish were harder than them all. The Romans were running scared of them. The Normans were quite hard, but if Harold had been too Spec Savers and got two pairs of protective Glasses, that arrow may not have killed him. Then Rufus, Williams son, may not have fallen off his horse in the New Forest. Oh and Mongolians, now they were really Hard. . . . . . . Enough i think

Answer 8

their living conditions were a little rougher simply because they were a little farther north
and anyone reading this answer can suck eggs if they say romans were in the north hello the roman campain faultered because of the cold andf too far from home but yet vikings ventured to north america before anyone else so throught determination and experience with cold there were a little harder

Answer 9

the vikings used guerilla tactics whilst the romans provided a crushing advancement evolved from the spartans.
my respect goes to the zulu's, fighting with spears against rifles and cannon.
sun tsu was without doubt the wisest general but miyamoto musashi was the greatest warrior ever.

Answer 10

It really depends on what you mean by "harder" and in what respect they were "harder". If you mean in infantry battles, the Romans were far superior. The Vikings were dangerous because they conducted hit-and-run raids using their longboats for speedy attacks and retreats, so in that respect they were better.