Using "bunch of aristocrats" pejoratively is a thoroughly modern take. Aristocrats were the best fighters in their day. They were the ones with money for good arms and time to train well, besides which fighting was for many of them their profession.

Besides, "toughest warriors ever" sounds more like popular colouring than an academic assessment. I don't know a lot about Vikings but as I understand they were principally raiders, which I would absolutely expect to perform worse than a Frankish aristocrat-led army.

I'm certain there were some great fighters amongst the Vikings; after all, they have an entire age named after them and their raids. Viking was an activity, not a people though, and the Vikings were mostly Norse peasants trained to fight with shields and basic weapons like spears and axes. There was an elite class and a small class of professional warriors too, but they weren't really a majority.

Apples and oranges and all that.

There's more than one type of "Viking" warrior the Elite Huscarls where effectively professionals and are considered one of the best heavy shock infantry period - this is what they are referring to as Vikings.

Though this is prior to the switch to mounted knights

> Elite Huscarls where effectively professionals

Yes, definitely. It's just that the raiding parties weren't just consisting of professional warriors. Many were simply farmers with axes, bows and spears, seeking plunder and glory like the others.

Also the Varangian Guards of the Byzantine Empire:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varangian_Guard

Aristocrats were also better fed as well

> Using "bunch of aristocrats" pejoratively is a thoroughly modern take

Very _very_ modern. This is basically the plot of The Jam's "The Eton Rifles"...

>I don't know a lot about Vikings but as I understand they were principally raiders, which I would absolutely expect to perform worse than a Frankish aristocrat-led army.

In a pitched battle, on a open terrain, in a nice weather with preferably not too soft soil.

Also if you want to find tough people you look them at the extremes - so high north, or up in the mountains or in the deserts.

The 'living in harsh conditions makes you a crazy good fighter" is a meme though, as this historian explains: https://acoup.blog/2020/01/17/collections-the-fremen-mirage-...

They'd be experienced in many different forms of combat, pitched battles were a rarity in most eras, and certainly the early middle ages.

I also don't think toughness is the right metric. We're not talking about brawls, we're talking about trained, well-equipped professionals doing their jobs.

If you look at European warfare after the collapse of the Roman empire and before the Siege of Vienna it was basically a wave of ass kickers coming from central asia and getting their ass kicked by the next wave coming from central asia.

The Vikings might not have been looking for a fight, just some easy plunder.

It happens that prey can fight of the predator. The prey if fighting for its life. The predator might not want to risk even an injury rather than just finding the next opportunity.

This is pretty much it. The Viking raids were, mostly, a way of obtaining loot and thralls, and it gave the peasantry an opportunity to attain an otherwise unattainable amount of wealth, and a way to Valhalla if things went wrong.

Chances are the aristrocrats were mounted in heavy armor and trivially routed the peasants. Cavalry is powerful.