Vikings vs Roman Legionaries

[heavens-champion 1,907]

Who would win in a fight? A Viking warrior or a Roman Legionary?

[Jedishy 3,549]

The Roman legion easily. Better armor. Better equipment and training. Better battle tactics. 

[SharpWit 2,858]

The Viking might have a sword with better reach and steel, and his shield might be of better quality, but it doesn't cover his entire body like the Roman's does. The advantages of either aren't enough I think to make much of a difference so this is really going to come down to dicipline which the Legionary has far more of. Romans will win 80% of the time.

[Olly 1,015]

The romans were better than anyone at killing things. That's like, their whole deal. Vikings were good at raiding and stealing, not fighting wars 

[JonasDarkmane 19,790]

If you are talking about a 1v1 fight here, I think the Viking would win. More mobility, better steel, and good single-combat ability as well as possible Valhalla zealotry.  

If you are talking about a Viking army vs a Roman Legion, the Romans would win by a long shot. Better discipline and tactics, soldiers trained for such warfare and for fighting side by side with other friendlies who can assist, not mentioning the siege weapons such as the Ballista. 

Vikings were not bad when it came to warfare, heck they even used tactics that the Romans used such as a Shieldwall. Small raiding parties may not have been organized, but Viking invasions actually were. That is why they were able to establish the Danelaw for example. But I don't think it still matches the Roman military. 

I just see a clear difference between military warfare and single-combat. 

[Dreambiscuit 11,213]

Romans have better discipline and tactics where Vikings have strength and brute force. In this case the Roman approach is the better one; their armor, weapons and tactics are going to get them a lot farther than just head-to-head melee to the last man standing. 

[Nsxile 29,037]

I'd say Romans, because of their better organisation, tactics and amour.