Were the Vikings as cruel as the Mongols?

It’s clearly very different, Mongolia is much worse.

It’s like comparing a fist to a nuclear explosion.

Vikings, while skilled at ganging up, were more like opportunistic predators. They would arrive unexpectedly, raid a monastery or two, take goods and slaves, and then disappear again into the cold wilderness.

Brutal? Absolutely.

But their violence is more often due to lust for wealth and glory, not big dreams of world domination.

Well, the Mongols were a different story. They were a well-maintained war machine, meticulously planned, and brutally effective.

Under the iron-fisted leadership of Genghis Khan and his successors, they created the largest empire in history, leaving a trail of destruction everywhere.

What we are talking about is the mass slaughter of entire cities, the systematic enslavement of the population, and the use of terror as a strategic weapon.

The sack of Baghdad in 1258 is a prime example, where hundreds of thousands of people were massacred, libraries burned, and centuries of knowledge lost.

It wasn’t just cruel; it was premeditated destruction.

It’s important to understand that the Vikings weren’t saints either. They could be extremely brutal, especially when raiding monasteries and coastal settlements.

But their brutality was usually more localized and only when the opportunity arose, without the planning and strategy of the Mongol conquests.

So, in conclusion, it’s a matter of scale and intent.

The Vikings were a pack of wolves, fierce and opportune, but their reach was limited.

As for the Mongols, they were like a natural disaster, a conquest and terror that was meticulously planned and brutally executed.

Obviously the Mongols were much more ruthless.