Strange that the peasants could fight back a group of Vikings ("the toughest warriors ever" according to National Geographic[0]) but not a bunch of aristocrats.
[0] https://www.vikingmartialarts.com/vikingculture/2018/4/4/vik...
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.
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.
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.
Very _very_ modern. This is basically the plot of The Jam's "The Eton Rifles"...
Apples and oranges and all that.
Though this is prior to the switch to mounted knights
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.
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.