Is it possible to compare the Mongols of Central Asia to the Vikings of Scandinavia in Northern Europe?

Wow I have to disagree with cycwynne above. The Mongols ruled China for more than a century, the Yuan dynasty 1279 -1368, though they had made major conquests in China in the mid 1200s. Mongols rulers such as Kublai Khan became VERY civilized with an organized empire. The Vikings did not "convert" to Normans (though I'll grant that they did learn to speak medieval French). They had always been "Normans" - which means Norsemen or men from the north. Also the major climatic change, the "Mini Ice Age in Europe," did not begin until the early 1300s - - long after the Norsemen had settled down in their new lands and become Christians. [They could not pillage easy targets like undefended monasteries with a completely clear conscience after they became Christians in the late 900s.]

Similarities: Both seemed to be an unstoppable military force, though both were checked in spots. The Anglo-Saxon (essentially German/English king) Alfred the Great kept them from completely occupying England - though the "Normans" would indeed complete the conquest of England after 1066 AD - and the Normans were transplanted "northmen" or "Vikings" who had settled in France after ~ 911 AD.
The Mongols were stopped twice by the Vietnamese (tough people). They were also checked by the Japanese twice in the late 1200s, though storms at sea helped on both occasions. I think the Mamelukes also beat the Mongols in the Middle East after the Mongols had already taken Baghdad (late 1200s).

Differences may be more striking. The Mongols were an "en masse" hoard - while the vikings usually attacked in smaller groups. Both were very mobile, but the Mongols were horsemen of the plains or steppes while the Norsemen were seafarers. Mongols used cavalry mobility and archers while the Vikings fought on foot with hand held edged weapons.

Good question though.

Yes a valid comparison can be made. Both groups went out for land and for goods that they coveted but could not manufacture. The comparison ends there. Vikings faced population pressures and needed land for farms. Mongols were migratory moving as grazing land was used up.

No I dont think it is a good compare them because they were living in different district with different culture

What a lovely comparison. I fully agree: the Vikings became “nomadic” Sea raiders (Rovers), their element was the Sea and they raided all the civilized World, from the Anglo Saxons, to the Irish and Scottish Celts, to the Franks, and the Byzantines; they also discovered new lands like Iceland, Greenland, and “Vinland” (America). The Mongols had a much higher goal, they were “nomadic” Steppe raiders, their element was the Asiatic-European grasslands and they raided all the known Empires, from the Chinese to the Persian, Indian, Turkish and Russian. They both turned from “raiders” to settlers. But here the comparison ends. The Mongols conquered all the countries they raided, a huge Empire, but could only hold it for a short time, because they despised “civilization” and used the conquered people like “herds” to be fleeced. The Vikings, instead, conquered limited lands, just enough to establish small Kingdoms, but they were “converted” and became Normans and, we often forget "Rus" or Russian (they sailed down all the main rivers). Both started their conquest for a very simple reason: climatic changes made their homeland less hospitable and drove them to foreign “shores”. A great example of “Cain” overwhelming “Abel”.

ps I'll bear with Spreedog (gave you +1), excellent annotations, but the "climatic change" I refer to was local, in Norway, where crop failures and overpopulation (still debated today) drove the Vikings further afield and local in what we know as Eastern Siberia, which encouraged the easier "raids" Of course the Vikings were know as "Norsemen", (mainly Norwegian) but by their French adversaries, Danes were known by their own name in "Danlagh" (Britain) and Swedes as "Varager" and "Rus", all Vikings. I also concur on their "lust fro discovery and adventure" being a driving force and I agree again on Kubilai and his dynasty having ruled a long time, but contemporary Chinese texts always refer to theirs as a "rule from Horeseback" and they indicate their presence as very thin "warrior" veneer over the "civilized" Chinese. Incidentally a similar trait to the Huns and the Alans, their close cousins, in Hungary, who "fleeced" the surrounding Slav, Byzantine and Roman populations. I'm sticking to my guns: the "Mongol" culture is a rule from the saddle of his horse, they never integrated; the "Vikings", later Normans were indistinguishable from the Franks and Anglo Saxons they had ended up by ruling, a perfect integration. Interesting question and likeable discussion.

if you compare these two, they were both violent and wanted more land to take over and become rulers of the lands.

Vikings And Mongols

you can if you want - I won't criticise you for it, but then I don't care