> Would we describe being Roman, a Briton or an Austro-Hungarian as a "job"? I don't think so.

I think this is the articles point. We would not consider being Roman a job, but we would consider being a Legionary a job.

The article is arguing “Viking” is more “Legionary” than “Roman.”

The entire point of the article is that they called themselves collectively Norsemen. Going 'viking' (raiding) was an activity done by 'vikings' (raiders).