Why did the Norse colonization of America fail?
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
Why did the Norse colonization of America fail?
Why did the Norse colonization of America fail?
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
|
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
The same way Dutch did. They had too little population on the mainland to send it to the colonies
The spanish had the same problem and managed to conquer most of the new world at one time
and it all collapsed at exactly the same time. It only took 1 real revolt for the entirety of their colonial system to realize how incompetent the Spaniards were.
Spanish were overpopulated by that time, as were the Vikings (not sure of the Dutch). The Vikings didn’t have a huge resource base to draw off of in order to subjugate the natives. They weren’t appreciably more advanced (not enough for it to matter, anyways). There also wasn’t a clear motive for them to settle because although there were resources available the journey was far. Settler colonialism requires a lot of expenses for defence and economic development. The Dutch Empire, Spanish Empire, and British Raj by comparison were administered with only a few settlers, who used the native population to do most of the work and even a lot of the fighting.
1. Extremely expensive to send expeditions
2. American crops were not known or unavailable
3. Large scale colonization was not actually very common
4. Hostile natives - though it isn't stated the natives drove them away it is still a possibility, though it does seem that problems were mostly food related.
Also, they did successfully settle in Greenland for some 500 years or so. Even having sold narwhal horns to European kings and telling them they were unicorn horns.
Also the natives were relatively at a similar level of technological advancement that along with their numbers would have made them difficult to contend with
>the natives were relatively at a similar level of technological advancement
Lol no they didn't even have iron.
>iron axe vs blowpipe with frog aids
i wonder who won
>no armor
>no military tactics
>strategy is "attack then run away"
Any sustained engagement with natives was a win
Then you'd have to contend with a limited number of Norse settlers, plus a lot of hostile natives that could and would have raided their settlements.
Read the Vinland sagas. Apparently the injuns got spooked by a cow and chimped out. The Norse had a way better kill-death ratio, but decided constant warfare wasn't worth it and retreated to Greenland.
>The Norse had a way better kill-death ratio
No way to know this. There was definitely conflict, but way more indians than norse
besides, north america was really far away and very expensive to travel to even without the indians fighting them at every corner
Lol that's like the huns bragging that they had a better kill ratio than the gauls/germans at the battle of chalons where something like 100k+ gauls/germans fought 10k huns and the huns retreated even though something like 50k+ gauls/germans were killed and only 3k huns, its still a gaul/german victory because it pushed the huns out of their territory
lol this is one of the most based takes I've seen on this shitty board
AC: Valhalla once
The first man to set foot in Canada with the Norse was a Scottish slave poet the Norse kidnapped
If they were supposedly killed by natives why were there no stories about white/ghost men from the native tribes in the area?
There are no surviving tales from the native tribe that lived in Newfoundland at the time at all, let alone about the Norse. Norse contact and settlement of the New World was limited to Greenland and a portion of Newfoundland, both islands separate from the mainland. In Greenland the Norse stuck around for a couple hundred years and the natives that encountered them, the Inuit, are still around in large numbers, so some bits of information from the Native side about the Norse survived.
>https://www.sacred-texts.com/nam/inu/tte/tte2-054.htm
Newfoundland was where they think the Norse settlers were violently driven off, and it was inhabited by an isolated tribe called the Beothuk that only had a few hundred people tops. They are long extinct due to a combination of getting ravaged by European settlers and diseases + conflict with native tribes arriving from the mainland.
Also history in general is a lot more fragmentary and haphazard than people think; if it weren't for some Icelandic Christian monks deciding to write down some Norse history ans legends we'd have almost nothing on the Norse themselves beyond archeological evidence and external accounts of dealing with them.
The natives in Newfoundland ended up dying out because they were chased from the coastal areas and there is basically nothing to eat in the interior. As a result we don't really have any stories from them since the last Beothuk speaker died in 1829.
The Minoans (red skin indians, red paint people) did.
During the Bronze Age, 3500 to 1000 BC, five thousand copper mines were excavated on the south shore of Lake Superior. Millions of pounds of copper were extracted. Only a miniscule fraction of this copper can be accounted for among the artifacts of Native Americans. The Minoans hauled it all back to europe which allowed the bronze age to be a thing. When the Minoan's collapsed, the bronze age collapse happened because the flow of copper dried up.
holy shit
If this where true how come the native Americans got raped by old world diseases when Columbus showed up?
If all this contact you speak of actaully happened howcome they werent adapted to those "new" diseases?
The Minoan theory is clearly schizo but it is possible that at this point in history that the old world diseases had not had time to develop yet. The first appearance of something that could be considered small pox is thought to be the Plague of Athens during the Peloponnesian War which is thought to have arrived on a grain shipment during the decades long siege. Small Pox didn't arrive in Japan until the 8th century where it killed a third of the population all on its own in a period of two years.
Copper wasnt hard to come by, tin was
Yeah they literally had a giant copper mine in Cyprus, which is why it is called that.
wait the Cyprus locals call it Giant Copper Mine instead?
Also why the frick would yo go al the way to the other side of the earth to get copper when there are plenty of copper mines in Europe.
What the frick is wrong with you, you dense piece of shit.
Frick you
Schizophrenia. Remarkable to see a gayreek wewuzzing as Native Americans though
>why the frick would yo go al the way to the other side of the earth to get copper
Michigan copper was pure, and easy to mine, high grade. Chemical testing on pre-contact European artifacts have proved some came from Michigan copper mines.
>how come the native Americans got raped by old world diseases when Columbus showed
there was more than 2,000 years between then and when Columbus showed up.
The natives lacked tin so the copper was too brittle to make functional tools with, so eventional they went back to stone/flint as it was easier to come by
copper is too soft, not brittle. you're confusing it with low grade iron.
Did it?
> The ice, gaining more ground, makes the climate too harsh and the land too sterile. The population is decreasing rapidly, and so much so that Greenland suddenly finds itself absolutely abandoned and deserted, without it being possible to say what has become of its inhabitants.
> However, they were not suddenly destroyed by the convulsions of nature. One can still contemplate today remains of very numerous dwellings and churches which obviously have been left, and only crumble under the action of time and abandonment. These remains reveal no trace of a cataclysm that engulfed those who once inhabited them.
> Where did they go?
> We desperately wanted to find them individually, one by one, in the states of northern Europe, and we forgot that they were not isolated men, but real populations who, arriving in mass in Norway, in Holland, in Germany, would have excited an attention of which the accounts of the chroniclers would have preserved the trace, which is not. It is more admissible, it is more reasonable to believe, that the Norse Greenlanders and part of the men of Iceland, having for many years knowledge of the fertile and well wooded territories, of the mild and attractive climate of Vinland, and having made a habit of traveling the western seas, gradually exchanged for this residence, in all respects preferable, countries which were becoming uninhabitable to them, and which they emigrated to America, just as their compatriots in Sweden and Norway had their northern rocks in Russia and Gaul.
> that the first British colonists of Canada sought no less actively in their new possession the descendants of Madok, than the Spaniards, under Christopher Columbus, had sought the subjects of the great khan of China at Hispaniola. It was even believed to have found the posterity of the Welsh emigrants in the Indian tribe of the Mandans.
I don't think greenland was all that populated really. there were a few settlements but I wouldn't say it would be something worth recording if the 2000 people who lived there and harvested marine mammal ivory evacuated into iceland, though I think the abandonment of a catholic diocese would be worthy of record. So maybe its true that the norwegians just forgot of greenland and american after the black plague.
I heard some shit about some tribe in northeast canada being partially norse descended but I never got any proofs. If you have something to that effect I will gladly accept it in good faith.
So I put it on the same lague as that crackpot haida are polynesian theory I stumbled upon once. AKA, possible but idk.
> Accustomed as we are to considering Iceland in its present state, sterilized by volcanic action and the increasing invasion of ice, we imagine it, at the beginning of the Middle Ages, sparsely populated as we see it today, reduced to the role of appendix to the other Norman countries, and we do not know the activity of which it was then the focus. It is easy to rectify such false prejudices.
> Iceland was therefore, in the tenth century, a very intelligent territory, very populous, very active, very powerful, and its inhabitants demonstrated it well by this fact, that arrived and established in their island in 874, they founded their first Greenlandic establishments in 986. We have had no example of such an exuberance of forces except among the Carthaginians. This is because Iceland was, in fact, like the city of Dido (Carthaghe), the work of an aristocratic race which had reached its full development before acting, and seeking in exile not only the maintenance , but still the triumph of his rights.
As biased as the source might be, a good and in-depth research about the history of Iceland and Greenland will clear up the question for me. It might even give a quality thread.
It was a colony of a colony of a colony. There was like only one family left at that point that still wanted to go further.
They lacked the physical courage and mental fortitude of the Celt.
Norsemen had large body builder physiques, good for high stamina warfare and raid and run battles.
Celts have the PVRE BVLL energy to stubbornly battle it out in the hill country.
Cope broch dweller
celtoid cucks were dominated and mogged by GVMERNAIC BVLLS and could only win by hiding in their hillforts and using weapons and armor
reminder Brocks were constructed by I1 proto-Germanics and used for hiding their shinies from R1bVLL Keltirish Koryos warbands.
Brochs and hillforts were constructed by swarthy celtic WEAKLINGS who could not fight in the fields and forests like the Germanic barbarian BVLLS did
The redpill is that they got physically mogged, the problem was that they landed in the northern areas where the natives were actually physically larger than the nordics and more organized for violence and unlike the iberian colonization period the nordics did not have numerical superiority over the natives in addition to no benefit of plagues that ironically the iberians developed immunities from after centuries of being bombarded by diseases from the mongols who practiced a primitive version of biowarfare
It didn't fail because it never happened.
The few Norse colonies in North America weren't "colonization", they were a few stray chance settlements, not pieces of a larger intentional effort to colonize the continent, they didn't even know it existed.
The norse have known of Asgard (solutrean homeland of Aztlan)
The norse have known of the plains of thrudvangr (Doggerland), and the hall of thor in the middle of it (doggerbank/Thule).
Forgetting where it was and not knowing about it at all are two very different things,- especially considering the thousands of years of information that geographic myths contain.
The start of norse myth is with the glaciers being licked away by their cattle.
there wasnt colonization, it was some bumfrick villagers deciding to try their luck in a strange land across the sea and ending up having to leave due to food problems and hostile natives
if the norse kings actually decided to colonize the world would look a lot different from today
one thing people often neglect to mention is that the norse didnt adapt their farming practices. they tried to do things just like at home and that simply didnt work out in greenland and newfoundland. aah but think how differently history would turn if they had explored firther south
Because there were like 500 people at most
They couldnt even conquer non icy parts of Europe, colonization was pure insanity.
>Why did the Norse colonization of America fail?
fricking skraelings, that's why.
No guns