What did the Vikings do for us?

[Ursus]

Again, pirates are not my idea of cultural heroes.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Again, pirates are not my idea of cultural heroes.

 

Well, maybe their naval legacy was beyond piracy.

 

If the carrack of the XV and XVI centuries' explorers (including Columbus' Santa Mar

[caldrail]

Nobody looks at the vikings in there homeland. They were great farmers and inventers. They also were some of the best seamen who could navigate open waters and small riverways. They even went as far as raiding Paris!

They went a lot further than that. Russia (Kiev was their kingdom), Byzantium, Iceland, Possibly greenland or labrador, and persistent theories have them on the west coast of america, even central or south america if you want to stretch things to breaking point.

 

If the carrack of the XV and XVI centuries' explorers (including Columbus' Santa Mar

Edited September 24, 2007 by caldrail

[ASCLEPIADES]

Nobody looks at the vikings in there homeland. They were great farmers and inventers. They also were some of the best seamen who could navigate open waters and small riverways. They even went as far as raiding Paris!

They went a lot further than that. Russia (Kiev was their kingdom), Byzantium, Iceland, Possibly greenland or labrador, and persistent theories have them on the west coast of america, even central or south america if you want to stretch things to breaking point.

Maybe that's a little beyond breaking point indeed. "Persistent" is not the same as "historic", not even "plausible".

Viking presence in Central and South America is an extraordinary claim, mainly because if it were true, it might have an extraordinary impact on the interpretation of universal History. That's why extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[Centurion89]

Nobody looks at the vikings in there homeland. They were great farmers and inventers. They also were some of the best seamen who could navigate open waters and small riverways. They even went as far as raiding Paris!

They went a lot further than that. Russia (Kiev was their kingdom), Byzantium, Iceland, Possibly greenland or labrador, and persistent theories have them on the west coast of america, even central or south america if you want to stretch things to breaking point.

 

If the carrack of the XV and XVI centuries' explorers (including Columbus' Santa Mar

[caldrail]

Viking presence in Central and South America is an extraordinary claim, mainly because if it were true, it might have an extraordinary impact on the interpretation of universal History. That's why extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

its an extraordinary claim all right, but that does not mean it had any lingering impact. We are after all only talking about small numbers of travellers, maybe a ship or two, probably lost and given the distance, unlikely to return. There is some vague indications that something like this happened. The legend of the white bearded god who would one day return. The recently found dark age remains in europe of what appears to be someone of central american origin. Not substantial proof by any means, but then my point to was illustrate the genuine theories of early cross ocean travel. Thor Heyedahl made that point with his papyrus rafts - again, it doesn't prove the ancients made that journey but it certainly showed it was possible. And whilst Columbus got the credit for discovering America, lets not forget he knew the land mass was there. He may have been mistaken and genuinely thought it was the orient, but the story of his voyage strongly suggests he wasn't just plucky - he had access to information about coastal waters elsewhere. Such information wasn't easily shared back then. mariners kept their reputations by keeping quiet about what they knew, hence the 'rutter' of later periods where these men wrote their notes about tides and coastlines etc.

 

In any event, an extraordinary claim is merely that until - as you say - extraordinary evidence is provided. Is that right? Not really. because an extraordinary claim runs against accepted knowledge many learned people will attempt to pour scorn on the theory because it devalues their own status as educated men - it means they're wrong basically - and they usually don't like it when some upstart overturns everything they've written and earned royalties for. So therefore an extraordinary claim - assuming its correct - goes ignored while the learned men beat our hands with vine staffs until we learn their accepted version - even though its actually wrong. I would therefore recommend you keep an open mind. That doesn't mean you have to accept the theory simply because I pushed it onto the forum in front of you, it simply means the theory is there and awaits proof. You see - if you dismiss a theory because it offends your sensibilities, then the subject will make no progress. Of course if you happen to know positively that the claim is wrong thats another matter - presumably you can quote sources to the contrary. If you feel the claim is wrong but you have nothing to stop the arguement, then you need only say so. There's no shame in not knowing, but wilful ignorance is criminal.

 

I'm pretty sure Paris is further down than Kiev....

Really? Get a measuring stick and open an atlas - I'm sure you'll be impressed. Its a long long way to that part of the continent.

Edited September 25, 2007 by caldrail

[Gaius Octavius]

Columbus may have learned about a land to the northwest from Portuguese cod fishermen. But then Columbus sailed due west. In any event, if the Vikings discovered America, they didn't tell anyone. Columbus did. Vikings may have landed on North America, but there is no record of their return.

Edited September 25, 2007 by Gaius Octavius

[sonic]

Columbus may have learned about a land to the northwest from Portuguese cod fishermen. But then Columbus sailed due west. In any event, if the Vikings discovered America, they didn't tell anyone. Columbus did. Vikings may have landed on North America, but there is no record of their return.

 

 

Actually, I think you'll find it written down in the Viking Sagas (I can't remember which one! ). The Vikings told everyone who'd bother to listen, but no one listened and believed them when they spoke of 'Vinland' in the West. Not only that, they actually returned and did tell the tales. It's taken archaeology to prove that the antics of a group of Vikings (Erik the Red??) reported in the Sagas were actually based in fact!

 

Sonic

Edited September 25, 2007 by sonic

[Centurion89]

* gets measuring stick* Zut! Yes I guess you win. *hang head in despair*

[docoflove1974]

It's taken archaeology to prove that the antics of a group of Vikings (Erik the Red??) reported in the Sagas were actually based in fact!

 

Lief Eriksson, his son, I believe...but I could be wrong on that.

[sonic]

It's taken archaeology to prove that the antics of a group of Vikings (Erik the Red??) reported in the Sagas were actually based in fact!

 

Lief Eriksson, his son, I believe...but I could be wrong on that.

 

 

No, I think you're right! Cheers for the correction Doc!!

 

Sonic

[caldrail]

The vikings did indeed colonise westward beyond iceland but the actual places are not confirmed. There's some confusion over the name. The most westward expansion translates into english as 'grass-land' which kind of spoils the north american claim considering their terrain is unashamedly forested. It simply isn't clear exactly where they went.

[caldrail]

Columbus may have learned about a land to the northwest from Portuguese cod fishermen. But then Columbus sailed due west. In any event, if the Vikings discovered America, they didn't tell anyone. Columbus did. Vikings may have landed on North America, but there is no record of their return.

Please excuse me for this - its a little off thread - but Columbus did not sail due west. Thats the popular story they teach in schools, but its far more likely he crossed the atlantic further south than presumed given where he landed up. I don't remember the reasons why he would have done that - sailing isn't exactly my subject and I can't remember the arguement - but doesn't the sargasso sea have something to do with it? In fact, if columbus avoided getting stuck then he either already knew about the hazards of being becalmed or was incredibly lucky in choosing his route.

 

We now resume normal service...

[Kosmo]

The 2 viking setllements in Groenland are proven facts. There are many arheological finds for this, but also literary sources. They even had a bishop and paid tribute to the Norvegian kings. They disappeared sometimes around 1450's after almost 500 years of existence.

The tiny, short lived setllement on the island of Newfoundland, at Anse aux Meadows, was connected by arheologists with vikings and if they made it there thay maybe made it on the mainland.

Still, the impact of the viking discovery of N. America on later exploration it's debatable despite the claims that Columus had visited Iceland where he could come in contact with information about Vinland and Groenland.

After all he started his westbound trip from the Azores, not Shetland or Orkney. Of course, he could have imagined that vikings reached Northern Asia and in order to reach China and Japan he had to go much more to the South.

[Gaius Octavius]

Columbus may have learned about a land to the northwest from Portuguese cod fishermen. But then Columbus sailed due west. In any event, if the Vikings discovered America, they didn't tell anyone. Columbus did. Vikings may have landed on North America, but there is no record of their return.

Please excuse me for this - its a little off thread - but Columbus did not sail due west. Thats the popular story they teach in schools, but its far more likely he crossed the atlantic further south than presumed given where he landed up. I don't remember the reasons why he would have done that - sailing isn't exactly my subject and I can't remember the arguement - but doesn't the sargasso sea have something to do with it? In fact, if columbus avoided getting stuck then he either already knew about the hazards of being becalmed or was incredibly lucky in choosing his route.

 

We now resume normal service...

 

OK!, due southwest. He was becalmed. Some people feel that Columbus didn't know where he was going nor where he was when he got there. Remember, he was searching for the Indies and he knew that the Earth was round and that sooner or later he would bump into them. Adm. Morrison feels that this was the greatest voyage to date - including that to the Moon.