If Norse had settled in the Americas, instead of the barbaric Iberians, Brits, Dutch and French

[pinguino]

What would happen in the Americas if the Norse had succeed in establishing colonies in the Americas, rather than the European people that followed five centuries afterwards?

I believe Norse had treated natives in a more human manner. After all, there are still small genetic clues that point to Amerindian women send to far away Scandinavia in the Middle Ages by the Norse. I also believe the New World would have been spared of most of the suffering the late Europeans brought here.

Your thoughts.

[Pallantides]

As long as Christianity don't come along and fuck things up(see relationship between Norse and Saami)

[pinguino]

Absolutely. I think Christianism destroyed Norse impulse of spreading and conquer, as well.

[Tropico]

Idk. It would have been weird. The Native population would be much greater. Would there have been much more racial mixing in Latin America to the scale there is now?

[BLUEU]

What would happen in the Americas if the Norse had succeed in establishing colonies in the Americas, rather than the European people that followed five centuries afterwards?

We would have never existed.

[Smaug]

They did, in Vinland, Canada. Leif Eriksson.

[Han Cholo]

Interesante que tengas esta opinión cuando en otros foros considerabas a los Nórdicos unos rubios incompetentes que "fueron hechos mierda por los Inuits".

[Vesuvian Sky]

Actually, here was the result of Norse settlement in the New World:

http://i1019.photobucket.com/albums/af312/geomjr/Viking008_zpsf606797f.jpeg

Needless to say, it didn't turn out as well as it could've....for the Norse that is.

[Graham]

They had guilt for their pillaging of Britain & Ireland. :tongue

Slavery & piracy, had went out of fashion. :cool:

[Žołnir]

What would happen in the Americas if the Norse had succeed in establishing colonies in the Americas, rather than the European people that followed five centuries afterwards?

I believe Norse had treated natives in a more human manner. After all, there are still small genetic clues that point to Amerindian women send to far away Scandinavia in the Middle Ages by the Norse. I also believe the New World would have been spared of most of the suffering the late Europeans brought here.

Your thoughts.

Obviously they didn't have that great relationships if skraelings cut them down. ;) So i interprit those who settled Americas were invaders with insuficient diplomacy and weaponry. :D :D

[Balmung]

They did succeed with a colony, they just didn't stay here.

Leif actually came here because of old Norse law. If you got banished your entire family had to leave with you.

[Gauthier]

We would have never existed.

Chances are they would have exterminated the natives, just like the American Anglo colonizers did.

[Tropico]

Damn. At least the Spaniards (some) decided to intermingle. Thank god because I wouldn't have existed. lol Or if the Norse Gods would have been in PR I would have look WAY different.

[Damião de Góis]

America would be like Greenland.

[Balmung]

Damn. At least the Spaniards (some) decided to intermingle. Thank god because I wouldn't have existed. lol Or if the Norse Gods would have been in PR I would have look WAY different.

You would have been a Puerto Rican nordic god ahahahaha.

You would have looked much different if you were born. Northern European (especially Scandinavian) mixes with others tend to produce more how should we say.......lighter results than southerners.

http://i51.tinypic.com/3309tgo.jpg
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ljkexfOIw91qd87bdo1_500.jpg

^ See what i mean? and those are Black swedes, imagine results from Asians or Natives who are lighter with less dominant features than blacks, it would look like something out of an Anime most like, mongy eyes with caucasian hair & eyes. :lol:

[Han Cholo]

You would have been a Puerto Rican nordic god ahahahaha.

You would have looked much different if you were born. Northern European (especially Scandinavian) mixes with others tend to produce more how should we say.......lighter results than southerners.

http://i51.tinypic.com/3309tgo.jpg
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ljkexfOIw91qd87bdo1_500.jpg

^ See what i mean? and those are Black swedes, imagine results from Asians or Natives who are lighter with less dominant features than blacks, it would look like something out of an Anime most like, mongy eyes with caucasian hair & eyes. :lol:

http://russianpickle.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/udmurt_people_red.jpg

Like this?

[Tropico]

http://russianpickle.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/udmurt_people_red.jpg

Like this?

Oh my god. I def prefer my own look. haha I like my Southern Euro. lol

[Styggnacke]

I do not see any reason why they would have been more humble toward the Indians. After all, Norsemen were described as pretty brutal back in those days.

[Balmung]

http://russianpickle.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/udmurt_people_red.jpg

Like this?

I think more like this, ^ Scandos can tan better than those above.

http://hapavoice.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/hapa54.jpg

[rashka]

I always wondered what would have happened if it were Slavs who had conquered the Americas! Everyone would be speaking some sort of Slavic dialect. :lol:

[Han Cholo]

I think more like this, ^ Scandos can tan better than those above.

http://hapavoice.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/hapa54.jpg

Who is her?

[Bobby Six Killer]

I think more like this, ^ Scandos can tan better than those above.

http://hapavoice.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/hapa54.jpg

Looks like a Japanese with a tan and contact lenses.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_lGK6PYByl58/TPbswS2Rq5I/AAAAAAAAAA4/6bgejgesZmg/s1600/ganguru015%255B1%255D.jpg

[Gauthier]

http://russianpickle.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/udmurt_people_red.jpg

Like this?

Lol. I think folks would be looking more like Pallantides.

[Atlantic Islander]

Shoulda coulda woulda.

http://www.skypeicons.com/images/s/icon-rofl.gif

[pinguino]

Chances are they would have exterminated the natives, just like the American Anglo colonizers did.

Norse didn't have firearms. The Chinese hadn't invented firearms as yet, and gunpowder in China was used only for fireworks at that time. Without firearms, the european "superiority" vanished.
In any case, not only change the genetic makeup of Britain and France, but also spread in Russia, changing those countries forever.

I believe if Norse had succeed, the natives of the Americas had 5 centuries to get ready to expel the barbarians that came afterwards. If so, perhaps they had survived in a better shape to the devastating colonization of the Americas.

[pinguino]

America would be like Greenland.

Would be that be nice? A huge Greenland instead of the disaster that were the other colonizations.

[pinguino]

I do not see any reason why they would have been more humble toward the Indians. After all, Norsemen were described as pretty brutal back in those days.

They were pretty brutal in Western Europe, but they also spread in places like Russia, where they mixed with local population, in a peaceful way.

[Han Cholo]

Norse didn't have firearms. The Chinese hadn't invented firearms as yet, and gunpowder in China was used only for fireworks at that time. Without firearms, the european "superiority" vanished.
In any case, not only change the genetic makeup of Britain and France, but also spread in Russia, changing those countries forever.

I believe if Norse had succeed, the natives of the Americas had 5 centuries to get ready to expel the barbarians that came afterwards. If so, perhaps they had survived in a better shape to the devastating colonization of the Americas.

They had steel and ships. It was an advantage over native indians who used stones or other minerals that only used individual boats called "kayaks". A drakkar was far better in war than a kayak for obvious reason. Still, the technological advantage at such age was not so big as it was centuries later. I'm sure if Vikings established longer the Native Indians would adapt their own metalcraft based on the new invaders. If that metallurgy was spread through the whole continent lots of things would have changed, and I don't know if these Norsemen were carrying horses back then in their drakkars. If they established a serious horse breeding farm as livestock indians could have done the same, as did many USA and Latin American tribes centuries later, stealing horses from Spaniards or Portuguese.

[archangel]

what it we Türks settleted in americas?i think it would be better than this

[pinguino]

In that scenario of Norse colonizing the Americas, the barbarians that came later would had a lot of problems to invade the continent. And I doubt they would have succeed against a mixed people that already had iron, horses, wheels and the suspicion against Western Europeans.

[pinguino]

what it we Türks settleted in americas?i think it would be better than this

If the Turks, the Chinese, or the Russians had settled in the Americas in mass, I bet life for the natives had been a lot better.

[Balmung]

Looks like a Japanese with a tan and contact lenses.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_lGK6PYByl58/TPbswS2Rq5I/AAAAAAAAAA4/6bgejgesZmg/s1600/ganguru015%255B1%255D.jpg

Actually, your picture just pretty much looks like a Japanese person with cosmetic surgery overload. No full blooded Japanese person looks like the picture you posted above without plenty alteration lol.

[pinguino]

And I bet if the Norse had come to the Americas, the Atlantic African slave trade hadn't developed. That was an invention of the Portuguese.

[Han Cholo]

And I bet if the Norse had come to the Americas, the Atlantic African slave trade hadn't developed. That was an invention of the Portuguese.

Actually no. African slave trade was started by Saharan Berbers, other Africans and Arabs many centuries before.

[Damião de Góis]

And I bet if the Norse had come to the Americas, the Atlantic African slave trade hadn't developed. That was an invention of the Portuguese.

What was, slavery? :rolleyes2:
Other people have practiced slavery long before us, including in the Americas by natives on other natives.

[pinguino]

Actually no. African slave trade was started by Saharan Berbers, other Africans and Arabs many centuries before.

Atlantic slave trade was introduced by the Portuguese. I doubt Norse ever had the damn idea of shipping Africans to the Americas. For that you should be a Portuguese.

[pinguino]

What was, slavery? :rolleyes2:
Other people have practiced slavery long before us, including in the Americas by natives on other natives.

Slavery? Yes. Even European peasants of the time were treated like slaves.
The bad idea of Portuguese was to trade with Africans, though.

[Damião de Góis]

Slavery? Yes. Even European peasants of the time were treated like slaves.
The bad idea of Portuguese was to trade with Africans, though.

That wasn't our idea. We learned about it when we conquered Tangier.
Also, lots of people were enslaved throughout history. I don't see why we should focus only on africans.

[Balmung]

Anyway OT.

The Americas (especially the US) might have had a more peaceful history had it been conquered by the Norse. Although i believe our numbers weren't as large as the Anglos/other groups, and could have easily been outnumbered by other immigrants groups that would later arrive.

Its funny to think about, history would have been completely different, hell America as a country would be very different. We probably would not have been in many wars, the slave trade probably wouldn't have happened (the Scandinavians in the US infact were against it when it came around). Vikings had some form of servitude, but servents were able to free themselves by paying off what was paid for them or their current worth, and the relationship between a thrall and their owner was much different than relationship between slaves & owners in the Americas. Assuming the history in Europe remains intact? WW still happened all that jazz, ultimately we'd turn out similar just a less "aggressive US", we probably wouldn't be a world police, we'd probably be more humble, we'd probably have a standard comparable to modern day Scandinavian nations, we'd probably be the exact opposite of everything we are now. So i guess some of you would like us better then huh? :lol:

[alfieb]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_West_Indies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Sweden
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Courland

Northern European Germanic peoples did settle in the Americas. It didn't do much.

[pinguino]

That wasn't our idea. We learned about it when we conquered Tangier.
Also, lots of people were enslaved throughout history. I don't see why we should focus only on africans.

Your idea was to bring mass of Africans to the Americas, just to exploit them in the sugar business. And you didn't learn the slave trade from the Arabs very well, because they had the custom to castrate Africans before exporting them.

[Han Cholo]

Your idea was to bring mass of Africans to the Americas, just to exploit them in the sugar business. And you didn't learn the slave trade from the Arabs very well, because they had the custom to castrate Africans before exporting them.

That's not true considering the high African influence some Arabs show. In some of them it's even higher than the one Brazilians show.

[Damião de Góis]

Your idea was to bring mass of Africans to the Americas, just to exploit them in the sugar business.

Yes that came with having land on both sides of the Atlantic.


And you didn't learn the slave trade from the Arabs very well, because they had the custom to castrate Africans before exporting them.

Indeed we were a bit more humane.

[Skomand]

We would have had a Viking realm on the North American coast.
And other European nations would have arrived in the footsteps of the Norse much earlier.

The fate of the natives as it is fictionally portrayed in film:

http://hostarea.de/out.php/i291689_18779128.jpg-r-640-600-b-1-d6d6d6-f-jpg-q-x-xxyxx.jpg (http://hostarea.de/show.php/291689_18779128.jpg-r-640-600-b-1-d6d6d6-f-jpg-q-x-xxyxx.jpg.html)



https://www.google.de/search?q=Pathfinder+%282007+film%29&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:de:official&client=firefox-a&channel=rcs&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=de&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=ZqUqUauTIIOstAbTuYH4BQ&biw=1040&bih=387&sei=aKUqUeqoJ8frswa3w4GIAg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathfinder_%282007_film%29


European diseases like the plague would have wiped out most of the native Americans.

[pinguino]

That's not true considering the high African influence some Arabs show. In some of them it's even higher than the one Brazilians show.

Gimme a break. The influence is the other way down.

[Han Cholo]

We would have had a Viking realm on the North American coast.
And other European nations would have arrived in the footsteps of the Norse much earlier.

The fate of the natives as it is fictionally portrayed in film:

http://hostarea.de/out.php/i291689_18779128.jpg-r-640-600-b-1-d6d6d6-f-jpg-q-x-xxyxx.jpg (http://hostarea.de/show.php/291689_18779128.jpg-r-640-600-b-1-d6d6d6-f-jpg-q-x-xxyxx.jpg.html)



https://www.google.de/search?q=Pathfinder+%282007+film%29&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:de:official&client=firefox-a&channel=rcs&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=de&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=ZqUqUauTIIOstAbTuYH4BQ&biw=1040&bih=387&sei=aKUqUeqoJ8frswa3w4GIAg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathfinder_%282007_film%29


European diseases like the plague would have wiped out most of the native Americans.

Scandinavians did not have this plague stuff. That stuff happens in warmer places like Southern Europe. Still, even if they had, they couldn't have spread as faster as later European powers did. They would have been limited to the coasts, so even if disease outbreaks erupted, the Native population would have time to recover its population, now with an immunity.

[pinguino]

We would have had a Viking realm on the North American coast.
And other European nations would have arrived in the footsteps of the Norse much earlier.

The fate of the natives as it is fictionally portrayed in film:
European diseases like the plague would have wiped out most of the native Americans.

I don't agree. First, that film was made to excuse the Europeans that came later, attributing to the Norse the same intention of the Western Europeans. The Norse didn't exterminated the Inuits, why would they exterminate the Indians? Even genetics show Norse mixed with Amerindians, in small scale, of course, given Norse colonization failed.

And the myth of deadly Europeans disease is just baloney. Most Indians in the Americas that died were killed rather than died from cold. The only difference is that Iberian killed mainly male Indians, and British resorted to mass genocide of men, women and children.

I bet that behavior was the result of a rotten religion like Christianism. Norse didn't have that mental cancer.

[Damião de Góis]

Scandinavians did not have this plague stuff. That stuff happens in warmer places like Southern Europe. Still, even if they had, they couldn't have spread as faster as later European powers did. They would have been limited to the coasts, so even if disease outbreaks erupted, the Native population would have time to recover its population, now with an immunity.

It eventually spread towards northern europe. Pockets like Milan and Krakow were strangely spared.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/Blackdeath2.gif

[B01AB20]

I think the same as Chavez this time.

http://juegosimportados.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/hugoisxboxer.jpg

Y Biba Volibar caraho!! ;)

And if you observe how the conquest was, it depends mainly of the boldness, ambition and courage of very few men, like Cortés and Pizarro, the rest just follow this kind of man, the natural (and brutal) leaders.

Can you see some Cortes or Pizarro among the norse men?

I can't, the were poor barbarians with little barbarians scopes and aspirations, they had no civilized ambitions like the lust for gold and power, not to mention to bring the good old Jesus and the true salvation to savage unbelievers; the true faith can transform a simple man into a superman pinguino :thumb001:


Y descansa un poco de tu anti-españolismo compulsivo tio, te va a dar un ataque de ansiedad el día menos pensado...

:) anyway here's another idea for you:

What if Al-Andalus had defeated christian kingdoms of Castille and Aragon (and Portugal) forever and ever?
Spain and Portugal wouldn't exist, only Al-Andalus and your beloved moors and jews in the iberian peninsula.

[alfieb]

It eventually spread towards northern europe. Pockets like Milan and Krakow were strangely spared.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/Blackdeath2.gif
Which should tell you how little Milan and Palermo have in common.

Sicily was the first area of Europe to get the black death. Genoese ships from Crimea brought it to us, and then it spread.

[Skomand]

The Vikings were the greatest plunderers of their age and turned Europe upside down. Why would that have been any different in the Americas?

Once the Vikings had settled and founded dynasties from Normandy to Russia, the age of the crusades started.

Had knowledge of the new continent reached Europe, all the seafaring nations of the time would have set off to get hold of the Indian gold.

To my knowledge all the coastal tribes round the settlement of the Pligrim Fathers were wiped off by European disease. We may not have full grasp of that devastation because there aren't any records.

[pinguino]

Can you see some Cortes or Pizarro among the norse men?

I can't, the were poor barbarians with little barbarians scopes and aspirations, they had no civilized ambitions like the lust for gold and power, not to mention to bring the good old Jesus and the true salvation to savage unbelievers; the true faith can transform a simple man into a superman pinguino

Norse were poor barbarians? And what kind of barbarians were Cortés and Pizarro? Pizarro worked taking care of pigs, before he got his lunatic and bloody dream. We should forget those criminals in the Americas, and perhaps then we could start to forgive what they did. Norse were pretty clever merchants, and not all of them were Vikings (Pirates).

Norse founded both modern Britain and Russia. Unlike Iberians, they didn't spread poverty to theirs colonies, but rather they made them to flourish.

You convince me, we would had been better with those Norse "barbarians" rather than with those Western European inhumans.

[pinguino]

To my knowledge all the coastal tribes round the settlement of the Pligrim Fathers were wiped off by European disease. We may not have full grasp of that devastation because there aren't any records.

That's not true. Even today there are many descendants of the original peoples that live in those areas. For instance, nations like the Mohawks still exist. And the famous "disease" stuff, it is just a smoke curtain to excuse British genocides.

[B01AB20]

You convince me, we would had been better with those Norse "barbarians" rather than with those Western European inhumans.

if with 'we' you mean the amerindians then I agree.

The norse practiced the pillage and plundering, which is different of conquest and permanent occupation; probably the relation would have been more from equal to equal and the most powerful indian societies would have survived.

[pinguino]

if with 'we' you mean the amerindians then I agree.

The norse practiced the pillage and plundering, which is different of conquest and permanent occupation; probably the relation would have been more from equal to equal and the most powerful indian societies would have survived.

I think so. Besides, the Norse were very skillfull workers, so the Amerindians would had benefit of the knowledge of things like: Iron, wheels, sword manufacturing and particularly ship building. That would have been great to keep these lands free. ¿The price? People like myself hadn't existed...

[Skomand]

Norse were poor barbarians? And what kind of barbarians were Cortés and Pizarro? Pizarro worked taking care of pigs, before he got his lunatic and bloody dream. We should forget those criminals in the Americas, and perhaps then we could start to forgive what they did. Norse were pretty clever merchants, and not all of them were Vikings (Pirates).

Norse founded both modern Britain and Russia. Unlike Iberians, they didn't spread poverty to theirs colonies, but rather they made them to flourish.

You convince me, we would had been better with those Norse "barbarians" rather than with those Western European inhumans.

Look up the Northern Crusades:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Crusades

The same would have happened in the Americas. The Scandinavians being too small in numbers, others would have followed them in the Americas.

[pinguino]

The same would have happened in the Americas. The Scandinavians being too small in numbers, others would have followed them by other European nations.

Scandinavians keept the secret of the Americas during 5 centuries! I doubt they would have revealed to southerners what they knew about the New World. Besides, theirs small number didn't stop them to lead an important cultural and genetical presence in Russia.

Small numbers doesn't matter much. Portugal, with just ten million people today, and only 1 million people at colonial times, left hundred of millions of descendants in places like Brazil, Africa and Asia.

[B01AB20]

I think so. Besides, the Norse were very skillfull workers, so the Amerindians would had benefit of the knowledge of things like: Iron, wheels, sword manufacturing and particularly ship building. That would have been great to keep these lands free. ¿The price? People like myself hadn't existed...

Well, you paint a very pleasant panorama of that hypothetical relationship, what's your inspiration?
The greek/carthagian(?) colonies in west mediterranean?.

Let me tell you your wet dream...

A little and isolated group of norsemen, very little to represent any menace for amerindians as a whole, settle in the americas with no intentions of returning to Europe and amerindians learn from them all that things you said earlier; then some centuries later the spaniards reach the americas, but this time things are going to be quite different, the true queztzalcoal has come already this time... the massacre was incredible, no spaniard was left alive.

Yeah, I bet you would pay the prize of non existance with eyes closed, so cabrón :D.

sigue soñando, que es gratis.

[pinguino]

My inspiration are the records on Greenland. After all, Inuits survived.
And yes, the Spaniards had gotten a big surprise. After all Iberians weren't a match with East Asians, and the failure in Japan was catastrophic.

[Incal]

Dunno. One thing is sure: Things would be a little bit boring around here.

[B01AB20]

My inspiration are the records on Greenland. After all, Inuits survived.
And yes, the Spaniards had gotten a big surprise. After all Iberians weren't a match with East Asians, and the failure in Japan was catastrophic.

really :confused:, I had no idea.

and what the hell were doing some spaniards in japan?

please tell us that big catastrophen.

[Skomand]

My inspiration are the records on Greenland. After all, Inuits survived.
And yes, the Spaniards had gotten a big surprise. After all Iberians weren't a match with East Asians, and the failure in Japan was catastrophic.

Well, get inspired by this. Scandinavians weren't any better than Spaniards or the Portuguese.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Crusades

"...The east Baltic world was transformed by military conquest: first the Livs, Latgallians and Estonians, then the Semigallians, Curonians, Prussians and the Finns underwent defeat, baptism, military occupation and sometimes extermination by groups of Danes, Germans and Swedes."

[pinguino]

Well, get inspired by this. Scandinavians weren't any better than Spaniards or the Portuguese.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Crusades

"...The east Baltic world was transformed by military conquest: first the Livs, Latgallians and Estonians, then the Semigallians, Curonians, Prussians and the Finns underwent defeat, baptism, military occupation and sometimes extermination by groups of Danes, Germans and Swedes."

Sure, but the Norse didn't have the means to damage Amerindians much. They lacked gunpowder, cannons and particularly large vessels like galleons, so they couldn't have imposed theirs will buy just overcrowding the Americas, like later Western Europeans did.

[HillY35]

Taking the question seriously, I do actually wonder whether or not, or to what extent, the Norse would have intermarried with the natives of the Americas. Were they as "cultivated and sophisticated" as the Normans were when they settled England, we would expect little "mixing." If they were as "less culturally constructive" as the Vikings (Norse meaning "non-Denmark-Scandinavians") of the later years of the general Goth explosion, or as less-industrial than we find Scandinavians today, compared to Continental Europe (including Denmark, Holland, Germanic Saxony, etc.), then they were perhaps less socially-uptight and would be loyal to their native lovers.

[pinguino]

really :confused:, I had no idea.

and what the hell were doing some spaniards in japan?

please tell us that big catastrophe.

I said, some Iberians. Take a look at this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Roman_Catholicism_in_Japan

[Ibericus]

hmm..don't know if you know about the Danish West Indies, they had also slaves...and in the colonization of Iceland half of the populiaton descends from captured Irish women, so they are not as pacific as you think

[pinguino]

hmm..don't know if you know about the Danish West Indies, they had also slaves...and in the colonization of Iceland half of the populiaton descends from captured Irish women, so they are not as pacific as you think

Nobody said so. But Norses in the Americas would have prevented the massive European invasion that came later. After all, the Americas was conquered by overcrowding, more than anything else.

[HillY35]

But Norses in the Americas would have prevented the massive European invasion that came later. After all, the Americas was conquered by overcrowding, more than anything else.

Second sentence: perhaps so.
First sentence: boyhood fantasies.

[pinguino]

If Norse made Britain and Russia, why not a strong continent beyond the Arctic? Anyways, I agree that is fantasy.

[HillY35]

If Norse made Britain and Russia, why not a strong continent beyond the Arctic? Anyways, I agree that is fantasy.

I don't know enough about the Rus of Russia to say they "made Russia." And I don't think the "Norse" "made Britain," or was even "made" by the Germanic element, even. By the way, I remember you, Pinguin, from older days, and I am reminded about how you tended to make jumbo leaps in your arguments, in terms of what and how you assert them. No big deal, it's good to see you again after a couple years.

[B01AB20]

Nobody said so. But Norses in the Americas would have prevented the massive European invasion that came later. After all, the Americas was conquered by overcrowding, more than anything else.

Bizarre statement, all my life I was taught that very little amount of people, the conquistadors, conquered very huge lands and peoples, Pizarro with 200 men and 60 horses (o al revés no se) conquers the inca empire and so on...

What do they teach you in chile?

[pinguino]

Bizarre statement, all my life I was taught that very little amount of people, the conquistadors, conquered very huge lands and peoples, Pizarro with 200 men and 60 horses (o al revés no se) conquers the inca empire and so on...

What do they teach you in chile?

That Spaniards arrived continuously during 3 centuries, which is in fact the truth. So many people migrated from Spain, that in some regions of that country there were demographic problems (I read that long ago, somewhere, and I don't have the citations to support it, but why to doubt it?)
Pizarro may have "entered" the Inca empire with 200 men, but the numbers weren't 200 hundred by the time he died in Lima.

If the Spaniards and other Europeans had been less, you wouldn't explain why the European mtDNA of Latin Americans is still around of 20%.

[HillY35]

it's not the first time a people has been displaced... It's happening somewhere outside of Latin America right now, as I type this: a native family being uprooted in the name of progress, and replaced by another group of ideas or people. Man, you must be paid a heck-load of welfare dollars by "Victimhood's federal government. I can't understand any other reason you rally like this.

[pinguino]

Fellow, I am Chilean, and here there is no welfare. Who doesn't work don't eat.

[HillY35]

I am calling attention to your attitude. But perhaps I over-extend myself, that is not the topic of this thread. Sorry, moving on.

[pinguino]

I am calling attention to your attitude. But perhaps I over-extend myself, that is not the topic of this thread. Sorry, moving on.

My attitude? It is the attitude of Latin Americans in general, that like myself, had always judged the conquest.

[Tropico]

The European ancestry is pretty strong is Latin America. Cubans, Colombians, Argentinians, Chileans, Puerto Ricans, Mexicans etc all have substantial European ancestry. That didn't come from 200 men.

[pinguino]

Exactly. Some estimations (In Spanish):

Período colonial
América española: 750.000 españoles y en menor número franco-italianos. Las principales zonas de recepción en esa época eran Latinoamérica. La tasa de retorno en todas las colonias era de cerca del 10% de los llegados a lo que hay que sumarle un 10% que solo viajaba para trabajar en la temporada de cocechas.

Migración española reciente:
Españoles. Hay cerca de 100 a 135 millones de descendientes directos de españoles (40 millones en España). Unos 4,6 millones de españoles emigraron a las Américas entre 1846 y 1932,18 Argentina (2 millones) y Brasil (750 mil), y en menor número a Uruguay, EE. UU., Cuba y Chile. Otros 40 mil fueron a Venezuela. Cerca de un millón huyó tras la guerra civil española la mitad se instaló en Francia. En el siglo XIX se fueron 94 mil a Argelia y 250 mil a Marruecos.


En mi país, en particular.

Unos 600.000 europeos llegaron al país .Varios de estos flujos migratorios fueron insentivada por el estado.

Durante la Colonia a Chile ingresaron 46.000 españoles (12.000 hasta 1630) (Se debe recordar que los Mapuches sólo fueron unos 60.000 en tiempos coloniales). Posteriormente durante el siglo XVIII, el país experimentó una masiva inmigración proveniente de las provincias vascongadas y de Navarra, llegando a constituir a finales del siglo XVIII un 27% de la población chilena. Alzándose como el grupo regional más importante de la población, desplazando a los naturales y descendientes de nacidos en las regiones de Castilla la Nueva, Castilla la Vieja y Andalucía. Estas familias inmigrantes se dedicaron inicialmente de forma preferente al comercio, y en los años sucesivos se produjeron numerosos enlaces con familias de origen castellano poseedoras de tierras y títulos, dando origen a un nuevo grupo social conocido en la historia de Chile como "aristocracia castellano-vasca".

[Sarmatian]

It is true Vikings were raiders and pirates. But it doesn't mean all Norsemen were pirates. Also a significant part of their pillaging was addressed against Christians which they despised. They were very brutal in war but there is not a single case of total extermination of populations due to Viking raids.

To estimate the consequences of Norsemen colonising American continent we have to look at their exploits in Europe. One of the most notable cases of Viking colonies are Normans. They've taken their lands by force but later turned them into prosperous states with strict laws and rich economies. They laid foundation for England to grow from distant backyard of Europe into one of the mightiest empires civilization ever seen.

We can safely conclude that if Vikings would've colonised America natives would've ended up far better than they did with later Europeans. Some local conflicts would've definately happened but nothing like total extermination.


...they had no civilized ambitions like the lust for gold and power...

If this is the definition of 'civilized' I personally would like to cut the head off every 'civilized' man in this world.




PS: and don't be retards, Vikings have nothing to do with Northern Crusades influenced and guided by Christian fanatics.

[Han Cholo]

If Norse knowledge of ships, metallurgy, and horses was introduced in Americas had Norse colonies prospered; lots of things would have changed. But the problem was that norse settlements, although lasted 500 years (far more than Spaniards) they never made or ventured too far from Greenland.


The Norse colonization of the Americas began as early as 10th century AD, when Norse sailors (usually referred to as Vikings) explored and settled areas of the North Atlantic, including the northeastern fringes of North America.[1]

While the Norse colony in Greenland lasted for almost 500 years, the continental North American settlements were small and did not develop into permanent colonies. While voyages, for example to fetch timber, are likely to have occurred for some time, there is no evidence of enduring Norse settlements on mainland North America.[2]

I think Norse had higher probabilities of surviving in further south places with more mild climate than in Greenland which is all covered by ice.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

What would happen in the Americas if the Norse had succeed in establishing colonies in the Americas, rather than the European people that followed five centuries afterwards?

I believe Norse had treated natives in a more human manner. After all, there are still small genetic clues that point to Amerindian women send to far away Scandinavia in the Middle Ages by the Norse. I also believe the New World would have been spared of most of the suffering the late Europeans brought here.

Your thoughts.

Right... because a population that raids and enslaves people who look similar to them would be less likely to do so towards people who don't look like them.

I don't know if the below is true or not but what's more important is if you think it's true because it would contradict your belief, or do you think these women were going on their own free will. Knowing that the Norse enslaved people they encountered throughout Western Europe, I'd say it's not very likely.


I believe Norse had treated natives in a more human manner. After all, there are still small genetic clues that point to Amerindian women send to far away Scandinavia in the Middle Ages by the Norse.

[somerled]

My inspiration are the records on Greenland. After all, Inuits survived.
And yes, the Spaniards had gotten a big surprise. After all Iberians weren't a match with East Asians, and the failure in Japan was catastrophic.

The Inuits survived because the Norse never had the capacity to defeat or eradicate them.
The Inuits migrated down from the north and much of their home range was well outside the influence of the few Norse settlements in the south. The Norse foothold in Greenland was always precarious only numbering a few thousand souls. How the hell do you suppose such small numbers could have controlled the entire landmass of Greenland and its inhabitants?

[somerled]

Norse were poor barbarians? And what kind of barbarians were Cortés and Pizarro? Pizarro worked taking care of pigs, before he got his lunatic and bloody dream. We should forget those criminals in the Americas, and perhaps then we could start to forgive what they did. Norse were pretty clever merchants, and not all of them were Vikings (Pirates).

Norse founded both modern Britain and Russia. Unlike Iberians, they didn't spread poverty to theirs colonies, but rather they made them to flourish.

You convince me, we would had been better with those Norse "barbarians" rather than with those Western European inhumans.

The Norse never founded modern Britain. Britain as a unified State didn't exist until the union of England and Scotland in 1707.
If you're referring to England then the Kings of Wessex (West Saxons), Athelstan and Eadred, first united England.

[Oneeye]

ah, the Norseman's burden....

[B01AB20]

That Spaniards arrived continuously during 3 centuries, which is in fact the truth. So many people migrated from Spain, that in some regions of that country there were demographic problems (I read that long ago, somewhere, and I don't have the citations to support it, but why to doubt it?)
Pizarro may have "entered" the Inca empire with 200 men, but the numbers weren't 200 hundred by the time he died in Lima.

If the Spaniards and other Europeans had been less, you wouldn't explain why the European mtDNA of Latin Americans is still around of 20%.

But this massive arrival of spaniards to Latinamerica was a consequence of the previous conquest and displacement of indians and their societies and state structures; first you conquer the land by defeating the lords of that land, then you can colonize the territory.
Without the conquistadors the massive colonization wouldn't have been possible, don't you think?.

And 12.000 spaniards and 60.000 mapuches in chile in 1630... not so massive I would say.




If this is the definition of 'civilized' I personally would like to cut the head off every 'civilized' man in this world.


Apart of the sarcasm in my original response (I tried it at least), but yeah, I think is an accurate definition of 'civilized man' as it implies the scope of a society. The cavemen ambitions was a good refugee with good hunting around, the farmers ambition was fertile fields well defended, and so on.

[Sarmatian]

Apart of the sarcasm in my original response (I tried it at least), but yeah, I think is an accurate definition of 'civilized man' as it implies the scope of a society. The cavemen ambitions was a good refugee with good hunting around, the farmers ambition was fertile fields well defended, and so on.

And what would be an ambition of a steppe nomad?

[B01AB20]

And what would be an ambition of a steppe nomad?

http://cdn.globovision.com/media/renos_canada.jpg

[Sippola]

Anyway OT.

The Americas (especially the US) might have had a more peaceful history had it been conquered by the Norse. Although i believe our numbers weren't as large as the Anglos/other groups, and could have easily been outnumbered by other immigrants groups that would later arrive.

Its funny to think about, history would have been completely different, hell America as a country would be very different. We probably would not have been in many wars, the slave trade probably wouldn't have happened (the Scandinavians in the US infact were against it when it came around). Vikings had some form of servitude, but servents were able to free themselves by paying off what was paid for them or their current worth, and the relationship between a thrall and their owner was much different than relationship between slaves & owners in the Americas. Assuming the history in Europe remains intact? WW still happened all that jazz, ultimately we'd turn out similar just a less "aggressive US", we probably wouldn't be a world police, we'd probably be more humble, we'd probably have a standard comparable to modern day Scandinavian nations, we'd probably be the exact opposite of everything we are now. So i guess some of you would like us better then huh? :lol:

If it went according to how you describe; if the U.S. had not entered WWII, in other words..... Well, there would not be anymore modern day Scandinavian Nations to compare to.

[Skomand]

Haha, the Norse in Greenland were Christians:

http://www.mapsofworld.com/greenland/culture/christianity.html

"..When Greenland was a home for Norse settlers, the inception of Christianity into the island took place. Leif the Happy, son of Erik the Red, went on a visit to Norway in 990, where Chribstianity made a great impression on him, and the then king Olaf Trygvesson sent some Christian missionaries with him when he went back to his homeland. The missionaries converted the Norse colonies in Greenland at a very rapid pace, and very soon a Church was set up, along with a few monasteries..."

[Grace O'Malley]

The Vikings were not all warm and fuzzy. They were very brutal and Dublin was one of the largest slave markets. Yes they traded in slaves.

"Many have thought that the Vikings went to Ireland to raid gold and silver treasures from Irish churches and monasteries, but it has been uncovered that Viking expansion into Ireland was mainly for the human commodity of slaves. Slave collars and chains made of iron have been found to prove this theory. The historians believe that the going rate for a male slave was 12 ounces of silver and for a woman it would cost the buyer 8 ounces of silver. The collars were differently decorated for different classes of captives, and the status of a slave was identified by their collar. And it is becoming more evident that much of the Vikings’ wealth depended on the slaves they took by force and not just their appetite for precious metals."

http://traveltrales.wordpress.com/2012/11/14/the-dublin-slave-trade/

The Vikings were feared and were not welcomed. They would have treated your people very harshly.

[Balmung]

It is true Vikings were raiders and pirates. But it doesn't mean all Norsemen were pirates. Also a significant part of their pillaging was addressed against Christians which they despised. They were very brutal in war but there is not a single case of total extermination of populations due to Viking raids.

To estimate the consequences of Norsemen colonising American continent we have to look at their exploits in Europe. One of the most notable cases of Viking colonies are Normans. They've taken their lands by force but later turned them into prosperous states with strict laws and rich economies. They laid foundation for England to grow from distant backyard of Europe into one of the mightiest empires civilization ever seen.

We can safely conclude that if Vikings would've colonised America natives would've ended up far better than they did with later Europeans. Some local conflicts would've definately happened but nothing like total extermination.



If this is the definition of 'civilized' I personally would like to cut the head off every 'civilized' man in this world.




PS: and don't be retards, Vikings have nothing to do with Northern Crusades influenced and guided by Christian fanatics.

So glad you said it, also lol at people calling the Norse ruthless barbarians. All Norse weren't vikings which were essentialy pirates, and other European groups in history did far worse things to fellow Europeans than the Vikings ever did. So who exactly were the "barbarians", because it wasn't Vikings on the contrary Vikings caused the least destruction in Europe & the world.

[pinguino]

So glad you said it, also lol at people calling the Norse ruthless barbarians. All Norse weren't vikings which were essentialy pirates, and other European groups in history did far worse things to fellow Europeans than the Vikings ever did. So who exactly were the "barbarians", because it wasn't Vikings on the contrary Vikings caused the least destruction in Europe & the world.

Absolutely. The Norse were farmers. The Vikings were the pirates among them that started theirs rides from Scandinavia. But into Russia didn't go the vikings but the Norse merchants. The same is true in Greenland, where Vikings (Pirates) didn't make sense.

[Skomand]

Two major arguments of yours are disproved by facts:

a) that the Norse and the Inuit could live peacefully alongside each other
"Pirate raids, conflict with Inuit moving into the Norse territories, and the colony's abandonment by Norway became other factors in its decline."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_the_Red

b) that the Norse went to America with pagan non-Christian traditions in their baggage

"First Christian church in North America
In around the year 1000 Erik the Red's son, Leif Eriksson, returned to Greenland following a long period in Norway, and Leif - whose byname was 'the Fortunate' - brought with him the first Christian missionaries. Shortly afterwards the first Christian church on the North American continent, Tjodhilde's Church, was built in Brattahlið. Today a reconstruction of the small church can be seen in Qassiarsuk.

"

http://www.greenland.com/en/about-greenland/kultur-sjael/historie/vikingetiden/erik-den-roede.aspx

[Fröbjörn]

Barbaric British? Scandinavia wasn't exactly the most prosperous place in Europe at that time.

You could also go on to say that the Norse did settle part of North America way back in the Viking age. Didn't last, tho.

And for the record, the Saami are annoying as fuck.

[Stanley]

Well, if the Norse settled the Americas in lieu of the actual players, all those unfortunate peace-seeking Amerindians would have flourished under the Northmen's benevolence. The "Iberians, Brits, Dutch, and French" would be isolated in Europe and would leave their unique proclivity for "barbarism" there. The Amerindians would unavoidably find themselves at the forefront of humanity in the coming centuries, and the world would have never known violence!

Was that the answer you were fishing for?

On a serious note, this question is too history-revising and changes way too many variables to be answerable in any meaningful way.

[Fröbjörn]

If the Norse settled the Americas then like how the British & co. settled them, then I think the natives might have fared worse. The Norse were a great deal more merciless and a lot more blood thirsty than the more Christianized Brits & co.

[pinguino]

If the Norse settled the Americas then like how the British & co. settled them, then I think the natives might have fared worse. The Norse were a great deal more merciless and a lot more blood thirsty than the more Christianized Brits & co.

Nah... Norse were just a people that was a bit naughty. And without gunpowder and large populations to send to the Americas, they wouldn't control Amerindians like late comers. The British invented genocide at industrial scale, and theirs colonization methods were the example followed by other barbarians... like the SS troops, for instance.

I bet Norse and Indians had allied against further invasions from Europe, and the history would have been quite different. With a poor Western Europe that lacked a place like the Americas to exploit for its own benefit.

[Fröbjörn]

Nah... Norse were just a people that was a bit naughty. The British invented genocide at industrial scale, and theirs colonization methods were the example followed by other barbarians... like the SS troops, for instance.

I bet Norse and Indians had allied against further invasions from Europe, and the history would have been quite different. With a poor Western Europe that lacked a place like the Americas to exploit for its own benefit.

I think you need to learn your history before you make claims such as these.

[pinguino]

What do you want I teach you?

[Fröbjörn]

What do you want I teach you?

What?

[pinguino]

What?

You put in doubt I know history. What do you want to learn?

[Skomand]

"The British invented genocide at industrial scale"

What do you mean, the Boer concentration camps?

[Oneeye]

Okay, I can understand arguments that the Norse were no more barbaric than Western Europeans, but you're arguing that they were much less? The Spanish Inquisition wasn't the only time when Europeans used outrageously barbaric firms of torture... ever heard of the bloody eagle?

[pinguino]

"The British invented genocide at industrial scale"

What do you mean, the Boer concentration camps?

Yes. But also the hunger in India, the genocide of native Americans, the extermination of the Tasmanians, the "scientific" racism of Galton, Darwin, Spencer and others, the invention of concentration camps, and the massive slave trade, and the exploitation of the very British people during the Industrial Revolution. The late was one of the worst crimes, that inspire Marx to invent communism! Just imagine how sad has been the British influence worldwide.

By comparison, Norse were just naughty boys.

[pinguino]

Okay, I can understand arguments that the Norse were no more barbaric than Western Europeans, but you're arguing that they were much less? The Spanish Inquisition wasn't the only time when Europeans used outrageously barbaric firms of torture... ever heard of the bloody eagle?

Sure, but I bet the burning of infidels and witches (which was in fashion in Western Europe) by the time of the European expansion, was just as cruel as the viking tortures. Besides, even Romans were a lot more perverse than Vikings.

But I repeat, Greenlanders weren't Vikings (Pirates) but Norse farmers and sailors.

[Fröbjörn]

You put in doubt I know history. What do you want to learn?

You don't know anything about the ancient Norse or the Vikings, obviously. The Vikings raided and plundered across Europe. They didn't show mercy to ANYONE. What makes you think they would have showed mercy to Native Americans? To them, Native Americans would have seemed easy pickings and left them devastated.

Stop with your foolish notions of them allying with the "big bad Brits" and grow up.

[pinguino]

You don't know anything about the ancient Norse or the Vikings, obviously. The Vikings raided and plundered across Europe. They didn't show mercy to ANYONE. What makes you think they would have showed mercy to Native Americans? To them, Native Americans would have seemed easy pickings and left them devastated.

Stop with your foolish notions of them allying with the "big bad Brits" and grow up.

Please fellow, study how Norse expanded in Russia, and the commercial towns they founded in Britain. Norse not only had Pirates among theirs ranks, but common people that were farmers and fishermen, that milked cows and that trade goods peacefully across half the known world of the Middle Ages.

For instance, this is the statue that remember Kiev's foundation by the early "Rus", very likely the Norse elite.

http://cultkiev.com/wp-content/uploads/Kiev_founders_monument_nearby.jpg

[Fröbjörn]

Please fellow, study how Norse expanded in Russia, and the commercial towns they founded in Britain. Norse not only had Pirates among theirs ranks, but common people that were farmers and fishermen, that milked cows and that trade goods peacefully across half the known world of the Middle Ages.

For instance, this is the statue that remember Kiev's foundation by the early "Rus", very likely the Norse elite.

http://cultkiev.com/wp-content/uploads/Kiev_founders_monument_nearby.jpg

I feel like banging my head into the keyboard but I won't do it over some foolish aboriginal American.

YES, the Norse settled areas and prospered. BUT they pillaged, raped and plundered as well. You are conveniently leaving out all of the destruction that they did as well. I don't hate the Vikings at all, but you seriously need to stop looking at us Norse/Nordic people as some kind of saviors. It gets annoying.

[Oneeye]

Sure, but I bet the burning of infidels and witches (which was in fashion in Western Europe) by the time of the European expansion, was just as cruel as the viking tortures. Besides, even Romans were a lot more perverse than Vikings.

But I repeat, Greenlanders weren't Vikings (Pirates) but Norse farmers and sailors.

And the Western European colonists weren't pirates either.....

[pinguino]

I feel like banging my head into the keyboard but I won't do it over some foolish aboriginal American.

YES, the Norse settled areas and prospered. BUT they pillaged, raped and plundered as well. You are conveniently leaving out all of the destruction that they did as well. I don't hate the Vikings at all, but you seriously need to stop looking at us Norse/Nordic people as some kind of saviors. It gets annoying.

Sure.

I am just using the SAME tools for distorting history that the anglosaxon community of nations apply to convince the global community, Britain and the U.S. has been the most marvellous civilization in history. That propaganda machine was confronted by the Soviets during the Cold War, and since then it is quite easy to deconstruct any myth.

[pinguino]

And the Western European colonists weren't pirates either.....

Britain started as a pirate and slave trade nation, so what's the difference?

[Oneeye]

Britain started as a pirate and slave trade nation, so what's the difference?

You tell me. I'm not the one arguing that the Norse and the Anglos were that different from each other...

[pinguino]

My point was very simple from the beginning. If Norse had settled in the Americas for good, it is LIKELY the Amerindians would have been in a better stand to reject the Western European invasion that came five centuries later. With horses, iron, wheels and sea going vessels, and some knowledge about what Europeans were, things would have been different.
At least Montezuma and Atahualpa wouldn't have been so naive with the intentions of the barbarians.

[Oneeye]

My point was very simple from the beginning. If Norse had settled in the Americas for good, it is LIKELY the Amerindians would have been in a better stand to reject the Western European invasion that came five centuries later. With horses, iron, wheels and sea going vessels, and some knowledge about what Europeans were, things would have been different.
At least Montezuma and Atahualpa wouldn't have been so naive with the intentions of the barbarians.


I doubt that even if the Norse were to have had a successful colony as far south as New England, that Montezuma would of ever heard of them, let alone had the military means to defeat the Spaniards.

[Han Cholo]

I doubt that even if the Norse were to have had a successful colony as far south as New England, that Montezuma would of ever heard of them, let alone had the military means to defeat the Spaniards.

It's very likely that if Spaniards were alone without 10,000 Tlaxcallan and Purepecha allies they wouldn't have won so easily. Aztec empire was not in the middle of civil war like Incan empires. The combined Mesoamerican manpower, knowledge of warfare and territory with Spanish guns, technology and horses was deadly for Moctezuma's reign.

[amerinese]

If word-of-mouth had spread that far south, so would have the European diseases which ended up decimating Native Americans anyway. Even if the Norse had been more friendly to the natives, their microbes weren't.

[Han Cholo]

If word-of-mouth had spread that far south, so would have the European diseases which ended up decimating Native Americans anyway. Even if the Norse had been more friendly to the natives, their microbes weren't.

From 900 AD to 1500 would have been more than enough to repopulate a stronger immune population out of the survivors. Had this happened, Spanish smallpox and malaria wouldn't have been as succesful, though I do not know if the Norsemen carried these kind of diseases.

[Sarmatian]

http://cdn.globovision.com/media/renos_canada.jpg

:picard1: This is tundra, you silly. It has nothing to do with steppe.


I feel like banging my head into the keyboard but I won't do it over some foolish aboriginal American.

YES, the Norse settled areas and prospered. BUT they pillaged, raped and plundered as well. You are conveniently leaving out all of the destruction that they did as well. I don't hate the Vikings at all, but you seriously need to stop looking at us Norse/Nordic people as some kind of saviors. It gets annoying.

You seem to miss the difference between casual raids that caused some trouble but never actually threaten the very existence of populations subjected to these raids with persistent systematic extermination on global scale in order to gain full control of territories and its resources and clear the space for your own kind.

[Fröbjörn]

:picard1: This is tundra, you silly. It has nothing to do with steppe.



You seem to miss the difference between casual raids that caused some trouble but never actually threaten the very existence of populations subjected to these raids with persistent systematic extermination on global scale in order to gain full control of territories and its resources and clear the space for your own kind.

Did you miss the whole part of the Norse settling the British Isles and taking large parts of it from the natives, or are you just humouring me?

I'm not making them out to be savage people; because they weren't. I'm being historically correct.

[pinguino]

If word-of-mouth had spread that far south, so would have the European diseases which ended up decimating Native Americans anyway. Even if the Norse had been more friendly to the natives, their microbes weren't.

Norse weren't much infected at 1000 A.D. Not even the Dead Plague had attacked Europe as yet. You can see that in the rate of survival of Inuits that weren't better prepared for the infectious diseases of Eurasians than Amerindians.

[Han Cholo]

:picard1: This is tundra, you silly. It has nothing to do with steppe.



You seem to miss the difference between casual raids that caused some trouble but never actually threaten the very existence of populations subjected to these raids with persistent systematic extermination on global scale in order to gain full control of territories and its resources and clear the space for your own kind.

Scandinavia has never had such high population density like England, Spain, France. Even today Norway has only 4 million people if I recall correctly. Sweden has like 12. I am not sure about Denmark and Iceland but I'm sure they're quite small in numbers as well. I'm sure they were even less back then in 900-1300 AD. Even if they tried a mass settlement, combined with diseases and warfare, I doubt they would have been able to expand very far away from coastal plains. I can't somehow imagine a Viking settlement in the middle of the rocky mountains for example, or in some desert deeper into America.

[amerinese]

From 900 AD to 1500 would have been more than enough to repopulate a stronger immune population out of the survivors. Had this happened, Spanish smallpox and malaria wouldn't have been as succesful, though I do not know if the Norsemen carried these kind of diseases.

I'm not sure. Smallpox probably so, malaria probably not. English northern colonies in New England were also carrying diseases which decimated local tribes, smallpox included. You are right, though, this was bound to happen eventually, and once it did, then the surviving population would be resistant, and able to rebound.

In case you have never read of it, Hernando De Soto had a failed expedition into the southeastern US (my neck of the woods) long before Anglos pushed into the area. It was pretty brutal, and he died before its conclusion. However, between the impact of his expedition and other factors (like a drought) the local tribes were decimated and in some cases no longer existed when Anglos arrived.

http://arkarcheology.uark.edu/indiansofarkansas/printerfriendly.html?pageName=First%20Encounters

[pinguino]

@Hasol:

Absolutely. But Norse had to make some sort of treaties with local populations just for survival, and certainly that would allowed to spread European technology lacking in the Americas. A win/win situation that had changed the world.

[pinguino]

I'm not sure. Smallpox probably so, malaria probably not. English northern colonies in New England were also carrying diseases which decimated local tribes, smallpox included. You are right, though, this was bound to happen eventually, and once it did, then the surviving population would be resistant, and able to rebound.

In case you have never read of it, Hernando De Soto had a failed expedition into the southeastern US (my neck of the woods) long before Anglos pushed into the area. It was pretty brutal, and he died before its conclusion. However, between the impact of his expedition and other factors (like a drought) the local tribes were decimated and in some cases no longer existed when Anglos arrived.

http://arkarcheology.uark.edu/indiansofarkansas/printerfriendly.html?pageName=First%20Encounters

The records of Cabeza de Vaca, which crossed North America, show there were some regions of North America with very little population densities. Something similar happened in the Amazons and in Patagonia. This idea that diseases destroyed 99.999 % of Native population of the Americas is simply absurd. Remember that places like Mexico also suffered those plagues, but population was large enough to rebuild Mexico city in Spanish style in a few years. It is also silly people don't remember that both Europeans and Africans died of infectious diseases in large numbers too, but the population survived. So, although was very destructive, you cannot claim it was the main factor that allowed the invasion. One important factor was the low population densities in several parts of the Americas, to start with.

[amerinese]

Norse weren't much infected at 1000 A.D. Not even the Dead Plague had attacked Europe as yet. You can see that in the rate of survival of Inuits that weren't better prepared for the infectious diseases of Eurasians than Amerindians.

I'm not so sure Inuits and other Arctic tribes weren't better prepared by prior exposure to diseases from Northeast Asia since they had migrated more recently. It's an interesting question, though, whether they were more heavily impacted when Russians colonized Alaska for example, with a fresh batch of old world diseases.

[amerinese]

The records of Cabeza de Vaca, which crossed North America, show there were some regions of North America with very little population densities. Something similar happened in the Amazons and in Patagonia. This idea that diseases destroyed 99.999 % of Native population of the Americas is simply absurd. Remember that places like Mexico also suffered those plagues, but population was large enough to rebuild Mexico city in Spanish style in a few years. It is also silly people don't remember that both Europeans and Africans died of infectious diseases in large numbers too, but the population survived. So, although was very destructive, you cannot claim it was the main factor that allowed the invasion. One important factor was the low population densities in several parts of the Americas, to start with.

No, man, De Soto encountered and fought against these tribes. They did exist. There is archeogical record for them, like mound complexes in Arkansas. When Anglos came those tribes were gone, in some cases having been replaced by others, in other cases not.

[pinguino]

If they disappear it was because they were very few. No people with a sizable population become extinct in the Americas. Of course, they suffered the impact, but they recovered with time.

[Sarmatian]

Did you miss the whole part of the Norse settling the British Isles and taking large parts of it from the natives, or are you just humouring me?

I'm not making them out to be savage people; because they weren't. I'm being historically correct.

Tell me if I'm wrong but as far as I'm aware Britain wasn't depopulated the same way as it happened to American natives. Norse only took control over territories but still significant numbers of locals were spared and allowed to live around and be on their usual business. Simple fact that there were major trading centers flourishing is sufficient evidence of high population to sustain this trade.

[Han Cholo]

If they disappear it was because they were very few. No people with a sizable population become extinct in the Americas. Of course, they suffered the impact, but they recovered with time.

Nuevo León was reported to have a scarce Native population but Natives survived at least as far as 1850.


The establishment of Spanish settlements in Northern Nuevo León, was often slowed down by attacks of native Americans, of Coahuiltecan origin such as Alazapas, Cuanales, and Gualeguas, among others. The attacks were prompted by, or in response to, Spanish slave raids on the Indians. Spanish Captain Alonso de León wrote a description of many assaults and atrocities against the Spaniards in the New Kingdom of León, he also stated that the indigenous population of the New Kingdom of León, was different in all aspects from that of other provinces of New Spain.

Mestizaje, a characteristic of many provinces in New Spain, was difficult on this province, the natives resisted to accept Christianity imposed by Spaniards, and they did not want to be incorporated into Spanish / Criollo society. This feeling of racial segregation was reciprocated among many Spanish and Spanish-born Reineros of the New Kingdom of León towards the indigenous people, who were frequently at war with them, the indigenous population had no permanent establishment.


By the middle of the 19th century the inhabitants of Nuevo León began to take reprisals against the indigenous natives, the U.S., and the Mexican authorities. In 1850 towns throughout Nuevo León were ready with an armed militia and with combat provisions (bastimento) already prepared for a combat that could break out at any moment. The bastimento consisted of corn biscuits, dried meat, and chocolate, the cornerstones of the rural diet of Nuevo León then and now.

The response to the native invasions was ruthless. Influenced by the methods of the Americans to their north, the Nuevoleonese poisoned the waters from which the natives drank and put a bounty on natives' scalps. The combat with the Apaches, Comanches, runaway Kickapoos and North American filibusterers, while brutal and inhuman, gave a great deal of experience to the Nuevoleonese militias, who defeated the Mexican Army in several battles. The combat skills of local heroes Juan Zuazua, José Silvestre Aramberri, Mariano Escobedo, Lázaro Garza Ayala and Jerónimo Treviño were all tempered by those skirmishes.

The leader of this self-defense movement was Santiago Vidaurri, who proclaimed the Plan de Monterrey in 1855, restoring the sovereignty of Nuevo León. Later a sympathizer with the Confederacy in the American Civil War, Vidaurri democratically annexed the Mexican state of Coahuila by plebiscite and later declared the República de la Sierra Madre, one of Nuevo León's two famous attempts at separatism (the other being the Republic of the Rio Grande in 1840). Upon the death of his chief military supporter, general Juan Zuazua, he was easily taken prisoner by other Nuevoleonese loyal to Benito Juárez, who decreed the deannexation of Coahuila.

[Oneeye]

It's very likely that if Spaniards were alone without 10,000 Tlaxcallan and Purepecha allies they wouldn't have won so easily. Aztec empire was not in the middle of civil war like Incan empires. The combined Mesoamerican manpower, knowledge of warfare and territory with Spanish guns, technology and horses was deadly for Moctezuma's reign.

I still doubt that the norsemen's influence would spread so far south as to provide any Central Americans with even outdated firearms, let alone current for the time, competitive technology. Maybe they would of eventually had horses, that's pretty much it. Did you know that the "horses" that the Icelanders had and would of brought over would have been considered ponies by today? They were relatively tiny.
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=beowulf+and+grendel&view=detail&mid=211197B3933F591E4922211197B3933F591E4922&first=0&FORM=NVPFVR

[Han Cholo]

I still doubt that the norsemen's influence would spread so far south as to provide any Central Americans with even outdated firearms, let alone current for the time, competitive technology. Maybe they would of eventually had horses, that's pretty much it. Did you know that the "horses" that the Icelanders had and would of brought over would have been considered ponies by today? They were relatively tiny.
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=beowulf+and+grendel&view=detail&mid=211197B3933F591E4922211197B3933F591E4922&first=0&FORM=NVPFVR

I agree the time span was short. Perhaps if there were contacts earlier (or with Asia) this would have been possible.

[archangel]

vikings were just germanic peasents,they were not capable of invade etc...they flee before the danger emerge

[CVCV]

What would happen in the Americas if the Norse had succeed in establishing colonies in the Americas, rather than the European people that followed five centuries afterwards?

I believe Norse had treated natives in a more human manner. After all, there are still small genetic clues that point to Amerindian women send to far away Scandinavia in the Middle Ages by the Norse. I also believe the New World would have been spared of most of the suffering the late Europeans brought here.

Your thoughts.

Natives would have died in much larger numbers. They would have been exterminated almost completely. Look what happened to North American Natives.

[Pallantides]

Norse didn't have a habit of exterminating whole ethnic groups, the pagan Norse co-existed relatively peacefully with the Saami.

[pinguino]

Norse didn't have a habit of exterminating whole ethnic groups, the pagan Norse co-existed relatively peacefully with the Saami.

Absolutely. I bet not many people know much about the real Norse. All they know is about Vikings that, by the way, weren't the only pirates in Europe at all.

[Chile Raptor 2.0]

Hubiera sido maravilloso, imagina, los vikingos hoy son el ejemplo de un estado de bienestar (Los Suecos son un país sin bolas , que están siendo sodomizados por somalíes y turcos, serían la excepción), pero llegaron los burros de los españoles....y formaron un caos de drogadicción y sicariato, que nadie quiere, en especial los 2 extremos de las Américas, los países menos españoles...por que será??

[Cristiano viejo]

Hubiera sido maravilloso, imagina, los vikingos hoy son el ejemplo de un estado de bienestar (Los Suecos son un país sin bolas , que están siendo sodomizados por somalíes y turcos, serían la excepción), pero llegaron los burros de los españoles....y formaron un caos de drogadicción y sicariato, que nadie quiere, en especial los 2 extremos de las Américas, los países menos españoles...por que será??

Y tú eres parte de ese caos de drogadicción y sicariato, algo que no ocurre en España pero sí en toda América.
Sí, exactamente, son vuestros genes inferiores indios.

[Chile Raptor 2.0]

Y tú eres parte de ese caos de drogadicción y sicariato, algo que no ocurre en España pero sí en toda América.
Sí, exactamente, son vuestros genes inferiores indios.

cuando has visto chilenos traficando droga como los centroamericanos moro asqueroso??? Si esos seres son fracasados social y racialmente fue por qué las mierdas de Iberia crearon esas monstruosidades sin arreglo, y cargan sus genes

[Cristiano viejo]

cuando has visto chilenos traficando droga como los centroamericanos moro asqueroso??? Si esos seres son fracasados social y racialmente fue por qué las mierdas de Iberia crearon esas monstruosidades sin arreglo, y cargan sus genes


Narco-encomiendas: así cayó dealer chileno que exportaba droga a banda transnacional en España
https://www.biobiochile.cl/especial/bbcl-investiga/noticias/reportajes/2022/01/06/narco-encomiendas-asi-cayo-dealer-chileno-que-exportaba-droga-a-banda-transnacional-en-espana.shtml

Sois escoria, y sí, es vuestra sangre inferior india.

[Chile Raptor 2.0]

Narco-encomiendas: así cayó dealer chileno que exportaba droga a banda transnacional en España
https://www.biobiochile.cl/especial/bbcl-investiga/noticias/reportajes/2022/01/06/narco-encomiendas-asi-cayo-dealer-chileno-que-exportaba-droga-a-banda-transnacional-en-espana.shtml

Sois escoria, y sí, es vuestra sangre inferior india.

A quien quieres cagar MORO?? Españoles traficantes en UK, Netherlands and Italy

https://www.occrp.org/en/daily/16066-spain-busts-transnational-drug-trafficking-ring

Deben ser los genes inferiores moriscos

[RMuller]

A quien quieres cagar MORO?? Españoles traficantes en UK, Netherlands and Italy

https://www.occrp.org/en/daily/16066-spain-busts-transnational-drug-trafficking-ring

Deben ser los genes inferiores moriscos

LOS SPICANOLES SON LA BASURA DE EUROPA

[Chile Raptor 2.0]

LOS SPICANOLES SON LA BASURA DE EUROPA

Lo más chistoso que este hijo de Marroquí De Gitano viejo trata de inferiores a sus símiles en Sudamérica y ellos mismos son una basura inmunda en Europa

[RMuller]

Lo más chistoso que este hijo de Marroquí De Gitano viejo trata de inferiores a sus símiles en Sudamérica y ellos mismos son una basura inmunda en Europa

LOL

[gixajo]

Relajaos amiguetes, que se os está yendo la olla demasiado y empezáis a ser los dos baneables.:)

[Jacques de Imbelloni]

Relajaos amiguetes, que se os está yendo la olla demasiado y empezáis a ser los dos baneables.:)
Dios te oiga, hijo mío… ¡Dios te oiga!

(https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjfi9ipg5P4AhUDiJUCHSpZAXIQFnoECB0QAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.elhumanista.net%2Ftrinidad_p intor%2Fdios-te-oiga-hijo-mio-dios-te-oiga%2F&usg=AOvVaw1eJoyzragGIa8968KqTOXk)

[Blondie]

Please fellow, study how Norse expanded in Russia, and the commercial towns they founded in Britain. Norse not only had Pirates among theirs ranks, but common people that were farmers and fishermen, that milked cows and that trade goods peacefully across half the known world of the Middle Ages.

For instance, this is the statue that remember Kiev's foundation by the early "Rus", very likely the Norse elite.

http://cultkiev.com/wp-content/uploads/Kiev_founders_monument_nearby.jpg

Vikings have already tried to colonize America, there were viking settlements in present day Canada, but although they were good and fearsome warriors their number was not much to defeat amerindians. Another reason was the lack of civilization background. If you wanna colonize others you need a more advanced cultural background, thats why romans or greeks were successful and this the reason why mongols, huns, or vikings have failed.
Vikings colonized such areas like Iceland or Grönland where the population density was very low, but they didnt have a chance in America. The same has happened in the case of dutch, they were able to conquer some coastal area (New Amsterdam), but whole North America would have been too big for them. Only the biggest european nations like anglos, french, germans, italians, spanish would have chance to do it.

[Cristiano viejo]

Vikings have already tried to colonize America, there were viking settlements in present day Canada, but although they were good and fearsome warriors their number was not much to defeat amerindians.
Spaniards who conquered and domesticated Mexicans were not more than 1000.
And Spaniards who conquered the Inca empire not more than 300.


A quien quieres cagar MORO?? Españoles traficantes en UK, Netherlands and Italy

https://www.occrp.org/en/daily/16066-spain-busts-transnational-drug-trafficking-ring

Deben ser los genes inferiores moriscos
haha, por cada español delincuente te saco 10.000 chilenos.
Es vuestra sangre inferior india, proclive al crimen. No es casualidad que todos los países amerindios seáis parte del Tercer Mundo y la violencia y los delitos estén a la orden del día.

Como eres un ser inferior debido a tus genes indios ni te lees lo que posteas, pero qué idiota eres joder :smilie_auslachen:


During the operation, authorities arrested a Swedish citizen who was a central element of the group in obtaining potential clients in European countries and Turkey.

Gracias por confirmar que quienes delinquen en España son extranjeros, y que tú no eres más tonto porque ya eres chileno :lol:

[Jacques de Imbelloni]

We'll have this:
<em>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeJhY9i7FVU

instead of this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asKDE3ljDyQ

[Blondie]

Spaniards who conquered and domesticated Mexicans were not more than 1000.
And Spaniards who conquered the Inca empire not more than 300.

Yes but they had cannons, guns and gunpowder. Vikings migrated to America in 10. century when the european military technology was not so advanced like later.

[Teutone]

Norse that time were the most barbaric force in Europe with slave trades, raids and absolutely no scripture, sustainable structure or scientific advancements.

Technically Somalians

[RMuller]

Spaniards who conquered and domesticated Mexicans were not more than 1000.

The spaniards had 200,000 amerindian allies and brought


Driven from the capital, the Spanish later circled back with a small fleet of ships. Working in alliance with some 200,000 Indigenous warriors from city-states, particularly the Tlaxcala and Cempoala (groups who had resented the Aztec/Mexicas and wanted to see them vanquished),

The first known case reportedly emerged in Cempoala—one of the city-states that had allied with the Spanish—when an enslaved African came down with the disease. The virus then spread. As the Spaniards and their allies later attacked Tenochtitlán, even when they lost battles, the smallpox virus infected the Aztec. Aztec troops, members of the noble class, farmers and artisans all fell victim to the disease.

While many Spaniards had acquired an immunity to the disease, the virus was new in the Americas and few Indigenous understood it. The bodies of smallpox victims piled up in the streets of Tenochtitlán and, with the city under siege, there were few available ways to dispose of the bodies.

[Cristiano viejo]

The spaniards had 200,000 amerindian allies

Not 200.000 in any way but true, that was the key of the conquest, not weapons or technology but using others as cannon fodder.

It is called intelligence, something Indians lack.

[RMuller]

Not 200.000 in any way but true, that was the key of the conquest, not weapons or technology but using others as cannon fodder.

It is called intelligence, something Indians lack.

Spaniards have intelligence? If SPICANOLES were so smart why did the MOROS CONQUER SPICANOLA FOR 800 YEARS?

[Cristiano viejo]

Spaniards have intelligence? If SPICANOLES were so smart why did the MOROS CONQUER SPICANOLA FOR 800 YEARS?

They did not.

[B01AB20]

Vikings have already tried to colonize America, there were viking settlements in present day Canada, but although they were good and fearsome warriors their number was not much to defeat amerindians. Another reason was the lack of civilization background. If you wanna colonize others you need a more advanced cultural background, thats why romans or greeks were successful and this the reason why mongols, huns, or vikings have failed.
Vikings colonized such areas like Iceland or Grönland where the population density was very low, but they didnt have a chance in America. The same has happened in the case of dutch, they were able to conquer some coastal area (New Amsterdam), but whole North America would have been too big for them. Only the biggest european nations like anglos, french, germans, italians, spanish would have chance to do it.

Spain has never been as populated as those others, but what about Portugal?.

[Aldaris]

If Norse would ever seriously tried, it'd end up with Spaniards snickering over that.

[Blondie]

Spain has never been as populated as those others, but what about Portugal?.

Maybe some people will be triggered now, but i think Spain and Portugal should unite.

[SilverKnight]

If the Norse were to settle over here instead of my Iberian ancestors, it would been another Zoo / hellhole.
Spaniards brought civilization into the Americans, while the mongoloids from Siberia brought misery and savagery.. So did the Norse in northern Europe,

[Aldaris]

If the Norse were to settle over here instead of my Iberian ancestors, it would been another Zoo / hellhole.
Spaniards brought civilization into the Americans, while the mongoloids from Siberia brought misery and savagery.. So did the Norse in northern Europe,

Well, they had a lumber camp in there. Gotta give them that.

[Cristiano viejo]

Maybe some people will be triggered now, but i think Spain and Portugal should unite.

No, thanks. We were brothers in past, but every of us took a different way, now it is too late.

[rothaer]

No, thanks. We were brothers in past, but every of us took a different way, now it is too late.

I must say it's incredibly peaceful in history between Portugal and Spain. A big respect especially to Spain as the very likely stronger one to have kept to rules this way! Imo this is a role model for ideal neighbourhood. How did it come?

If I think about the tensions in Catalonia I think it would be no good idea to change anything in the Spanish-Portuguese relations. Unless the people would like it, ofc. Is your opinion mainstream?

[Cristiano viejo]

I must say it's incredibly peaceful in history between Portugal and Spain. A big respect especially to Spain as the very likely stronger one to have kept to rules this way! Imo this is a role model for ideal neighbourhood. How did it come?

If I think about the tensions in Catalonia I think it would be no good idea to change anything in the Spanish-Portuguese relations. Unless the people would like it, ofc. Is your opinion mainstream?

Tensions in Catalonia are always caused by the Catalan separatist politicians, most of Catalans dont support these tensions, which many times end in serious street altercations, and always caused by the same garbage cannon foder (radical lefties, communists, anarchists, etc). The main victims are the Catalans themselves.

Relations with Portugal are good, we respect them and they respect us. And this is how it should be.