Which do you think was the first European to step on America?

[Cristiano viejo]

Curious the Vikings were defeated by the Native Americans.
But they beat the Saxons of England during the same period.

Vikings are overrated. Anyway I speculate Vikings in North America were very few and with a terrible conditions to settle/live/fight against natives.

[PaleoEuropean]

Man, I know all that. Algonquines expelled Vikings after 10 years

Yea but they are probably 50 men, who had no supplies and had to live off the land, fight indians without gunpowder. 1 year would be a feat. You live in the old world so you can't appreciate how rough life in the rest of the world actually is. I would challenge you to go last 30 days in the American wilderness with a bunch of pissed off savages.

[PaleoEuropean]

According many scholars that map is false and made in the century XX.

Carbon dated in 2002 to the 1400's
https://uanews.arizona.edu/story/vin...bon-tests-show

[Daco Celtic]

The Minnesota Vikings

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kensington_Runestone

[Cristiano viejo]

Yea but they are probably 50 men, who had no supplies and had to live off the land, fight indians without gunpowder. 1 year would be a feat. You live in the old world so you can't appreciate how rough life in the rest of the world actually is. I would challenge you to go last 30 days in the American wilderness with a bunch of pissed off savages.

In my post above I talk about that. Few Vikings, terrible conditions etc. One thing is raizing this or that, and other is settling to live "peacefully" and that natives attack you 24/7

In any case this is worth to compare with the Spanish conquest of America when haters say Spaniards fought against primitive people. They were primitive, yes, but they fought 1000 vs 1, in their homeland, under their conditions, under scenaries never seen by Spaniards (jungles, deserts, tropical rains, etc etc.).

[Cristiano viejo]

Dated to 50 years before CC.

Imagine that map is authentic. When I say Vikings were not able to put America in a map, first, it is true: there are not Viking maps where America is draw (that is not a Viking map). Second, I meant they were not able to show America to the rest of world. They could have done, via oral, via manuscripts, letters, etc etc, but they did not.

[PaleoEuropean]

In my post above I talk about that. Few Vikings, terrible conditions etc. One thing is raizing this or that, and other is settling to live "peacefully" and that natives attack you 24/7

In any case this is worth to compare with the Spanish conquest of America when haters say Spaniards fought against primitive people. They were primitive, yes, but they fought 1000 vs 1, in their homeland, under their conditions, under scenaries never seen by Spaniards (jungles, deserts, tropical rains, etc etc.).

Of course the Spanish didn't have it easy, but they are apples and oranges, one was essentially an expeditionary force and the other was an organized military campaign. The Spanish had similar results as the Vikings before they fully invested their military. The Spanish had to fight in a tropical climate as you said, which is far worse when it comes to diseases etc. I am not saying the Spanish are weak, but gunpowder does make a lot of difference especially to more archaic people who didn't even have wide spread metallurgy yet.

[Cristiano viejo]

Of course the Spanish didn't have it easy, but they are apples and oranges, one was essentially an expeditionary force and the other was an organized military campaign. The Spanish had similar results as the Vikings before they fully invested their military. The Spanish had to fight in a tropical climate as you said, which is far worse when it comes to diseases etc. I am not saying the Spanish are weak, but gunpowder does make a lot of difference especially to more archaic people who didn't even have wide spread metallurgy yet.

You are very wrong thinking Spaniards were an organized army. They were not not even an army. They were adventurers, nothing else, not even true soldiers in many cases.

No idea about the Vikings in North America, I guess it was similar case.

[Ruggery]

Vikings are overrated. Anyway I speculate Vikings in North America were very few and with a terrible conditions to settle/live/fight against natives.

the Vikings were only groups of 300 people, they were worse armed than the Spanish in pre-Hispanic Mexico, and the Vikings also have no allies with other indigenous peoples as if the Spanish tubed it against the Aztec empire.
Also keep in mind that traveling from Scandinavia to North America was much more difficult than Columbus's trip.

[PaleoEuropean]

Imagine that map is authentic. When I say Vikings were not able to put America in a map, first, it is true: there are not Viking maps where America is draw (that is not a Viking map). Second, I meant they were not able to show America to the rest of world. They could have done, via oral, via manuscripts, letters, etc etc, but they did not.

Erik the Red was a private entity though, he was under banishment, he was not acting under any banner but his own with men he had to pay himself or just were other outcasts who wanted glory. There is no such thing as a surviving Viking map, the Vikings guarded their maps and knowledge, that's what makes the Vinland map even more of a mystery.