why did vikangs stopped at iceland and never made an attempt to colonize north america?
if anyone got back with a message it would probably be about warrior people out to kill you and not worth the long trip
>why did vikangs stopped atwhy do ESLs stopped at before completing duolingo course?
They saw the natives and said, fuck this shit too much work.
They did, actuallyThey met the nativesExchanged greetings and traded cheeseNatives are lactose intollerantThought that they were poisonedAttacked the vikingsVikings were forced to fleeNative Americans are the most fragile of all people. You can kill them by blowing air on them. Literally
>>18051153>stopped at icelandRetard.Iceland -> Greenland -> Vinland
>>18051307Correct, and you don't hit "vine land" until around New England at last, if not further south where there are various types of wild grape vines.
>>18051153Not enough people. At most Greenland only ever had around 4,000 - 5,000 Nordics living there and Greenland was the link connecting Iceland to Vinland. You can't meaningfully colonize with those numbers or that kind of technology.
I think they did, but the Natives intimidated them. Various Norse sagas describe encounters with Native peoples.
>>18051176>Retard doesn't understand intentional misspellingsSad
>>18051329>>18052334Yeah, the problem was lack of precious resources plus colder weather than what Columbus found plus unusually warlike locals.I'm also fairly sure Vinland had very few women, so hardly any new baby Vikings were born there as opposed to coming all the way from Iceland/Greenland.Still, the idea of Vikings expanding in North America is fascinating
>>18051165>TPhonefag detected
Vikangz ever setting a foot on North America is an unproved pop culture meme
>>18053060>pop culture memefrom the 13th century?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinland_sagas
>>18051153The Vikings owned Greenland for over 400 years. They simply lacked the resources to stretch into mainland North America permanently.
>>18051176>We Wuz Vikangz und scheiss
>>18053060There are more than one site excavated at East Canada, so yes they did. It's just that there wasn't enough population at Greenland to push for more permanent settlements at Vinland.
>>18051153They arrived in Newfoundland by mistake...they were drunk so they lost control of the ship. After they recovered they went back to Scandinavia without remembering anything and that is why they never went back again to explore that area.Scandinavians are ashamed of this because the only time when they could have done something remarkable.....it was because of being drunk.
>>18051153They saw what kind of nation would come out of colonizing Americans, and with wisdom and morality they left in order to save the world.
>technological gap for freightThis largely remained unresolved until medieval cog ships emerged, but even then they were not as ideal for such voyages as the shops that emerged from Iberia originally for the age of sail. Even when cogs did exist and could carry enough freight to make such ventures profitable, it was in the thick of a mini ice age. Colonies like Iceland or just going to other parts of Europe and fighting/trading /etc just made more sense. Plus this is all occuring during a significant cultural revaluation, and technological changes opened up parts of central/northern Norway and Sweden for permanent habitation for the first time really. I've heard Phoenicians and Celts and the Chinese arriving in the new world but in truth only the latter could make it profitable. Polynesians made it to South America largely because their margins were so thin.
>>18051153
There's more evidence for a Nordic North America than an ancient Israel or Judah.
>>18053659Early swedish colonizers were neo-romantic nordic boos and wrote things in botched runes, which is the oldest the kensington stone could possibly be.furthermore, norwegians/Icelanders did not write runestones like these due to being thoroughly on the side of paper through their catholic links. It was the swedes that recorded norse myths and history on stones, and always included some form of iconography/illustration which lacks on the kensington stone. The kensington stone is not only completely wrong for the viking age, but also fails to replicate the easily visible illustrations found all over sweden - which if carved by swedish colonists proves that it AT BEST was carved by a chud sailor with miniscule knowledge. Swedes with Q are however the closest european relatives to the Q haplogroup of native americans which makes the botched attempt even more embarrassing.tldr;the average 4chan post rivals the authenticity of the kensington stone
>>18052992I’ll help you out, ESL anon. It’s not that you said>vikangsWe all understand that’s incorporating the we wuz kangs meme into the work Vikings. The reason you come off as an ESL retard is because you said>Why did … stopped at…That’s sounds awful to an English ear. It sounds like something a toddler would say. The better formulation would be>Why did the vikangs stop at…That’s naturally how any English speaker would creat that sentence, using “stop” instead of “stopped.” The fact you added three letters to the end of “stop” can only mean you barely grasp English as there’s no way that’s a typo. And, you didn’t even understand why you sound like an ESL. Hope that helps.
>>18051174>warrior people>that far north>>18051153it was too far logistically and the way the gulf stream works north America is way colder at a given latitude than yurop is and sailing at the time would have been dangerous and really slow and line of sight based so they would have had to go through the north atlantic and then down the US coast
>>18053659You're correct, but the "Kensington Rune Stone" is 100% bullshit. Don't disrespect the Ancestors in such a way.
>>18051153You are absolutely wrong though. The Vikings did attempt to colonize Vinland, and we have archeological evidence for that.They were filtered very hard by the brutal North American winter though. I am sure they had no problem enduring a generally cold climate, but the problem is that, back home, where the winter is milder because of the North Atlantic Current, all their staple cereals (barley, oats, rye; also wheat in Denmark) were generally sown in the winter and harvested in next year’s late summer. The problem is that none of these except rye could live through the harsh winter. And rye had such a pitiful yield compared to the other three that it was almost not worth growing them for food. They definitely could sow these in the spring instead, however, as most Americans here are aware, spring has a bipolar nature in the East Coast and snow and frost could still tarry on as late as May in Newfoundland and pelt the newly sprouted crops that were deceived by the fleeting warmth of Newfoundland spring. Perhaps all of the first sowings by the Vikings were absolute failures, which were mirrored by the same bitter failures the Pilgrims in New England faced; like the Vikings, only rye succeeded in surviving the American winter. The latter was more fortunate because the Native Americans taught them how to grow maize, which sustained them while they were developing hardier breeds of European cereals. The Vikings probably never encountered maize. It may not have yet reached that part of America during their time.The Vikings would have had a fighting chance of persisting in America if the king of Norway actively supported the colonization process. Or if they had sailed more southerly towards at the very least North Carolina where the summer would be perfect for the European wheat.
>>18055243Wouldn't they also have to overcome the fact they didn't have the tech gap that the later colonists did? I guess the new world diseases might've also got the natives in this alternate timeline.Also the Native American were pretty good fighters as well, so the Vikings may as well have lost on that front without the tech gap of the later colonists I mentioned.
>>18051183that isn't a colonization attempt
