5 ms·

One interesting thing I’ve learned about the Viking settlers is that they didn’t come to Iceland and Greenland as conquerors, like Columbus did- in fact when th

One interesting thing I’ve learned about the Viking settlers is that they didn’t come to Iceland and Greenland as conquerors, like Columbus did- in fact when they arrived in both places, they were the first inhabitants. Iceland is one of the few places anywhere in the world that never went through waves of immigration or displacement or ethnic cleansing or what have you. The Greenland settlement was abandoned, but that was for economic reasons- the market for ivory was flooded by cheap elephant ivory, so the trade in walrus ivory became worthless. But there was no starvation or donner party scenario- they just packed everything onto ships, locked the doors and moved back to Denmark. Pretty peaceful overall for people who have a reputation for being barbarians.

Mediterraneo10 6y ago
Iceland was probably not uninhabited when the Vikings got there.[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papar
- fallingfrog 6y ago
  That’s splitting hairs, a few monks living in seclusion (not having children) doesn’t really count as habitation per se.
  - Mediterraneo10 6y ago
    One tradition says that they felt compelled to leave. That still means that Norse settlement was not as peaceful and rosy as you made it out to be.
    - fallingfrog 6y ago
      I'm just pointing out that most of the inhabited places in the world have extremely bloody histories; England went through waves of conquest by Gauls, Brits, Romans, Norse, Normans, etc, etc. Other places are similar. Any given city in Asia or Europe has probably been sacked and its inhabitants slaughtered at some point or another. Whereas Iceland has not gone through the same thing, and today, it is remarkable peaceful- the violent crime rate is super low. I just wonder if there is a connection there- perhaps having a region be conquered and subjugated leaves generational scars that never heal.
    - liability 6y ago
      Or maybe they were just incredibly antisocial and felt compelled to leave by their desire to not live near other people. Such a seclusionist mindset might explain why they were there in the first place...
      - Mediterraneo10 6y ago
        It's the same thing. If we’re going to laud Iceland for being the settlement of a terra nullius, then clearly those Irish monks had claim to it, and the subsequent settlement of the Norse without their invitation represented encroachment on someone else’s land.
        liability 6y ago
        Maybe it was 'trespassing' I suppose. I don't know much about this subject but from what's been described in this thread, assuming there must have been violence seems like a leap.
        raverbashing 6y ago
        "Had claim" that's naive Trying to apply legal concepts to unclaimed barren islands not subject to any legal system does not work. "Bigger army diplomacy" is the rule, not the exception. Weapons usually beat legal documents and concepts
fallingfrog 6y ago
Really? Downvotes? I don’t get it. What did I say?
- will4274 6y ago
  No evidence cited, far fetched claims, and a political bent. Quite simply, that isn't how it (history) works. Mass immigration of different cultures always comes with at least a little violence and everybody doesn't pack up and leave ever - there are always some who stay. And then you go into a "Western imperialism violent / all other cultures peaceful" thing which is just sily. Without reading anything, I'm tempted to say your underlying political beliefs are slanting your claims. Let's see what the internet says... BBC quotes an expert (https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26431858 https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26431858): > The correction to "cuddly" Vikings had gone too far, says Prof Simon Keynes, an Anglo-Saxon historian at Cambridge University. "There's no question how nasty, unpleasant and brutish they were. They did all that the Vikings were reputed to have done." > They stole anything they could. Churches were repositories of treasure to loot. They took cattle, money and food. It's likely they carried off women, too, he says. "They'd burn down settlements and leave a trail of destruction." It was unprovoked aggression. And unlike most armies, they came by sea, their narrow-bottomed longships allowing them to travel up rivers and take settlements by surprise. It was maritime blitzkrieg at first. > Worse was the repeat nature of the raids. The Vikings, like burglars returning over and over again to the same houses, refused to leave places alone. Simon Keynes appears to be a reliable source, an expert at a prestigious university free if scandal. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Keynes https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Keynes But let's find another. https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/sorry-the-vikings-really-were-that-bad https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/sorry-the-vikings-really... quotes David Dumville (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Dumville https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Dumville) and Stefan Brink (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Brink https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Brink)... Seems like two more reliable sources to me. So, basically, you were downvoted for being wrong. People downvoted without replying because it was obvious that you were wrong, but they couldn't work up the effort to provide you with references (as I've done here). Also, you're not supposed to complain about votes.
  - 6y ago
bregma 6y ago
There is plenty of archaeological evidence of Dorset culture settlement in Greenland long before the Vikings arrived there. There are a lot of reasons for the abandonment of the Greenland colonies, including a changing climate hostile to subsistence farming and domestic squabbles back in Denmark leading to a lack of supply ships (the colonies were not fully self-sustaining). Actual records of the end of the Greenland colonies have not been found and probably won't be because those supply ships that did not get sent out also never returned. The European settlers were later replaced by Inuit migrants, who eked out a maritime existence instead of a pastoral one.

Mediterraneo10 6y ago

Iceland was probably not uninhabited when the Vikings got there.[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papar

fallingfrog 6y ago
That’s splitting hairs, a few monks living in seclusion (not having children) doesn’t really count as habitation per se.
- Mediterraneo10 6y ago
  One tradition says that they felt compelled to leave. That still means that Norse settlement was not as peaceful and rosy as you made it out to be.
  - fallingfrog 6y ago
    I'm just pointing out that most of the inhabited places in the world have extremely bloody histories; England went through waves of conquest by Gauls, Brits, Romans, Norse, Normans, etc, etc. Other places are similar. Any given city in Asia or Europe has probably been sacked and its inhabitants slaughtered at some point or another. Whereas Iceland has not gone through the same thing, and today, it is remarkable peaceful- the violent crime rate is super low. I just wonder if there is a connection there- perhaps having a region be conquered and subjugated leaves generational scars that never heal.
  - liability 6y ago
    Or maybe they were just incredibly antisocial and felt compelled to leave by their desire to not live near other people. Such a seclusionist mindset might explain why they were there in the first place...
    - Mediterraneo10 6y ago
      It's the same thing. If we’re going to laud Iceland for being the settlement of a terra nullius, then clearly those Irish monks had claim to it, and the subsequent settlement of the Norse without their invitation represented encroachment on someone else’s land.
      - liability 6y ago
        Maybe it was 'trespassing' I suppose. I don't know much about this subject but from what's been described in this thread, assuming there must have been violence seems like a leap.
      - raverbashing 6y ago
        "Had claim" that's naive Trying to apply legal concepts to unclaimed barren islands not subject to any legal system does not work. "Bigger army diplomacy" is the rule, not the exception. Weapons usually beat legal documents and concepts

fallingfrog 6y ago

Really? Downvotes? I don’t get it. What did I say?

will4274 6y ago
No evidence cited, far fetched claims, and a political bent. Quite simply, that isn't how it (history) works. Mass immigration of different cultures always comes with at least a little violence and everybody doesn't pack up and leave ever - there are always some who stay. And then you go into a "Western imperialism violent / all other cultures peaceful" thing which is just sily. Without reading anything, I'm tempted to say your underlying political beliefs are slanting your claims. Let's see what the internet says... BBC quotes an expert (https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26431858 https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26431858): > The correction to "cuddly" Vikings had gone too far, says Prof Simon Keynes, an Anglo-Saxon historian at Cambridge University. "There's no question how nasty, unpleasant and brutish they were. They did all that the Vikings were reputed to have done." > They stole anything they could. Churches were repositories of treasure to loot. They took cattle, money and food. It's likely they carried off women, too, he says. "They'd burn down settlements and leave a trail of destruction." It was unprovoked aggression. And unlike most armies, they came by sea, their narrow-bottomed longships allowing them to travel up rivers and take settlements by surprise. It was maritime blitzkrieg at first. > Worse was the repeat nature of the raids. The Vikings, like burglars returning over and over again to the same houses, refused to leave places alone. Simon Keynes appears to be a reliable source, an expert at a prestigious university free if scandal. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Keynes https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Keynes But let's find another. https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/sorry-the-vikings-really-were-that-bad https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/sorry-the-vikings-really... quotes David Dumville (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Dumville https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Dumville) and Stefan Brink (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Brink https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Brink)... Seems like two more reliable sources to me. So, basically, you were downvoted for being wrong. People downvoted without replying because it was obvious that you were wrong, but they couldn't work up the effort to provide you with references (as I've done here). Also, you're not supposed to complain about votes.
- 6y ago

bregma 6y ago

There is plenty of archaeological evidence of Dorset culture settlement in Greenland long before the Vikings arrived there. There are a lot of reasons for the abandonment of the Greenland colonies, including a changing climate hostile to subsistence farming and domestic squabbles back in Denmark leading to a lack of supply ships (the colonies were not fully self-sustaining). Actual records of the end of the Greenland colonies have not been found and probably won't be because those supply ships that did not get sent out also never returned. The European settlers were later replaced by Inuit migrants, who eked out a maritime existence instead of a pastoral one.