3 ms·
That’s splitting hairs, a few monks living in seclusion (not having children) doesn’t really count as habitation per se.
by 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 agoOne 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 agoI'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 agoOr 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 agoIt'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 agoMaybe 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