[ARCHIVED THREAD] - natives vs viking (Page 1 of 3)
Posted: 11/7/2013 8:10:26 PM EDT
| Could the vikings have successfully colonized and then pacified all the north american tribes. |
|
lol |
|
Quoted:
The vikings did make it to north america. Their settlement failed. Their settlement failed primarily because of infighting and feuding between the two main families, NOT because of the minor trouble they had with natives. Many colonies in the new world failed, and the reasons were typically economic in nature. |
| The North American natives had very little in terms of wealth for the Vikings to plunder. After all, that's what they were doing on their raids, steeling gold, silver, jewels, and beautiful women, If you can imagine the first ones returning home from Nova Scotia with basically what? Fish? Would have been a tad hard for them to get more ships and crews on that. Sort of common sense thinking, but I could be 100% wrong. |
|
Quoted:
Their settlement failed primarily because of infighting and feuding between the two main families, NOT because of the minor trouble they had with natives. Many colonies in the new world failed, and the reasons were typically economic in nature. Quoted:
Quoted:
The vikings did make it to north america. Their settlement failed. Their settlement failed primarily because of infighting and feuding between the two main families, NOT because of the minor trouble they had with natives. Many colonies in the new world failed, and the reasons were typically economic in nature. Dane propaganda. Everyone knows the indians sent those whiteboys packing. |
|
Quoted:
The North American natives had very little in terms of wealth for the Vikings to plunder. After all, that's what they were doing on their raids, steeling gold, silver, jewels, and beautiful women, If you can imagine the first ones returning home from Nova Scotia with basically what? Fish? Would have been a tad hard for them to get more ships and crews on that. Sort of common sense thinking, but I could be 100% wrong. Fur was valuable, prior to the modern age. I still don't think it was worth the trip. I agree with you. Monasteries had more plunder with less effort. |
|
If the Vikings had firearms, they might have done it. But as it was, their technology wasn't that superior to that of the Native Americans. The natives had familiar knowledge of the territory (fighting on their home turf) while the Vikings had to travel long distances. Also, the Vikings didn't have the requisite numbers at the point of conflict.
Also, look at motivation. The Vikings were plunderers and raiders. The natives didn't have anything worth plundering. (That aspect might have been a different story if the Vikings had discovered Mesoamerica with its gold -- but they were trapped by geography.) |
|
No. Even assuming the Vikings were way more Tier 1 warriors or whatever, they had a huge disadvantage of numbers. Plus the problems and danger related to sailing across the ocean just to get to the shore. It would be like the USA trying to conquer Afghanistan, if Afghanistan was some shithole on the far side of the moon.
The later Europeans who did conquer North America were much more technologically advanced and it wasn't a cakewalk for them. And a huge part of that was due to the unimaginable numbers of Natives wiped out by disease before the Europeans ever made it to their villages. |
| Had smallpoxs come to be yet? I think that's the biggest factor that killed more native americans then guns. If I remember my history classes a sick priest was left behind on a early exploration mission and wiped out a whole tribe in the process leaving behind the mounds down south that people like the pretend no one knows what made them and it must of been aliens. If the vikings sent a large force and the natives in the immediate area all dropped dead they would win by default. |
|
Quoted:
Metal Armor + Metal Spears/Swords/Iron Arrows vs Flint arrows/wooden spears/crappy bows? Vikings would crush them in open areas---chase the Indians into the woods? Who knows? North America is a huge, huge place, supply lines would decide the battle. And I do believe that the Native Americans would be better able to supply themselves than the Vikings. |
|
Quoted:
Had smallpoxs come to be yet? I think that's the biggest factor that killed more native americans then guns. If I remember my history classes a sick priest was left behind on a early exploration mission and wiped out a whole tribe in the process leaving behind the mounds down south that people like the pretend no one knows what made them and it must of been aliens. If the vikings sent a large force and the natives in the immediate area all dropped dead they would win by default. Heck, any European based virus would have decimated the native populations. Their immune systems just couldn't handle it. If the Vikings stayed long enough, it would have happened earlier. Of course, knowing how the Vikings settle, Europeans in the 17th century would have found a lot of Nordic/Indian tribes up and down the east coast. THAT would have changed a lot. |
|
Quoted:
North America is a huge, huge place, supply lines would decide the battle. And I do believe that the Native Americans would be better able to supply themselves than the Vikings. Quoted:
Quoted:
Metal Armor + Metal Spears/Swords/Iron Arrows vs Flint arrows/wooden spears/crappy bows? Vikings would crush them in open areas---chase the Indians into the woods? Who knows? North America is a huge, huge place, supply lines would decide the battle. And I do believe that the Native Americans would be better able to supply themselves than the Vikings. Supply lines aren't how Northmen rolled. They wouldn't invade the tribal lands... What benefit would there be? They have little of blood worth. They're more likely to trade with the locals than anything. If they had set up permanent coastal settlements, they would have been locally supplied. Battles with neighbors would be local and favor the Northmen, man for man. Northmen were also fairly good at playing politics. The Injuns were anything but a united empire. A few cheap short blades traded to Chief Easytobribe and you could probably have a good bit of favor with your neighbors. A united resistance among the natives never happened in the history of North America. That's why they eventually always lost every major conflict. |
|
Quoted:
A thousand times, no. Judas Priest, the United effing States didn't even conquer the American Indians until the 1890's. But at what point did they ever "win" a major war and force back European colonists? Pretty much never. Even when backed by an opposing European power against European colonists, they were always screwed in the end. Maybe you can give them Roanoke or the first Spanish colony (what the fuck was that thing called?), but I attribute that to poor colonization, not native resistance. |
|
Quoted: But at what point did they ever "win" a major war and force back European colonists? Pretty much never. Even when backed by an opposing European power against European colonists, they were always screwed in the end. Maybe you can give them Roanoke or the first Spanish colony (what the fuck was that thing called?), but I attribute that to poor colonization, not native resistance. Quoted: Quoted: A thousand times, no. Judas Priest, the United effing States didn't even conquer the American Indians until the 1890's. But at what point did they ever "win" a major war and force back European colonists? Pretty much never. Even when backed by an opposing European power against European colonists, they were always screwed in the end. Maybe you can give them Roanoke or the first Spanish colony (what the fuck was that thing called?), but I attribute that to poor colonization, not native resistance. And they would no longer be Vikings, just as the US circa the 1890's was no longer the original Colonies. It took over 200 years for the "white man" to "beat" the American Indians.
|
|
Technology and tactics is a huge advantage, the problem is numbers. 50-1 advantage on any working/foraging party leaving the colony is not good odds, as noticed by our own western expansion into the Ohio valley, and starvation is a bitch. Literally, ya can't load those Viking boats with enough bodies to even begin trying, and the various tribes on the northeast coast were every bit the match for the Vikings in a full blown melee. Lennape war clubs, tend to crush skulls and break arms and legs wrapped in armor or not, and sepsis was the biggest killer. |
|
Quoted:
And they would no longer be Vikings, just as the US circa the 1890's was no longer the original Colonies. It took over 200 years for the "white man" to "beat" the American Indians. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
A thousand times, no. Judas Priest, the United effing States didn't even conquer the American Indians until the 1890's. But at what point did they ever "win" a major war and force back European colonists? Pretty much never. Even when backed by an opposing European power against European colonists, they were always screwed in the end. Maybe you can give them Roanoke or the first Spanish colony (what the fuck was that thing called?), but I attribute that to poor colonization, not native resistance. And they would no longer be Vikings, just as the US circa the 1890's was no longer the original Colonies. It took over 200 years for the "white man" to "beat" the American Indians. Not so much. The Northmen who took over northern France and later England probably wouldn't care much that they were no longer "Vikings". Being a Viking wasn't the goal anyway. What mattered is that they took over and became rich, land ruling motherfuckers. Using the notion that they couldn't invade and conquer North America in one massive Panzerblitzkrieg as some proof of failure or inferiority is silly. And using the fact that Americans didn't vanquish the last of the natives (has this ever really happened? Debatable) until the "1890s" is also silly. At what point in our history did we say "Know what? Forget competing with the French, fighting off the British, kicking out the Spanish, keeping these Mexicans in check or killing the fuck out of each other over slavery and other stupid shit... It's these native fuckers we need to focus all our attention on."? Never in our history was wiping out, displacing or subjugating all the native tribes our primary goal as a nation. We expanded. They resisted. We got violent enough to displace them. Repeat, over and over and over again. Sure, there were some more interesting and larger scale events. Trail of tears comes to mind. But at no point was the entire focus of our nation wiping out/displacing the natives as a whole. In our history, we have spent far more effort fighting and killing each other than the natives. The natives, if anything, were a nuisance, to be dealt with as required. Only the very earliest Colonial footholds were actually threatened by natives on a "national fight for survival" level. And, frankly, it was our trading, culture and diseases that destroyed the natives, far more than violence. These same things would favor any permanent coastal settlements the Northmen were to establish. |
|
Quoted:
Technology and tactics is a huge advantage, the problem is numbers. 50-1 advantage on any working/foraging party leaving the colony is not good odds, as noticed by our own western expansion into the Ohio valley, and starvation is a bitch. Literally, ya can't load those Viking boats with enough bodies to even begin trying, and the various tribes on the northeast coast were every bit the match for the Vikings in a full blown melee. Lennape war clubs, tend to crush skulls and break arms and legs wrapped in armor or not, and sepsis was the biggest killer. I'll take the side with iron weapons, iron armor, iron banded shields, iron tipped spears, iron axes, and a firm grasp of cleaning wounds with boiled water and using boiled bandages for wound dressings. That would be the Northmen. Of course, the actual Icelanders who ended up in North America were among the more herp-derp of Northmen, so you've got that going for the natives. All the smart Northmen were too busy raiding known sources of wealth, not trying desperately to get lost in the ice searching for timber. 
|
|
Quoted:
Not so much. The Northmen who took over northern France and later England probably wouldn't care much that they were no longer "Vikings". Being a Viking wasn't the goal anyway. What mattered is that they took over and became rich, land ruling motherfuckers. Using the notion that they couldn't invade and conquer North America in one massive Panzerblitzkrieg as some proof of failure or inferiority is silly. And using the fact that Americans didn't vanquish the last of the natives (has this ever really happened? Debatable) until the "1890s" is also silly. At what point in our history did we say "Know what? Forget competing with the French, fighting off the British, kicking out the Spanish, keeping these Mexicans in check or killing the fuck out of each other over slavery and other stupid shit... It's these native fuckers we need to focus all our attention on."? Never in our history was wiping out, displacing or subjugating all the native tribes our primary goal as a nation. We expanded. They resisted. We got violent enough to displace them. Repeat, over and over and over again. Sure, there were some more interesting and larger scale events. Trail of tears comes to mind. But at no point was the entire focus of our nation wiping out/displacing the natives as a whole. In our history, we have spent far more effort fighting and killing each other than the natives. The natives, if anything, were a nuisance, to be dealt with as required. Only the very earliest Colonial footholds were actually threatened by natives on a "national fight for survival" level. And, frankly, it was our trading, culture and diseases that destroyed the natives, far more than violence. These same things would favor any permanent coastal settlements the Northmen were to establish. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
A thousand times, no. Judas Priest, the United effing States didn't even conquer the American Indians until the 1890's. But at what point did they ever "win" a major war and force back European colonists? Pretty much never. Even when backed by an opposing European power against European colonists, they were always screwed in the end. Maybe you can give them Roanoke or the first Spanish colony (what the fuck was that thing called?), but I attribute that to poor colonization, not native resistance. And they would no longer be Vikings, just as the US circa the 1890's was no longer the original Colonies. It took over 200 years for the "white man" to "beat" the American Indians. Not so much. The Northmen who took over northern France and later England probably wouldn't care much that they were no longer "Vikings". Being a Viking wasn't the goal anyway. What mattered is that they took over and became rich, land ruling motherfuckers. Using the notion that they couldn't invade and conquer North America in one massive Panzerblitzkrieg as some proof of failure or inferiority is silly. And using the fact that Americans didn't vanquish the last of the natives (has this ever really happened? Debatable) until the "1890s" is also silly. At what point in our history did we say "Know what? Forget competing with the French, fighting off the British, kicking out the Spanish, keeping these Mexicans in check or killing the fuck out of each other over slavery and other stupid shit... It's these native fuckers we need to focus all our attention on."? Never in our history was wiping out, displacing or subjugating all the native tribes our primary goal as a nation. We expanded. They resisted. We got violent enough to displace them. Repeat, over and over and over again. Sure, there were some more interesting and larger scale events. Trail of tears comes to mind. But at no point was the entire focus of our nation wiping out/displacing the natives as a whole. In our history, we have spent far more effort fighting and killing each other than the natives. The natives, if anything, were a nuisance, to be dealt with as required. Only the very earliest Colonial footholds were actually threatened by natives on a "national fight for survival" level. And, frankly, it was our trading, culture and diseases that destroyed the natives, far more than violence. These same things would favor any permanent coastal settlements the Northmen were to establish. Learn more history. They focused all kinds of force and waged many wars against the natives. |
|
Quoted:
Learn more history. They focused all kinds of force and waged many wars against the natives. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
A thousand times, no. Judas Priest, the United effing States didn't even conquer the American Indians until the 1890's. But at what point did they ever "win" a major war and force back European colonists? Pretty much never. Even when backed by an opposing European power against European colonists, they were always screwed in the end. Maybe you can give them Roanoke or the first Spanish colony (what the fuck was that thing called?), but I attribute that to poor colonization, not native resistance. And they would no longer be Vikings, just as the US circa the 1890's was no longer the original Colonies. It took over 200 years for the "white man" to "beat" the American Indians. Not so much. The Northmen who took over northern France and later England probably wouldn't care much that they were no longer "Vikings". Being a Viking wasn't the goal anyway. What mattered is that they took over and became rich, land ruling motherfuckers. Using the notion that they couldn't invade and conquer North America in one massive Panzerblitzkrieg as some proof of failure or inferiority is silly. And using the fact that Americans didn't vanquish the last of the natives (has this ever really happened? Debatable) until the "1890s" is also silly. At what point in our history did we say "Know what? Forget competing with the French, fighting off the British, kicking out the Spanish, keeping these Mexicans in check or killing the fuck out of each other over slavery and other stupid shit... It's these native fuckers we need to focus all our attention on."? Never in our history was wiping out, displacing or subjugating all the native tribes our primary goal as a nation. We expanded. They resisted. We got violent enough to displace them. Repeat, over and over and over again. Sure, there were some more interesting and larger scale events. Trail of tears comes to mind. But at no point was the entire focus of our nation wiping out/displacing the natives as a whole. In our history, we have spent far more effort fighting and killing each other than the natives. The natives, if anything, were a nuisance, to be dealt with as required. Only the very earliest Colonial footholds were actually threatened by natives on a "national fight for survival" level. And, frankly, it was our trading, culture and diseases that destroyed the natives, far more than violence. These same things would favor any permanent coastal settlements the Northmen were to establish. Learn more history. They focused all kinds of force and waged many wars against the natives. But his point is that such efforts were never directed at ALL natives, they were directed only at a subset that was being problematic at a specific time. |
|
Is that from pathfinder |
|
Quoted:
lol That movie was horrible. |
|
Quoted:
Anyone born in America is a "Native American". I think the term you're looking for is American Indian. Quoted:
Quoted:
native Americans Anyone born in America is a "Native American". I think the term you're looking for is American Indian. +1 The climate was warmer in 1,000AD that it is now. The Indian population was much larger and the iron weapons of the Vikings at the time was not all that great. That is why they tended to axes instead of swords. A club with a 3 pound rock on the end of it is a pretty devastating weapon. The Vikings that came to North America were more settlers than raiders. Their numbers were never great enough to build a permanent colony. Their total population was pretty small in Europe too. The had the added disadvantage of not trying to settle a continent that had already been decimated by introduced diseases. By the time the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth as much as 90% of the local Indian population in the region had already been killed off by diseases contracted from Europeans. The whole European settlement of the Americas was made much easier because they were moving into areas where the population, political structures and way of life had already been thrown into disarray. Wherever settlement was attempted in areas not decimated by disease, the settlement almost always failed. |
| Actually the Norse had armor and weapons that were pretty superior to others of the similar time period. The Norse were masters of metal and their craftsmanship is still revered to this day, even over the Katana, contrary to popular belief which was made popular by movies and anime. |
|
Quoted:
But his point is that such efforts were never directed at ALL natives, they were directed only at a subset that was being problematic at a specific time. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:]
Not so much. The Northmen who took over northern France and later England probably wouldn't care much that they were no longer "Vikings". Being a Viking wasn't the goal anyway. What mattered is that they took over and became rich, land ruling motherfuckers. Using the notion that they couldn't invade and conquer North America in one massive Panzerblitzkrieg as some proof of failure or inferiority is silly. And using the fact that Americans didn't vanquish the last of the natives (has this ever really happened? Debatable) until the "1890s" is also silly. At what point in our history did we say "Know what? Forget competing with the French, fighting off the British, kicking out the Spanish, keeping these Mexicans in check or killing the fuck out of each other over slavery and other stupid shit... It's these native fuckers we need to focus all our attention on."? Never in our history was wiping out, displacing or subjugating all the native tribes our primary goal as a nation. We expanded. They resisted. We got violent enough to displace them. Repeat, over and over and over again. Sure, there were some more interesting and larger scale events. Trail of tears comes to mind. But at no point was the entire focus of our nation wiping out/displacing the natives as a whole. In our history, we have spent far more effort fighting and killing each other than the natives. The natives, if anything, were a nuisance, to be dealt with as required. Only the very earliest Colonial footholds were actually threatened by natives on a "national fight for survival" level. And, frankly, it was our trading, culture and diseases that destroyed the natives, far more than violence. These same things would favor any permanent coastal settlements the Northmen were to establish. Learn more history. They focused all kinds of force and waged many wars against the natives. But his point is that such efforts were never directed at ALL natives, they were directed only at a subset that was being problematic at a specific time. Exactly. |
|
Quoted:
The climate was warmer in 1,000AD that it is now. The Indian population was much larger and the iron weapons of the Vikings at the time was not all that great. That is why they tended to axes instead of swords. Quoted:
The climate was warmer in 1,000AD that it is now. The Indian population was much larger and the iron weapons of the Vikings at the time was not all that great. That is why they tended to axes instead of swords. This is hysterically wrong. Actual Vikings carried some of the best swords ever made by man into battle, made by Franks from the best steel on Earth sourced from India. The more successful lords of war wore fine armor. Well crafted spears were popular for their added standoff range. Iron banded shields of the highest quality were common too. The axe was a popular weapon, but sword and spear were typical weapons of Danes and other Northmen. The axe was popular because of its versatility and non-combat uses. A club with a 3 pound rock on the end of it is a pretty devastating weapon. There's a reason the ancestors of the Northmen in question stopped fighting with hammers. They sucked. |
|
Quoted:
It wasnt a permenent settlement, more of a boat repair yard then anything else, the vikimgs never made any serious attempts at colonies like jamestown. Quoted:
Quoted:
The vikings did make it to north america. Their settlement failed. It wasnt a permenent settlement, more of a boat repair yard then anything else, the vikimgs never made any serious attempts at colonies like jamestown. The Vikings were the nautical equivalent of Little Bunny Foo Foo. Sailin' down the shoreline. Scoopin' up the villagers, and boppin' em on the head. They weren't exactly into settling down to raise rug rats and taters. More of a wolf pack than a hill of ants. |