Mixing
![How to handle micromanaging coworker [closed]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgjbpfN9tAutmK93bJRC3ZoROZzi2TJDms5n8_qJuhgE0a9b52OOHayv3NGT8igAdFL7byXNst-_1DZK5SjrIJ28_6RQPUpBROqMs5s6jo-ZsjX8kjDwfxJufIitH3TaQRXWaGSQKRQib-f/s72-c/1.jpg)
Why didn't the Norsemen colonize North America?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
Why is there evidence of (pre-Columbus) Norse presence in North America, but no record of any attempt of permanent settlement?
vikings
asked 6 hours ago
Samid
16114
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
Why is there evidence of (pre-Columbus) Norse presence in North America, but no record of any attempt of permanent settlement?
vikings
asked 6 hours ago
Samid
16114
1
Why do you expect exploration will result in permanent settlement?
– Samuel Russell
6 hours ago
1
Because they settled Greenland enroute and claimed it for centuries after.
– Samid
6 hours ago
2
That answers my question how?
– Samid
6 hours ago
2
@Samid I think the point is that there is no compelling reason to believe that they would've wanted to settle everywhere they explored; i.e. you can't assume Greenland was the rule rather than the exception. Moreover, Greenland ultimately ended up a failure despite being closer to Norse civilisation than North America.
– Semaphore♦
6 hours ago
1
I've seen historians address this exact question, so it seems a good question to me. And they in fact did try.
– T.E.D.♦
3 hours ago
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
Why is there evidence of (pre-Columbus) Norse presence in North America, but no record of any attempt of permanent settlement?
vikings
asked 6 hours ago
Samid
16114
Why is there evidence of (pre-Columbus) Norse presence in North America, but no record of any attempt of permanent settlement?
vikings
vikings
asked 6 hours ago
Samid
16114
asked 6 hours ago
Samid
16114
asked 6 hours ago
Samid
16114
asked 6 hours ago
Samid
16114
asked 6 hours ago
Samid
16114
16114
1
Why do you expect exploration will result in permanent settlement?
– Samuel Russell
6 hours ago
1
Because they settled Greenland enroute and claimed it for centuries after.
– Samid
6 hours ago
2
That answers my question how?
– Samid
6 hours ago
2
@Samid I think the point is that there is no compelling reason to believe that they would've wanted to settle everywhere they explored; i.e. you can't assume Greenland was the rule rather than the exception. Moreover, Greenland ultimately ended up a failure despite being closer to Norse civilisation than North America.
– Semaphore♦
6 hours ago
1
I've seen historians address this exact question, so it seems a good question to me. And they in fact did try.
– T.E.D.♦
3 hours ago
 |Â
show 3 more comments
1
Why do you expect exploration will result in permanent settlement?
– Samuel Russell
6 hours ago
1
Because they settled Greenland enroute and claimed it for centuries after.
– Samid
6 hours ago
2
That answers my question how?
– Samid
6 hours ago
2
@Samid I think the point is that there is no compelling reason to believe that they would've wanted to settle everywhere they explored; i.e. you can't assume Greenland was the rule rather than the exception. Moreover, Greenland ultimately ended up a failure despite being closer to Norse civilisation than North America.
– Semaphore♦
6 hours ago
1
I've seen historians address this exact question, so it seems a good question to me. And they in fact did try.
– T.E.D.♦
3 hours ago
1
1
Why do you expect exploration will result in permanent settlement?
– Samuel Russell
6 hours ago
Why do you expect exploration will result in permanent settlement?
– Samuel Russell
6 hours ago
1
1
Because they settled Greenland enroute and claimed it for centuries after.
– Samid
6 hours ago
Because they settled Greenland enroute and claimed it for centuries after.
– Samid
6 hours ago
2
2
That answers my question how?
– Samid
6 hours ago
That answers my question how?
– Samid
6 hours ago
2
2
@Samid I think the point is that there is no compelling reason to believe that they would've wanted to settle everywhere they explored; i.e. you can't assume Greenland was the rule rather than the exception. Moreover, Greenland ultimately ended up a failure despite being closer to Norse civilisation than North America.
– Semaphore♦
6 hours ago
@Samid I think the point is that there is no compelling reason to believe that they would've wanted to settle everywhere they explored; i.e. you can't assume Greenland was the rule rather than the exception. Moreover, Greenland ultimately ended up a failure despite being closer to Norse civilisation than North America.
– Semaphore♦
6 hours ago
1
1
I've seen historians address this exact question, so it seems a good question to me. And they in fact did try.
– T.E.D.♦
3 hours ago
I've seen historians address this exact question, so it seems a good question to me. And they in fact did try.
– T.E.D.♦
3 hours ago
 |Â
show 3 more comments
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
5
down vote
They actually did try, they just failed. The main problem was that all they really discovered was marginal territory for the purposes of Norse culture. Meanwhile they had to compete with other native cultures that were designed and optimized to live in those places.
The base they had to operate out of for North America was Greenland. This itself was probably the most marginal territory of all the Norse domains. Greenland was discovered and colonized during the Medieval warm period, at which point Norse agriculture would have been most productive there. It was all the Greenlanders could do to hold on themselves, and as the climate turned around heading toward the "Little Ice Age", the colonies there shrunk down to only one, which was never heard from again after 1410.
The ancestors of the Inuit were reported living to the North and West of the Norse colony, and of course the colder weather made the colony's territory much more suitable to Inuit ("Thule") culture than to Norse. That probably didn't help much. This was the flip side of the coin. While this territory they were finding was marginal for Norse purposes, it was in fact already inhabited by native cultures who were good at living there. When European peoples did finally make successful colonies, it was further south where the climate worked better for their agriculture, and after they'd invented force-multiplying things like printing presses and guns.
Of course the Greenland settlements were around for 5 centuries, which as failures go, isn't too bad.
The Sagas document Norse attempts to settle past Greenland, but none lasting for more than 2 years. All mention bad relations with the natives, but one suspects that could have been overcome with reinforcements the way it was in British North America, if there had been a good supply of those forthcoming. But obviously that wasn't going to be Greenland. The next settlement over, Iceland was doing better, but not that much better.
answered 3 hours ago
T.E.D.♦
70.8k9156290
Isn't your last link hinting at a "record" of several "attempts of permanent settlement"? Or what is the difference between "presence" and "settlement"?
– LangLangC
2 hours ago
1
@LangLangC - Not just hinted, but flat out stated. You could pish-posh the first two small attempts I suppose, but showing up with (allegedly) over 100 people including women and livestock sounds pretty serious to me. I see I didn't make that point explicitly anywhere in the answer. I've added a sentence to that effect right at the top. Thanks for the heads-up.
– T.E.D.♦
36 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
The crucial question here is: what for? Any colonization, to survive must be profitable. Look at the colonization of N America in the modern times. First British colony failed. Second survived but with great difficulty. Until they found some profitable business to do in these colonies (first tobacco later cotton).
answered 4 mins ago
Alex
25.3k14795
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
5
down vote
They actually did try, they just failed. The main problem was that all they really discovered was marginal territory for the purposes of Norse culture. Meanwhile they had to compete with other native cultures that were designed and optimized to live in those places.
The base they had to operate out of for North America was Greenland. This itself was probably the most marginal territory of all the Norse domains. Greenland was discovered and colonized during the Medieval warm period, at which point Norse agriculture would have been most productive there. It was all the Greenlanders could do to hold on themselves, and as the climate turned around heading toward the "Little Ice Age", the colonies there shrunk down to only one, which was never heard from again after 1410.
The ancestors of the Inuit were reported living to the North and West of the Norse colony, and of course the colder weather made the colony's territory much more suitable to Inuit ("Thule") culture than to Norse. That probably didn't help much. This was the flip side of the coin. While this territory they were finding was marginal for Norse purposes, it was in fact already inhabited by native cultures who were good at living there. When European peoples did finally make successful colonies, it was further south where the climate worked better for their agriculture, and after they'd invented force-multiplying things like printing presses and guns.
Of course the Greenland settlements were around for 5 centuries, which as failures go, isn't too bad.
The Sagas document Norse attempts to settle past Greenland, but none lasting for more than 2 years. All mention bad relations with the natives, but one suspects that could have been overcome with reinforcements the way it was in British North America, if there had been a good supply of those forthcoming. But obviously that wasn't going to be Greenland. The next settlement over, Iceland was doing better, but not that much better.
answered 3 hours ago
T.E.D.♦
70.8k9156290
Isn't your last link hinting at a "record" of several "attempts of permanent settlement"? Or what is the difference between "presence" and "settlement"?
– LangLangC
2 hours ago
1
@LangLangC - Not just hinted, but flat out stated. You could pish-posh the first two small attempts I suppose, but showing up with (allegedly) over 100 people including women and livestock sounds pretty serious to me. I see I didn't make that point explicitly anywhere in the answer. I've added a sentence to that effect right at the top. Thanks for the heads-up.
– T.E.D.♦
36 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
They actually did try, they just failed. The main problem was that all they really discovered was marginal territory for the purposes of Norse culture. Meanwhile they had to compete with other native cultures that were designed and optimized to live in those places.
The base they had to operate out of for North America was Greenland. This itself was probably the most marginal territory of all the Norse domains. Greenland was discovered and colonized during the Medieval warm period, at which point Norse agriculture would have been most productive there. It was all the Greenlanders could do to hold on themselves, and as the climate turned around heading toward the "Little Ice Age", the colonies there shrunk down to only one, which was never heard from again after 1410.
The ancestors of the Inuit were reported living to the North and West of the Norse colony, and of course the colder weather made the colony's territory much more suitable to Inuit ("Thule") culture than to Norse. That probably didn't help much. This was the flip side of the coin. While this territory they were finding was marginal for Norse purposes, it was in fact already inhabited by native cultures who were good at living there. When European peoples did finally make successful colonies, it was further south where the climate worked better for their agriculture, and after they'd invented force-multiplying things like printing presses and guns.
Of course the Greenland settlements were around for 5 centuries, which as failures go, isn't too bad.
The Sagas document Norse attempts to settle past Greenland, but none lasting for more than 2 years. All mention bad relations with the natives, but one suspects that could have been overcome with reinforcements the way it was in British North America, if there had been a good supply of those forthcoming. But obviously that wasn't going to be Greenland. The next settlement over, Iceland was doing better, but not that much better.
answered 3 hours ago
T.E.D.♦
70.8k9156290
Isn't your last link hinting at a "record" of several "attempts of permanent settlement"? Or what is the difference between "presence" and "settlement"?
– LangLangC
2 hours ago
1
@LangLangC - Not just hinted, but flat out stated. You could pish-posh the first two small attempts I suppose, but showing up with (allegedly) over 100 people including women and livestock sounds pretty serious to me. I see I didn't make that point explicitly anywhere in the answer. I've added a sentence to that effect right at the top. Thanks for the heads-up.
– T.E.D.♦
36 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
up vote
5
down vote
They actually did try, they just failed. The main problem was that all they really discovered was marginal territory for the purposes of Norse culture. Meanwhile they had to compete with other native cultures that were designed and optimized to live in those places.
The base they had to operate out of for North America was Greenland. This itself was probably the most marginal territory of all the Norse domains. Greenland was discovered and colonized during the Medieval warm period, at which point Norse agriculture would have been most productive there. It was all the Greenlanders could do to hold on themselves, and as the climate turned around heading toward the "Little Ice Age", the colonies there shrunk down to only one, which was never heard from again after 1410.
The ancestors of the Inuit were reported living to the North and West of the Norse colony, and of course the colder weather made the colony's territory much more suitable to Inuit ("Thule") culture than to Norse. That probably didn't help much. This was the flip side of the coin. While this territory they were finding was marginal for Norse purposes, it was in fact already inhabited by native cultures who were good at living there. When European peoples did finally make successful colonies, it was further south where the climate worked better for their agriculture, and after they'd invented force-multiplying things like printing presses and guns.
Of course the Greenland settlements were around for 5 centuries, which as failures go, isn't too bad.
The Sagas document Norse attempts to settle past Greenland, but none lasting for more than 2 years. All mention bad relations with the natives, but one suspects that could have been overcome with reinforcements the way it was in British North America, if there had been a good supply of those forthcoming. But obviously that wasn't going to be Greenland. The next settlement over, Iceland was doing better, but not that much better.
answered 3 hours ago
T.E.D.♦
70.8k9156290
They actually did try, they just failed. The main problem was that all they really discovered was marginal territory for the purposes of Norse culture. Meanwhile they had to compete with other native cultures that were designed and optimized to live in those places.
The base they had to operate out of for North America was Greenland. This itself was probably the most marginal territory of all the Norse domains. Greenland was discovered and colonized during the Medieval warm period, at which point Norse agriculture would have been most productive there. It was all the Greenlanders could do to hold on themselves, and as the climate turned around heading toward the "Little Ice Age", the colonies there shrunk down to only one, which was never heard from again after 1410.
The ancestors of the Inuit were reported living to the North and West of the Norse colony, and of course the colder weather made the colony's territory much more suitable to Inuit ("Thule") culture than to Norse. That probably didn't help much. This was the flip side of the coin. While this territory they were finding was marginal for Norse purposes, it was in fact already inhabited by native cultures who were good at living there. When European peoples did finally make successful colonies, it was further south where the climate worked better for their agriculture, and after they'd invented force-multiplying things like printing presses and guns.
Of course the Greenland settlements were around for 5 centuries, which as failures go, isn't too bad.
The Sagas document Norse attempts to settle past Greenland, but none lasting for more than 2 years. All mention bad relations with the natives, but one suspects that could have been overcome with reinforcements the way it was in British North America, if there had been a good supply of those forthcoming. But obviously that wasn't going to be Greenland. The next settlement over, Iceland was doing better, but not that much better.
answered 3 hours ago
T.E.D.♦
70.8k9156290
edited 37 mins ago
answered 3 hours ago
T.E.D.♦
70.8k9156290
answered 3 hours ago
T.E.D.♦
70.8k9156290
answered 3 hours ago
T.E.D.♦
70.8k9156290
70.8k9156290
Isn't your last link hinting at a "record" of several "attempts of permanent settlement"? Or what is the difference between "presence" and "settlement"?
– LangLangC
2 hours ago
1
@LangLangC - Not just hinted, but flat out stated. You could pish-posh the first two small attempts I suppose, but showing up with (allegedly) over 100 people including women and livestock sounds pretty serious to me. I see I didn't make that point explicitly anywhere in the answer. I've added a sentence to that effect right at the top. Thanks for the heads-up.
– T.E.D.♦
36 mins ago
add a comment |Â
Isn't your last link hinting at a "record" of several "attempts of permanent settlement"? Or what is the difference between "presence" and "settlement"?
– LangLangC
2 hours ago
1
@LangLangC - Not just hinted, but flat out stated. You could pish-posh the first two small attempts I suppose, but showing up with (allegedly) over 100 people including women and livestock sounds pretty serious to me. I see I didn't make that point explicitly anywhere in the answer. I've added a sentence to that effect right at the top. Thanks for the heads-up.
– T.E.D.♦
36 mins ago
Isn't your last link hinting at a "record" of several "attempts of permanent settlement"? Or what is the difference between "presence" and "settlement"?
– LangLangC
2 hours ago
Isn't your last link hinting at a "record" of several "attempts of permanent settlement"? Or what is the difference between "presence" and "settlement"?
– LangLangC
2 hours ago
1
1
@LangLangC - Not just hinted, but flat out stated. You could pish-posh the first two small attempts I suppose, but showing up with (allegedly) over 100 people including women and livestock sounds pretty serious to me. I see I didn't make that point explicitly anywhere in the answer. I've added a sentence to that effect right at the top. Thanks for the heads-up.
– T.E.D.♦
36 mins ago
@LangLangC - Not just hinted, but flat out stated. You could pish-posh the first two small attempts I suppose, but showing up with (allegedly) over 100 people including women and livestock sounds pretty serious to me. I see I didn't make that point explicitly anywhere in the answer. I've added a sentence to that effect right at the top. Thanks for the heads-up.
– T.E.D.♦
36 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
The crucial question here is: what for? Any colonization, to survive must be profitable. Look at the colonization of N America in the modern times. First British colony failed. Second survived but with great difficulty. Until they found some profitable business to do in these colonies (first tobacco later cotton).
answered 4 mins ago
Alex
25.3k14795
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
The crucial question here is: what for? Any colonization, to survive must be profitable. Look at the colonization of N America in the modern times. First British colony failed. Second survived but with great difficulty. Until they found some profitable business to do in these colonies (first tobacco later cotton).
answered 4 mins ago
Alex
25.3k14795
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
The crucial question here is: what for? Any colonization, to survive must be profitable. Look at the colonization of N America in the modern times. First British colony failed. Second survived but with great difficulty. Until they found some profitable business to do in these colonies (first tobacco later cotton).
answered 4 mins ago
Alex
25.3k14795
The crucial question here is: what for? Any colonization, to survive must be profitable. Look at the colonization of N America in the modern times. First British colony failed. Second survived but with great difficulty. Until they found some profitable business to do in these colonies (first tobacco later cotton).
answered 4 mins ago
Alex
25.3k14795
answered 4 mins ago
Alex
25.3k14795
answered 4 mins ago
Alex
25.3k14795
answered 4 mins ago
Alex
25.3k14795
25.3k14795
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhistory.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f48736%2fwhy-didnt-the-norsemen-colonize-north-america%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
1
Why do you expect exploration will result in permanent settlement?
– Samuel Russell
6 hours ago
1
Because they settled Greenland enroute and claimed it for centuries after.
– Samid
6 hours ago
2
That answers my question how?
– Samid
6 hours ago
2
@Samid I think the point is that there is no compelling reason to believe that they would've wanted to settle everywhere they explored; i.e. you can't assume Greenland was the rule rather than the exception. Moreover, Greenland ultimately ended up a failure despite being closer to Norse civilisation than North America.
– Semaphore♦
6 hours ago
1
I've seen historians address this exact question, so it seems a good question to me. And they in fact did try.
– T.E.D.♦
3 hours ago