Submitted by bafangoolNJ t3_ymycqf in history
BO55TRADAMU5 t1_iv6bije wrote
My most uninformed take on vikings not colonizing is that they were much more into pillaging and taking stuff from others.
Not enough people and too spread out in the America's for them to put much effort in. Plus they weren't as advanced as the "old world"
tiredpiratess t1_iv6d5ds wrote
Yea. That’s a pretty uninformed take.
Constant_Count_9497 t1_iv6hklk wrote
Yeah, I agree. That was a pretty uninformed take
[deleted] t1_iv6dgyw wrote
[removed]
Ake-TL t1_iv6rygs wrote
They did colonise Island and Greenland.
AnybodyEmergency7295 t1_iv8c5q2 wrote
They also colonized 3 Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, parts of Scotland, Slavs to the east by Swedes etc.
eatbetweenthelines t1_iv7cv1i wrote
The amount of civilizations created BECAUSE of Scandinavian exploration is pretty astounding, actually.
Reddituser45005 t1_iv6zz97 wrote
Yes. The Native Americans were more evenly matched in their fighting capabilities with the Vikings than they were against the later Europeans. The later Europeans brought muskets, cannons, horses, and smallpox. For the Vikings, getting to the Americas was only half the challenge. Making it back was the other. It is also possible that having reached the Americas, the Vikings chose to stay. The locals may have welcomed them.
BO55TRADAMU5 t1_iv7d0ph wrote
Why am I getting down voted when I said it was a most uninformed? Lol
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments