[AnetTeilor]

It would have been impossible for vikings to be a dominant colonising force.

The spaniards of the year 1500 who had cannons, gunfire etc, could conquer and kill natives easily.

The vikings, would not have been able to conquer, only found small colonies on the coast, they were too few in number, and the advantage in weapons was not that great.
If I recall probably their colonies in north canada may have been wiped out by the natives.

It would have been really impossible, this is not an issue.
Also the europeans of the XVI century used galleons which could cross the ocean in one trip from London to New York or Cadiz to Cartagena, the vikings had inferior ships (altough great for their time)

The most important factor which decided how natives were treated, was, if the europeans who moved to the americans were overwhelmingly male (like the spaniards), or if they were families (like the english)

Spaniards had to intermarry with natives, because predominantly they didnt bring women from Spain, the english moved with their entire family, so the interactions they had with natives were of a very different nature than the ones spaniards had.
Spaniards intermarried with natives, and ruled the natives, the natives were most of the society of spanish america.

In the 13 colonies, what you had more than a mixture of cultures, was a european country transplanted to america, the english moved with their families, the indians were not a part of the society, and the relation was one of warfare as the european settlements expanded.


Anyway, hundreds of thousands of english and spanairds moved to the america, I doubt scandinavia had thousands of thousands of people which they could send across the ocean

[erepsysoulpfbs]

Can you really compare the Vikings against the Spanish et al.? The Vikings were there ~500 years earlier and didn't have gunpowder.

Even if they had stayed around longer and tried to colonise the place they wouldn't have had the advantage over the "natives" that the others had 500 years later.

Assuming that the Vikings actually expanded in the Americas, held on to these colonies and stayed in contact with the European continent for 500 years, the American tribes might have had a slower, more drawn-out introduction to Europe. They'd have had more time to adjust to European disease, and they would've come into contact with gunpowder and horses sooner.

So while that might have "saved" the Americans in the long run (compared to the sudden onslaught of the 15th and 16th centuries), that doesn't necessarily mean the Vikings would've been any less brutal.

[!!Aaroncheg]

Originally posted by Barnabas

Anyway, hundreds of thousands of english and spanairds moved to the america, I doubt scandinavia had thousands of thousands of people which they could send across the ocean
They managed to invade England and set up sizeable kingdoms on more than one occasion.

[77Dinaartickire]

Originally posted by molly bloom
Two big advantages for the Spanish that are frequently overlooked in the hagiographic accounts of the gains made by the Conquistadors- they had well-motivated native allies who were eager for revenge on the Aztecs and Incas, and they also spread contagious diseases in highly populated urban areas with links to other Meso-American and South American city states.

Smallpox, measles, influenza - all lovers of large concentrations of humans in one area. Two things need to be said. The Spanish chroniclers never denied the role of Tlaxcaltecans or Incan civil war in the Conquest, not even the Conquistadors "forgot" that bit in the average tooting of their own horn.
It would be interesting to investigate when mentioning the indigenous participation was put aside - my guess is the 19th century. That (plus the first half of the 20th) was exactly the period Europeans, generally, where so overwhelmed by their own superiority that, whatever the participation of Indians had been, it surely was negligible. Thus, "European pride" partly even overruled the black legend.

The second, relating to the diseases, my understanding of your post is that it insinuates a deliberate spreading on the part of the Spanish, something for which there is not the least indication I'd be aware of.

[Obgrfbke]

IIRC the Nordic people who visited America were just Icelanders, not the Danes or the Norse. Iceland was to the Viking world like Australia was to Great Britain, a place reserved for a small select group of exiled misfits. People were sent to Iceland because they were too unruly to fit into Viking society. You can just imagine what that meant. Iceland simply didn't have the population numbers or the resources to successfully colonize North America. As pointed out in earlier posts they didn't have very much of a technoloigical edge on the natives either. Eventually they would have impinged upon a tribe that matched them in aggressiveness, and then that would have been the end of the colony.

[leareliovag]

I'll give Cortez this: the burning his ships thing was badass.

-Arrian

[gomosopions]

Originally posted by Barnabas
It would have been impossible for vikings to be a dominant colonising force.

The spaniards of the year 1500 who had cannons, gunfire etc, could conquer and kill natives easily.

The vikings, would not have been able to conquer, only found small colonies on the coast, they were too few in number, and the advantage in weapons was not that great.
Maybe that's the point.

[refdhbgtd]

The tech gap had widened.

The Vikings were cutting edge for their time, but still didn't have firearms. The Spanish did, even if they weren't as dominant within Europe (although there were quite powerful).

Naval technology had also advanced. And there is the issue of just plain 'ole numbers.

-Arrian

[FredderiK]

I've always wondered why the Norse never transmitted Eurasian diseases to the Native Americans and Inuit. The Greenland Norse often made trips to Labrador for timber, certainly they would of interacted with the natives.

[Aozozbag]

What's more, the Vikings who came to America were rather small groups from Iceland, themselves rather unconnected to the rest of the Old World - thus it is well possible that none of them carried small-pox or influenza with him. And if one did, then the low population density in north eastern America did its part to prevent it from spreading.

I wouldn't, however, throw all North America in one "low population density" pot. The Mississippi region definitely was highly populated and was struck by European diseases right at the arrival of the first Spanish expeditions, Florida and parts of the eastern US-states were a bit less so, but still more vulnerable than the few Indians on Newfoundland of the Mic-Mac of Nova Scotia.