Your country's greatest achievment

[Viking]

The language and runes used on the stone are not consistent with norse in the period. But most importantly Runestones were not used to say "we came here and did this" they were used for religious reasons and as gravestones.

Are you sure about that?  Isn't there a runestone in northern Greenland (on or near Disko Island) that simply says something like "Magnus Jonsson and Sigr Olesson were here"?

Yes, and that stone is linguistically correct, while the American ones are in "ye olde" swedish. Usually such messages of the kind "Kilroy was here" were carved on wood. Greenland doesn't have trees so they used rocks, Icelandic rock is usually basalt and soft so runestones are rare. Where wood and hard rock is available then Runestones are just used for religious and funerary reasons.

[DGuller]

The Portuguese were an impoverished nobody with a population of under 1 million and did something nobody had ever done before in world history.

I guess they were good at motivating people to leave their motherland and go somewhere else.

[Valmy]

Well I'm sure Alexander, Genghis Khan, etc. would have "thought of it" had they the means to actually pursue it.

Alexander the Great...Genghis Khan...great sailors?  You enjoying that crack pipe?

Edit: Well I will give you this: Alexander the Great certainly considered the basis of any empire to be trade.  Granted he probably never thought it could be based SOLELY on trade like the Portuguese and later global empires were.

[Caliga]

unfortunate death

That's a matter of opinion, son.

[Valmy]

That's a matter of opinion, son.

Well it was for Burgundy

[Caliga]

Alexander the Great...Genghis Khan...great sailors?  You enjoying that crack pipe?

No, but I'm trying to say that your argument makes no sense to me, unless you're not hinging it on the idea that the Portuguese are totally ossum because they "thought of" building a world empire like you said in your posts.  "Thinking of" doing something isn't, at least to me, impressive, and my point was that if someone said to Genghis Khan "Great Khan, let us build a fleet and conquer the Moluccas" and if he had the means to do so, he almost certainly would have done it. 

I don't think the Portuguese are so much "great" in this particular example as they were "well placed to be the first great European colonizers" once the proper technology was available.

[Josquius]

Viking:

1.  Where was it located?
2.  How far did the Norse get into North America in their explorations?

1. Best theory is Newfoundland. We have Norse archeology from the 11th century on Newfoundland. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27Anse_aux_Meadows . Newfoundland also fits the descriptions given in the Sagas and the limitations of Norse navigation.

There have been other locations suggested. This has been done because the Sagas talk about grapes. The problem with those hypotheses is that in West Norse (the language of the Sagas) and modern Icelandic Grape is literally "wine berry" and that up until the 20th century all parts of Scandinavia made wine from berries. These extra suggested sites include Cape Cod and Long Island. But there is agreement among the historians and archaeologists that it was Newfoundland.  

What about this I've heard that vin means meadow?

[Valmy]

No, but I'm trying to say that your argument makes no sense to me, unless you're not hinging it on the idea that the Portuguese are totally ossum because they "thought of" building a world empire like you said in your posts.

No actually they never "thought of" it at all.  It just sorta happened.  The Portuguese were totally ossum simply because they were not ossum at all and yet they did something ossum.

[Valmy]

I don't think the Portuguese are so much "great" in this particular example as they were "well placed to be the first great European colonizers" once the proper technology was available.

Technology they had a primary hand in developing.  I think you are unfairly selling them short.  Sure you would have predicted a great empire was going to be created if you had visited Portugal in 1450...sure it was inevitable that soon they would defeat the great Ottoman Empire in their own Arabian backyard.  Yeah whatever.

[Caliga]

What about this I've heard that vin means meadow?

Viking can clarify, but IIRC this has been disproven.

vin, pronounced "VINN" - meadow/pasture
vin, pronounced "VINE" - wine

The latter is written with an accent over the 'i', and maybe different characters in runic... I dunno.

I think the "meadow" thing was something Samuel Eliot Morison threw into the mix because for some reason he was desperate to prove that Vinland did not exist and was trying everything he could think of to shoot down any arguments to the contrary.

[Caliga]

Technology they had a primary hand in developing.  I think you are unfairly selling them short.  Sure you would have predicted a great empire was going to be created if you had visited Portugal in 1450...sure it was inevitable that soon they would defeat the great Ottoman Empire in their own Arabian backyard.  Yeah whatever.

I'm only trying to defend my position that the Dutch colonial empire was even more unlikely than the Portuguese one.  I am in no way trying to diminish Portugal's achievement, which is in itself quite impressive.

Also, what are you referring to with the comment about defeating the Ottomans?

[Josquius]

What about this I've heard that vin means meadow?

Viking can clarify, but IIRC this has been disproven.

vin, pronounced "VINN" - meadow/pasture
vin, pronounced "VINE" - wine

The latter is written with an accent over the 'i', and maybe different characters in runic... I dunno.

I think the "meadow" thing was something Samuel Eliot Morison threw into the mix because for some reason he was desperate to prove that Vinland did not exist and was trying everything he could think of to shoot down any arguments to the contrary.

I dunno about old west Norse but in Swedish a long and a short i are written the same. The decision on which one to use is just based on grammar rules that I can't remember.

Weird that it'd be used as a anti-argument. To me it sounds like a argument in favour of it- there's no wine so either there were berries or good farm land.

edit- checking up Iceland does have a weird alternative I; Í. But still....would this have been totally prevailant at the time? And with old texts can you be sure of such subtle differences in letters?
Spelling was rarely the most consistant of things way back then.

[Valmy]

I'm only trying to defend my position that the Dutch colonial empire was even more unlikely than the Portuguese one.  I am in no way trying to diminish Portugal's achievement, which is in itself quite impressive.

Not really.  The Portuguese fleet was destroyed during the Spanish Armada disaster and the Dutch just showed up and took over the juiciest bits of the undefended Portuguese colonies.

Also, what are you referring to with the comment about defeating the Ottomans?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish-Portuguese_Wars

[Caliga]

I dunno about old Norse but in Swedish a long and a short i are written the same. The decision on which one to use is just based on grammar rules that I can't remember.

Weird that it'd be used as a anti-argument. To me it sounds like a argument in favour of it- there's no wine so either there were berries or good farm land.

My dim recollection is that he said it referred to "pasture land", which by inference had no trees, but grass, so that must be Greenland.

[Caliga]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish-Portuguese_Wars

Oh, right.  I don't know much about these conflicts but I can't imagine the Turks had a strong presence in the Indian Ocean... did they?