This is just part of a thought project I'm doing for my own curiosity's sake. I'd just like to hear from Languishites what they believe their own country's greatest achievement was.
Iceland: Not depopulating the country in 1783 (Laki Volcanic Eruption)
Going to the moon.
Developing the atomic bomb.
There. Thread done.
Modern civilization
We civilized black people.
Quote from: Jaron on October 13, 2009, 06:15:16 AM
We civilized black people.
Did we? Did we really?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bestviral.com%2Fi%2Fimages%2F103.jpg&hash=b36d16a37a1091efb800326747e600d956343894)
FYI I read a blurb in the NYT that Sunday was officially Lief Ericson Day in the US.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 13, 2009, 06:24:02 AM
FYI I read a blurb in the NYT that Sunday was officially Lief Ericson Day in the US.
I enjoyed the
High Chaparral but think this is a bit over the top :huh:
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on October 13, 2009, 06:29:18 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 13, 2009, 06:24:02 AM
FYI I read a blurb in the NYT that Sunday was officially Lief Ericson Day in the US.
I enjoyed the High Chaparral but think this is a bit over the top :huh:
lol, somebody else who knows who he is. Kudos.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on October 13, 2009, 06:29:18 AM
I enjoyed the High Chaparral but think this is a bit over the top :huh:
You're the only other person I know who's ever seen that show.
Kept the Americans in check.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 13, 2009, 06:09:28 AM
Going to the moon.
Developing the atomic bomb.
There. Thread done.
It's not a fucking competition. I'm trying to figure out how people view their own country, not how's country is best.
Quote from: Viking on October 13, 2009, 06:45:18 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 13, 2009, 06:09:28 AM
Going to the moon.
Developing the atomic bomb.
There. Thread done.
It's not a fucking competition. I'm trying to figure out how people view their own country, not how's country is best.
Well, we won anyway. WERE #1 USA USA USA
The Bomb.
Limited Government (although we're giving it back voluntarily).
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.moonbattery.com%2Farchives%2Fmushroom_cloud.jpg&hash=ac766ab7390c7fd17e9fbbe70dd86862d78123e4)
Quote from: Caliga on October 13, 2009, 06:57:45 AM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.moonbattery.com%2Farchives%2Fmushroom_cloud.jpg&hash=ac766ab7390c7fd17e9fbbe70dd86862d78123e4)
:mmm:
Surviving. We are the first people to do that in this Basin. Well, at least we have set a new record.
Quote from: Tamas on October 13, 2009, 07:04:54 AM
Surviving. We are the first people to do that in this Basin. Well, at least we have set a new record.
You gypsies are indeed quite resilient.
"Not being wiped out" seems like a pretty weak greatest achievement to me, guys.
...unless you're the Jews. :contract:
Quote from: Caliga on October 13, 2009, 07:10:05 AM
"Not being wiped out" seems like a pretty weak greatest achievement to me, guys.
...unless you're the Jews. :contract:
They got gassed by HCN, we were gassed by HFl. Not getting wiped out is still an achievement.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 13, 2009, 06:24:02 AM
FYI I read a blurb in the NYT that Sunday was officially Lief Ericson Day in the US.
We call him Leif the Lucky.
Quote from: Viking on October 13, 2009, 07:34:17 AM
We call him Leif the Lucky.
So what's your opinion re: Vinland? :)
Quote from: Caliga on October 13, 2009, 07:42:13 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 13, 2009, 07:34:17 AM
We call him Leif the Lucky.
So what's your opinion re: Vinland? :)
Be more specific. Vinland good vs bad or real vs not real or grapes vs berries or newfoundland vs long island or fiction vs reality? Many topics, which one?
More or less continual existence despite being placed between Germany and Russia.
Viking:
1. Where was it located?
2. How far did the Norse get into North America in their explorations?
Quote from: Caliga on October 13, 2009, 07:10:05 AM
"Not being wiped out" seems like a pretty weak greatest achievement to me, guys.
...unless you're the Jews. :contract:
Well, it's not an achievement when you are placed between Canada and Mexico. :P
Well, in the case of Hungary: what about producing Franz Liszt? Poland: Stanislaw Lem? :)
Come on, Yanks... to put Apollo and the bomb before the Constitution (for example) is not right.
For Iberia (Spain & Portugal, sorry guys but we are divided only by accident... a sorry circumstance that I hope to see reversed in 20 or 30 years), I would say our greatest achievement would be to create one of the biggest communities on Earth, probably the second after the Chinese. Others have created great empires, but other than the Romans, the Muslims and perhaps the Chinese themselves, they didn't even try to assimilate natives like Iberians did.
Just to quote an early example, the two surviving sons of Montezuma, baptized as Pedro and Isabel, and his descendants received Spanish titles: Isabel's were Counts of Miravalle, Pedro's Counts (later Dukes) Montezuma of Tultengo (Pedro was known as "the Prince" during his life). Allegedly only Hernan Cortez himself owned more lands than them (incidentally he too received a title, Charles V made him Marquis of the Valley of Oaxaca).
:( Too bad they didn't have souls.
Quote from: PDH on October 13, 2009, 08:00:30 AM
:( Too bad they didn't have souls.
Nobles? Why, of course! :P
Quote from: Alatriste on October 13, 2009, 07:56:07 AM
Come on, Yanks... to put Apollo and the bomb before the Constitution (for example) is not right.
In 1,000 years, the Constitution will be forgotten. In 1,000 years, mankind will either be extinct due to nuclear weapons or will rely completely on energy production derived from nuclear fission/fusion. :smarty:
Quote from: Caliga on October 13, 2009, 08:02:43 AM
Quote from: Alatriste on October 13, 2009, 07:56:07 AM
Come on, Yanks... to put Apollo and the bomb before the Constitution (for example) is not right.
In 1,000 years, the Constitution will be forgotten. In 1,000 years, mankind will either be extinct due to nuclear weapons or will rely completely on energy production derived from nuclear fission/fusion. :smarty:
Indeed nobody remember the Magna carter either.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 13, 2009, 08:06:31 AM
Indeed nobody remember the Magna carter either.
It hasn't been 1,000 years yet. ^_^
Also it's amusing how you try to take a shot at me and don't even know how to spell "Magna Carta" correctly. :lol:
Hmm...
Vampire horror tradition?
Inventing democracy.
Quote from: Caliga on October 13, 2009, 08:09:46 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 13, 2009, 08:06:31 AM
Indeed nobody remember the Magna carter either.
It hasn't been 1,000 years yet. ^_^
Yes, who today speaks of Roman Law.
Inventing Rock n' Roll and Coca Cola.
Running most of the world.
We're not selfish, we gave most of it back.
Quote from: Caliga on October 13, 2009, 07:51:24 AM
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.
2. It did not go far. The Greenlander Saga and The Saga of Erik the Red both agree that there was one settlement which was abandoned after the first winter. Settling Greenland was a better option for the Norsemen before the little Ice Age hit. There were no more than 50 Norse settlers in Vinland.
Now, for my own personal conspiracy theory. There was communication between Greenland and Scandinavia up until the late 14th century. The Greenlander Saga and the Saga of Erik the Red were written in the 12th and 13th century. And furthermore during the 13th, 14th and 15th centuries there were repeated trade wars between the Danish, English and German traders fighting for the salt fish trade for lent. We have documented English "Vikings" and fishermen operating in and around Iceland from the 14th Century onwards. My conspiracy theory (unsupported hypothesis) is that Bristol fishermen who fished around Iceland knew about Greenland and Vinland. The Newfoundland Grand Banks was one of the richest fishing grounds in the world. I find it plausible that the Bristol fishermen were fishing the Grand Banks. So when John Cabot is sent to find the land beyond the seat in 1498 that Columbus had found he took a ship and crew of Bristol sailors to find the land beyond the sea. The Bristol sailors took him AGAINST the Gulf Stream straight in the wrong direction (north west as opposed to the south west towards Columbus' discovery) straight to the only other place where white men had been in America.
And why was this "secret", well, that is because all fishermen keep their best fishing sites secret.
Yeah, I knew about all that stuff, I was just curious what your position was.... I assumed due to your nationality you must have one. -_-
So you don't think the Norse explored any further into North America? I mean, it's a given that they knew about Baffin Island, Labrador (from where they cut timber), and Newfoundland... so why wouldn't they have explored further south and possibly up the St. Lawrence?
Quote from: Warspite on October 13, 2009, 08:28:19 AM
Yes, who today speaks of Roman Law.
Ok, I concede "remembered" was not the best choice of words. But nuclear physics > TEH LAW.
Quote from: Caliga on October 13, 2009, 08:36:20 AM
Quote from: Warspite on October 13, 2009, 08:28:19 AM
Yes, who today speaks of Roman Law.
Ok, I concede "remembered" was not the best choice of words. But nuclear physics > TEH LAW.
I disagree. Just look at Rome - only a total idiot would argue that the greatest achievement Rome contributed to the world was, say, a turtle formation or a pilum, over the Roman law. In fact, law survives and their technological developments are too outdated now to be of any value. Considering the technological progress is speeding up, rather than slowing down, AND assuming we won't see the collapse of human civilization, I dare say American political and social achievements would be viewed as more important than its inventions.
Quote from: Caliga on October 13, 2009, 08:35:30 AM
Yeah, I knew about all that stuff, I was just curious what your position was.... I assumed due to your nationality you must have one. -_-
So you don't think the Norse explored any further into North America? I mean, it's a given that they knew about Baffin Island, Labrador (from where they cut timber), and Newfoundland... so why wouldn't they have explored further south and possibly up the St. Lawrence?
Baffin Island is almost certainly Helluland (rock or tile land), Labrador is almost certainly Markland (Lumber land) and Newfoundland is almost certainly Vinland (wine or pleasant land).
As for further exploration, you have to appreciate the scale here. The settlement of Vinland was a private operation by one Viking Chieftain and his family, followers and slaves. He had only two or three small ships and no support from outside. The Greenland settlement had at most a thousand inhabitants. The society out there is just too small and remote to be able to make use of timber to build ships and to export anything other than goods such as Walrus Ivory.
BTW: Runestones in Minnesota and Wisconsin are 19th century hoaxes.
Quote from: Caliga on October 13, 2009, 08:36:20 AM
Quote from: Warspite on October 13, 2009, 08:28:19 AM
Yes, who today speaks of Roman Law.
Ok, I concede "remembered" was not the best choice of words. But nuclear physics > TEH LAW.
I would more generically say being the engine for the vast scientific advances humanity has enjoyed in the 20th and 21st centuries.
Sure, nuclear energy is pretty incredible, but there is so much shit the US has done, or led the way on, in the field of science and medicine, it seems impossible to pick any one thing and say that is more important than the rest.
Are nukes bigger than the airplane?
Are airplanes bigger than the information age revolution?
Is that bigger than, I don't know, saving the lives of premature infants? Or organ transplant? Or the AIDS treatment?
Of course, the US did not do any of those things on their own, not even nukes (thanks Albert).
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg122.imageshack.us%2Fimg122%2F3962%2Famericad.jpg&hash=46d3626aaf655a1c9effff5994a714f03bc3551d)
Turning Germany from a militaristic dictatorship into a democratic nation after WW2.
Quote from: Syt on October 13, 2009, 08:54:36 AM
Turning Germany from a militaristic dictatorship into a democratic nation after WW2.
The United States (along with Britain and France) did this also, at the barrel of a gun. :)
Quote from: Viking on October 13, 2009, 08:43:08 AM
BTW: Runestones in Minnesota and Wisconsin are 19th century hoaxes.
I'm familiar with the Minnesota one (Kensington) but not one in Wisconsin. The Kensington Runestone's authenticity has never been fully proven or disproven but like you I lean toward hoax because the context behind its alleged creation is absurd given the content of runic message ("OMG we're about to all be killed by skraelings... let's stop and carve a runestone!")
maybe he was dictating
Quote from: Caliga on October 13, 2009, 09:09:49 AM
The United States (along with Britain and France) did this also, at the barrel of a gun. :)
Well we have held the barrells of many guns to many people to try to get them to be Democratic. It is always nice when somebody decides to cooperate.
Quote from: Valmy on October 13, 2009, 09:20:04 AM
Quote from: Caliga on October 13, 2009, 09:09:49 AM
The United States (along with Britain and France) did this also, at the barrel of a gun. :)
Well we have held the barrells of many guns to many people to try to get them to be Democratic. It is always nice when somebody decides to cooperate.
I don't trust a country full of Isebrands.
Quote from: Caliga on October 13, 2009, 09:12:55 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 13, 2009, 08:43:08 AM
BTW: Runestones in Minnesota and Wisconsin are 19th century hoaxes.
I'm familiar with the Minnesota one (Kensington) but not one in Wisconsin. The Kensington Runestone's authenticity has never been fully proven or disproven but like you I lean toward hoax because the context behind its alleged creation is absurd given the content of runic message ("OMG we're about to all be killed by skraelings... let's stop and carve a runestone!")
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.
Quote from: Caliga on October 13, 2009, 08:35:30 AM
Yeah, I knew about all that stuff, I was just curious what your position was.... I assumed due to your nationality you must have one. -_-
So you don't think the Norse explored any further into North America? I mean, it's a given that they knew about Baffin Island, Labrador (from where they cut timber), and Newfoundland... so why wouldn't they have explored further south and possibly up the St. Lawrence?
They explored up to the Great Lakes and even reached modern Minnesota, before being stopped by the Packers at the Wisconsin border (wearing their traditional cheese heads), thus starting a rivalry that lasts to this day.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 13, 2009, 09:20:46 AM
I don't trust a country full of Isebrands.
The shitty part about making countries Democracies is they rarely vote the way we want them to. Bloody foreigners.
Quote from: Viking on October 13, 2009, 09:23:16 AM
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"?
Quote from: Viking on October 13, 2009, 08:43:08 AM
Quote from: Caliga on October 13, 2009, 08:35:30 AM
Yeah, I knew about all that stuff, I was just curious what your position was.... I assumed due to your nationality you must have one. -_-
So you don't think the Norse explored any further into North America? I mean, it's a given that they knew about Baffin Island, Labrador (from where they cut timber), and Newfoundland... so why wouldn't they have explored further south and possibly up the St. Lawrence?
Baffin Island is almost certainly Helluland (rock or tile land), Labrador is almost certainly Markland (Lumber land) and Newfoundland is almost certainly Vinland (wine or pleasant land).
As for further exploration, you have to appreciate the scale here. The settlement of Vinland was a private operation by one Viking Chieftain and his family, followers and slaves. He had only two or three small ships and no support from outside. The Greenland settlement had at most a thousand inhabitants. The society out there is just too small and remote to be able to make use of timber to build ships and to export anything other than goods such as Walrus Ivory.
BTW: Runestones in Minnesota and Wisconsin are 19th century hoaxes.
I've read/heard that the Norse in Greenland had a fairly thriving colony, were able to grow food and raise livestock. The climate there was warmer at the time which enabled the colonists to do well enough (a warmer period in the Earth's climate?). But as the climate turned colder the colony was eventually abandoned.
Quote from: KRonn on October 13, 2009, 09:25:57 AM
I've read/heard that the Norse in Greenland had a fairly thriving colony, were able to grow food and raise livestock. The climate there was warmer at the time which enabled the colonists to do well enough (a warmer period in the Earth's climate?). But as the climate turned colder the colony was eventually abandoned.
Yes. There is however debate about what exactly happened to the Greenlanders.
Quote from: Valmy on October 13, 2009, 09:25:23 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 13, 2009, 09:20:46 AM
I don't trust a country full of Isebrands.
The shitty part about making countries Democracies is they rarely vote the way we want them to. Bloody foreigners.
Who says you have to impose democracy just once?
Easy one :)
Launching the Age of Exploration.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on October 13, 2009, 09:39:10 AM
Easy one :)
Launching the Age of Exploration.
Portugal is, without a doubt, the most inexplicable world empire in history.
Quote from: Valmy on October 13, 2009, 09:40:31 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on October 13, 2009, 09:39:10 AM
Easy one :)
Launching the Age of Exploration.
Portugal is, without a doubt, the most inexplicable world empire in history.
Quite an achievement indeed ;)
Quote from: Valmy on October 13, 2009, 09:40:31 AM
Portugal is, without a doubt, the most inexplicable world empire in history.
:huh: Moreso than the Dutch colonial empire, even?
Quote from: KRonn on October 13, 2009, 09:25:57 AM
I've read/heard that the Norse in Greenland had a fairly thriving colony, were able to grow food and raise livestock. The climate there was warmer at the time which enabled the colonists to do well enough (a warmer period in the Earth's climate?). But as the climate turned colder the colony was eventually abandoned.
The word "abandoned" suggests that anybody survived, nobody did to the best of our knowledge. They were probably wiped out by the weather and the Inuit which moved into Greenland from the canadian arctic in the 1200s
Quote from: Caliga on October 13, 2009, 09:42:12 AM
:huh: Moreso than the Dutch colonial empire, even?
Um how is that even remotely comparable? The lowcountries were one of the richest parts of Euroland for centuries and by the time the Dutch came around the idea of a European Colonial Empire was already well established along with how to do it.
The Portuguese were an impoverished nobody with a population of under 1 million and did something nobody had ever done before in world history.
Quote
The Portuguese were an impoverished nobody
Still are.
Quote from: Viking on October 13, 2009, 09:46:22 AM
The word "abandoned" suggests that anybody survived, nobody did to the best of our knowledge. They were probably wiped out by the weather and the Inuit which moved into Greenland from the canadian arctic in the 1200s
I think the most prevalent theories today are that the Inuit enslaved/killed them, or possibly Portuguese/Basques/other early seafarers enslaved/killed them. Or it might be something as random and depressing as the remaining Greenlanders decided to evacuate Greenland due to the deteriorating conditions, and piled into one ship which sank before it reached Iceland or wherever they tried to get to.
What is probably the weirdest thing about the Portuguese Empire is despite the fact it was massive, powerful, and unprecented in world history, Portugal itself remained an impoverished nobody. The Dutch, quite predictably, became a Great Power for centuries to come.
Quote from: Valmy on October 13, 2009, 09:47:18 AM
Um how is that even remotely comparable? The lowcountries were one of the richest parts of Euroland for centuries and by the time the Dutch came around the idea of a European Colonial Empire was already well established along with how to do it.
The Portuguese were an impoverished nobody with a population of under 1 million and did something nobody had ever done before in world history.
Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't the Low Countries continually assraped by their neighbors and various Habsburg dynasties throughout the middle ages and well into the Renaissance?
Also, what exactly do you mean by "did something nobody had ever done before in world history"?
Quote from: Valmy on October 13, 2009, 09:47:18 AM
Quote from: Caliga on October 13, 2009, 09:42:12 AM
:huh: Moreso than the Dutch colonial empire, even?
Um how is that even remotely comparable? The lowcountries were one of the richest parts of Euroland for centuries and by the time the Dutch came around the idea of a European Colonial Empire was already well established along with how to do it.
The Portuguese were an impoverished nobody with a population of under 1 million and did something nobody had ever done before in world history.
In the 15th century, the economic was not that bad actually and the unification was precocious unlike most other countries but you are right about the demographics.
The Empire went through different phases but the loss of relevance only came with the independence of Brazil which amounted to a Bragança family quarrel anyways.
Quote from: Caliga on October 13, 2009, 09:51:37 AM
Also, what exactly do you mean by "did something nobody had ever done before in world history"?
Nobody before had ever even thought of creating a world spanning sea based empire. Nobody had ever conceived of something so ridiculous as a European Kingdom ruling Islands in the Pacific.
Quote from: Caliga on October 13, 2009, 09:48:45 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 13, 2009, 09:46:22 AM
The word "abandoned" suggests that anybody survived, nobody did to the best of our knowledge. They were probably wiped out by the weather and the Inuit which moved into Greenland from the canadian arctic in the 1200s
I think the most prevalent theories today are that the Inuit enslaved/killed them, or possibly Portuguese/Basques/other early seafarers enslaved/killed them. Or it might be something as random and depressing as the remaining Greenlanders decided to evacuate Greenland due to the deteriorating conditions, and piled into one ship which sank before it reached Iceland or wherever they tried to get to.
The Portuguese theory hasn't been disproven yet? I thought this was only Thor Heyerdahl's fantasies
Quote from: Valmy on October 13, 2009, 09:54:11 AM
Nobody before had ever even thought of creating a world spanning sea based empire. Nobody had ever conceived of something so ridiculous as a European Kingdom ruling Islands in the Pacific.
Well I'm sure Alexander, Genghis Khan, etc. would have "thought of it" had they the means to actually pursue it. :P
Quote from: Caliga on October 13, 2009, 09:51:37 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't the Low Countries continually assraped by their neighbors and various Habsburg dynasties throughout the middle ages and well into the Renaissance?
Um...I guess it depends on what you mean by assraped. The Netherlands were the richest and most important part of all the Habsburg's European domains and they made Burgundy a major power before the unfortunate death of it's duke. In no way was the Netherlands hurt by its status as jewel in the Habsburg crown until...well...the Spanish got a little greedy. The fact that the Spanish were so hard pressed to defeat the Dutch speaks volumes about its power and wealth. The Spanish just sorta walked into Portugal and took over.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on October 13, 2009, 09:54:30 AM
The Portuguese theory hasn't been disproven yet? I thought this was only Thor Heyerdahl's fantasies
How could it be disproven? There are virtually no late-period Norse remains in Greenland. Until such remains are found, I don't see how you could disprove any theory about their ultimate fate. I read
The Frozen Echo a few years back about this very topic but I can't recall what her own theory on their disappearance is. :blush:
Quote from: Caliga on October 13, 2009, 09:25:51 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 13, 2009, 09:23:16 AM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on October 13, 2009, 09:47:18 AM
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.
Quote from: Caliga on October 13, 2009, 09:55:54 AM
Well I'm sure Alexander, Genghis Khan, etc. would have "thought of it" had they the means to actually pursue it. :P
:blink:
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.
Quote from: Valmy on October 13, 2009, 09:57:14 AM
unfortunate death
That's a matter of opinion, son. ^_^
Quote from: Caliga on October 13, 2009, 09:59:05 AM
That's a matter of opinion, son. ^_^
Well it was for Burgundy :P
Quote from: Valmy on October 13, 2009, 09:58:16 AM
:blink:
Alexander the Great...Genghis Khan...great sailors? You enjoying that crack pipe?
:lol: 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. :huh:
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.
Quote from: Viking on October 13, 2009, 08:31:53 AM
Quote from: Caliga on October 13, 2009, 07:51:24 AM
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?
Quote from: Caliga on October 13, 2009, 10:02:23 AM
:lol: 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.
Quote from: Caliga on October 13, 2009, 10:02:23 AM
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.
Quote from: Tyr on October 13, 2009, 10:03:00 AM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on October 13, 2009, 10:05:03 AM
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?
Quote from: Caliga on October 13, 2009, 10:06:19 AM
Quote from: Tyr on October 13, 2009, 10:03:00 AM
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.
Quote from: Caliga on October 13, 2009, 10:08:24 AM
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.
QuoteAlso, what are you referring to with the comment about defeating the Ottomans?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish-Portuguese_Wars
Quote from: Tyr on October 13, 2009, 10:12:45 AM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on October 13, 2009, 10:13:08 AM
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?
Quote from: Tyr on October 13, 2009, 10:12:45 AM
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.
The main problem with this interpretation is found if you actually read the Vinland Sagas.
It plainly states (paraphrasing) that "He called this area Vinland BECAUSE GRAPES CAN BE FOUND THERE." :contract:
I'm not sure why someone would name a place "Meadow-land" because grapes grow there. :huh:
Quote from: Valmy on October 13, 2009, 09:59:48 AM
Quote from: Caliga on October 13, 2009, 09:59:05 AM
That's a matter of opinion, son. ^_^
Well it was for Burgundy :P
probably was for the whole of Europe as a continued and consolidated Burgundy might just as well have kept the French and Germans separated.
Oh well, we'll never know.
for Belgium it's probably the fact that it actually exists.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on October 13, 2009, 10:20:02 AM
probably was for the whole of Europe as a continued and consolidated Burgundy might just as well have kept the French and Germans separated.
Why would we have wanted that? :menace:
Quote from: Caliga on October 13, 2009, 10:15:51 AM
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?
Well you have to understand the situation: The Turks were the rulers of the Arabs and they were the dominant traders in the Indian Ocean. Most of the fighting was done by the Egyptians since the Turks were not really sailors but essentially it was Portugal versus the Muslim world and the Portuguese won...though to be fair the Ottomans were starting to get the upper hand before Suleiman died. The defeats to the Portuguese were a major embarrasment to the Ottomans, it is one of only two defeats the Turks suffered between the Battle of Ankara and Lepanto.
So...the Turks had a strong presence only if you consider being the dominant power in the Indian Ocean a strong presence. :P
The Vin=Pleasant suggestion seems a bit strange to me. I included it above because I can't disprove it and I haven't seen anything authoritative debunking of it. This whole issue comes down to the grape issue. In the text of The Greenlander Saga two slaves sent out to scout the surroundings come back with grapes. But do remember that Thorfinn Karlsefni (the leader of the settlement expedition) was Icelandic and had never been to europe and had never seen a grape in his life. Now there are not now nor have ever been grapes on Newfoundland. For this reason three explanations have been suggested.
1. That Vinland was actually much further south.
2. That the grape story was made up to explain why Vinland was called Vinland and not something else. Remember in the Saga Leifur Eiriksson finds and names Markland, Helluland and Vinland without exploring inland. Suggesting an etymological root other than grape. The Chronology seems a bit backwards, but this is consistent with a retelling hundreds of years later (the earliest version is from the 14th century iirc). This is where an older but no longer used (in icelandic) word for pleasant or comfortable has been suggested as the root.
3. That the slaves found berries which could be used to make wine, just like they found in Scandinavia and Iceland
Archaeologists have found and excavated a norse site in Vinland. Furthermore that site is consistent with the Sagas. Most historians view (3) as the most plausible and it is quite likely that the names were given AFTER the settlement failed.
The Vin=Pleasant hypothesis cannot be ruled out, but it is only needed if you think that Icelanders of the 11th century could tell the difference between blueberries and wineberries.
Maybe they made Manischewitz.
Argument #1 is also supported by the fact that butternuts were unearthed in the Vinland middens and IIRC do not (and did not even then) grow further north than the St. Lawrence region of Canada.
What is this Vin=Pleasant stuff of which you speak? I thought "Vin" either meant "meadow" or "grapes". :huh:
Thanks to Caliga this thread is actually interesting.
Thank you, Biscuit man.
Quote from: PDH on October 13, 2009, 10:28:52 AM
Maybe they made Manischewitz.
:lol:
Actually isn't Manischewitz made from Concord grapes? Those would be the sort of grapes they found, if indeed they found them. :contract:
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 13, 2009, 10:29:17 AM
Thanks to Caliga this thread is actually interesting.
Thank you, Biscuit man.
I am the heart and soul of Languish. KNEEL BEFORE CAL!
Quote from: Viking on October 13, 2009, 10:23:59 AM
1. That Vinland was actually much further south.
2. That the grape story was made up to explain why Vinland was called Vinland and not something else. Remember in the Saga Leifur Eiriksson finds and names Markland, Helluland and Vinland without exploring inland. Suggesting an etymological root other than grape. The Chronology seems a bit backwards, but this is consistent with a retelling hundreds of years later (the earliest version is from the 14th century iirc). This is where an older but no longer used (in icelandic) word for pleasant or comfortable has been suggested as the root.
3. That the slaves found berries which could be used to make wine, just like they found in Scandinavia and Iceland
How about 4; the Erikson marketing department at work again :p
Faking the moon landing has been our greatest technological achievement. Hollywood our greatest cultural one. :lol:
Quote from: Tyr on October 13, 2009, 10:31:13 AM
How about 4; the Erikson marketing department at work again :p
:rolleyes: Just because his dad was a liar, con artist, and habitual murderer is no reason to distrust poor Leif. :P
Quote from: Tyr on October 13, 2009, 10:12:45 AM
Quote from: Caliga on October 13, 2009, 10:06:19 AM
Quote from: Tyr on October 13, 2009, 10:03:00 AM
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.
We have the I (as in "Bitch") and Í (as in "Beach"). We call it "Vínland" in modern Icelandic, literally "Land of Wine". But that doesn't mean that this is why the place got it's name. It may have been named for something else and then the imposed etymology changes the word. West Norse is very very close to modern Icelandic, but there are many differences. The fact that Icelandic uses 14 vowels is not a reason against Vin=Pleasant.
Quote from: lustindarkness on October 13, 2009, 10:32:20 AM
Faking the moon landing has been our greatest technological achievement. Hollywood our greatest cultural one. :lol:
It only doubles cultural output of one city. Hardly the greatest achievement.
Quote from: Martinus on October 13, 2009, 10:34:21 AM
Quote from: lustindarkness on October 13, 2009, 10:32:20 AM
Faking the moon landing has been our greatest technological achievement. Hollywood our greatest cultural one. :lol:
It only doubles cultural output of one city. Hardly the greatest achievement.
:lol:
Actually good point, can we include computer gaming as an achievement.
Quote from: Martinus on October 13, 2009, 10:34:21 AM
Quote from: lustindarkness on October 13, 2009, 10:32:20 AM
Faking the moon landing has been our greatest technological achievement. Hollywood our greatest cultural one. :lol:
It only doubles cultural output of one city. Hardly the greatest achievement.
In CivRev it allows city conversion of walled cities.
Quote from: Caliga on October 13, 2009, 10:29:13 AM
Argument #1 is also supported by the fact that butternuts were unearthed in the Vinland middens and IIRC do not (and did not even then) grow further north than the St. Lawrence region of Canada.
What is this Vin=Pleasant stuff of which you speak? I thought "Vin" either meant "meadow" or "grapes". :huh:
The Norsemen traded with the Skrælings. Vín means wine. The Vin=pleasant stuff I speak of is the "meadow" theory. The word suggested as an alternative to wine is a word which is the root for the words (in icelandic) friend, nice, pleasant and popular. The word for meadow is something completely different (tun or engi).
Today in icelandic "Vinur" = friend.
Quote from: Tyr on October 13, 2009, 10:31:13 AM
How about 4; the Erikson marketing department at work again :p
He never returned to Vinland. He was much more interested in converting the Greenlanders to Christianity.
In Languish - "Vin" means "Kentucky Physicist."
Quote from: PDH on October 13, 2009, 10:43:26 AM
In Languish - "Vin" means "Kentucky Physicist."
Mellon
Quote from: Viking on October 13, 2009, 10:42:44 AM
Quote from: Tyr on October 13, 2009, 10:31:13 AM
How about 4; the Erikson marketing department at work again :p
He never returned to Vinland. He was much more interested in converting the Greenlanders to Christianity.
Heh "Greenland". Another fine job of naming. Sure
sounds nicer than "Iceland", doesn't it. :D
Quote from: Malthus on October 13, 2009, 10:50:41 AM
Heh "Greenland". Another fine job of naming. Sure sounds nicer than "Iceland", doesn't it. :D
Vikings were not good with truth in advertising. Consumer protections involved the fact that the consumer was armed and a gang of smelly vikings to help him take revenge.
Seriously, if we are talking about the most important technological advance/invention, I think for Americans one of the strongest candidates is the Internet.
This is an invention comparable to alphabet or the printing press.
Quote from: Viking on October 13, 2009, 10:53:46 AM
Quote from: Malthus on October 13, 2009, 10:50:41 AM
Heh "Greenland". Another fine job of naming. Sure sounds nicer than "Iceland", doesn't it. :D
Vikings were not good with truth in advertising. Consumer protections involved the fact that the consumer was armed and a gang of smelly vikings to help him take revenge.
Regulatory authorities, take note.
The series of tubes does kick ass.
Quote from: Martinus on October 13, 2009, 10:55:49 AM
Seriously, if we are talking about the most important technological advance/invention, I think for Americans one of the strongest candidates is the Internet.
Umm, Tim Berners-Lee is British...
Quote from: Brazen on October 13, 2009, 10:59:33 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 13, 2009, 10:55:49 AM
Seriously, if we are talking about the most important technological advance/invention, I think for Americans one of the strongest candidates is the Internet.
Umm, Tim Berners-Lee is British...
Al Gore isn't. :P
Quote from: Brazen on October 13, 2009, 10:59:33 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 13, 2009, 10:55:49 AM
Seriously, if we are talking about the most important technological advance/invention, I think for Americans one of the strongest candidates is the Internet.
Umm, Tim Berners-Lee is British...
He said internet, not the web.
Quote from: Martinus on October 13, 2009, 10:55:49 AM
Seriously, if we are talking about the most important technological advance/invention, I think for Americans one of the strongest candidates is the Internet.
This is an invention comparable to alphabet or the printing press.
Agreed.
who invented the Interweb?
Quote from: PDH on October 13, 2009, 11:00:30 AM
He said internet, not the web.
:blush: Sorry DARPA.
But let me add WWW to the Brit list then :bowler:
He said internet with a small I though, not THE Internet. Who invented that is....something I shall have to look into.
Some things seem to say small i=any old network whilst big I = THE internet.
But then others say small i is the web and big I the internet...
Quote from: Brazen on October 13, 2009, 11:02:34 AM
:blush: Sorry DARPA.
But let me add WWW to the Brit list then :bowler:
THOSE tube Britain can be proud of :)
Quote from: Caliga on October 13, 2009, 09:57:24 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on October 13, 2009, 09:54:30 AM
The Portuguese theory hasn't been disproven yet? I thought this was only Thor Heyerdahl's fantasies
How could it be disproven? There are virtually no late-period Norse remains in Greenland. Until such remains are found, I don't see how you could disprove any theory about their ultimate fate. I read The Frozen Echo a few years back about this very topic but I can't recall what her own theory on their disappearance is. :blush:
Two words: Thor Heyerdahl :P
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on October 13, 2009, 11:06:06 AM
Two words: Thor Heyderdahl :P
:frusty:
Conspiracy theory originator par excellence.
Quote from: Syt on October 13, 2009, 08:54:36 AM
Turning Germany from a militaristic dictatorship into a democratic nation after WW2.
This and the peaceful revolution and reunification of 1989-90.
Quote from: Alatriste on October 13, 2009, 07:56:07 AM
Come on, Yanks... to put Apollo and the bomb before the Constitution (for example) is not right.
Sure it is. The big C is just some document we spend billions of man hours and vast quantities of our national resources finding ways to ignore. Apollo accomplished far more with far less.
Hockey. :canuck:
Quote from: DGuller on October 13, 2009, 11:02:17 AM
Agreed.
:yes: The Internets and the Google are useful for rumors. :)
Quote from: Tyr on October 13, 2009, 11:04:19 AM
He said internet with a small I though, not THE Internet. Who invented that is....something I shall have to look into.
Some things seem to say small i=any old network whilst big I = THE internet.
But then others say small i is the web and big I the internet...
Uhm, I said
the Internet with the capital I. Do you have vision problems?
The internet was invented by Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn, both Americans.
Quote from: Martinus on October 13, 2009, 11:56:13 AM
Uhm, I said the Internet with the capital I. Do you have vision problems?
Now that Tim is in forn parts, Tyr is stepping up to the plate.
Sweden's greatest achievement. Hmmmmm... you're making it very hard for me.
You have maintaining a generally free and benign society for many centuries. But that has only been important to Swedes.
You have helping make science hot through the Nobel Prizes. The effect may be marginal.
You have killing a lot of Papists and Russians, but we didn't get them all.
I would have to say that, using some conventional metric and looking at something that has had and continues to have an impact all over the world:
Creating the practice of open government.
There is a difference between Internet and internet?
By the way, I'd say the internet was the greatest invention of the 20th century, eclipsing stuff like spaceflight or nuclear fission. The internet has changed the daily lifes of billions and has not yet realized its full potential.
That said, spaceflight might still outdo it if it ever becomes viable for mass use.
Brits are insane.
Quote from: Zanza on October 13, 2009, 12:09:45 PM
By the way, I'd say the internet was the greatest invention of the 20th century, eclipsing stuff like spaceflight or nuclear fission. The internet has changed the daily lifes of billions and has not yet realized its full potential.
Yes, obviously.
Quote from: Zanza on October 13, 2009, 12:09:45 PM
There is a difference between Internet and internet?
By the way, I'd say the internet was the greatest invention of the 20th century, eclipsing stuff like spaceflight or nuclear fission. The internet has changed the daily lifes of billions and has not yet realized its full potential.
That said, spaceflight might still outdo it if it ever becomes viable for mass use.
The internet is cool and all, but in the 20th century I'd have to say that manned flight, the automobile, and penecillin are all greater. They've had far more effect on far more people. And that's just off the top of my head.
The automobile was invented in the 19th century.
Manned flight is a good one, so is penicillin. The Green Revolution is of course a big one too. I'd still go with the internet I think. Mainly because it still has so much potential. It will become way more pervasive than it is now.
My vote for the greatest American invention of all time is the forward pass.
Quote from: Barrister on October 13, 2009, 12:24:14 PM
Quote from: Zanza on October 13, 2009, 12:09:45 PM
There is a difference between Internet and internet?
By the way, I'd say the internet was the greatest invention of the 20th century, eclipsing stuff like spaceflight or nuclear fission. The internet has changed the daily lifes of billions and has not yet realized its full potential.
That said, spaceflight might still outdo it if it ever becomes viable for mass use.
The internet is cool and all, but in the 20th century I'd have to say that manned flight, the automobile, and penecillin are all greater. They've had far more effect on far more people. And that's just off the top of my head.
Are you agreeing or disagreeing or neither? Both?
Quote from: The Brain on October 13, 2009, 12:07:15 PM
I would have to say that, using some conventional metric and looking at something that has had and continues to have an impact all over the world:
Based on that, I'd say that the reformation was perhaps the greatest German (not exclusively of course) positive contribution to world history.
Quote from: Barrister on October 13, 2009, 12:25:34 PM
My vote for the greatest American invention of all time is the forward pass.
:ultra: Heisman :ultra:
Quote from: Zanza on October 13, 2009, 12:25:16 PM
It will become way more pervasive than it is now.
:yes: It is the precursor to the Human Hive Mind. :yes:
Quote from: The Brain on October 13, 2009, 12:26:03 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 13, 2009, 12:24:14 PM
Quote from: Zanza on October 13, 2009, 12:09:45 PM
There is a difference between Internet and internet?
By the way, I'd say the internet was the greatest invention of the 20th century, eclipsing stuff like spaceflight or nuclear fission. The internet has changed the daily lifes of billions and has not yet realized its full potential.
That said, spaceflight might still outdo it if it ever becomes viable for mass use.
The internet is cool and all, but in the 20th century I'd have to say that manned flight, the automobile, and penecillin are all greater. They've had far more effect on far more people. And that's just off the top of my head.
Are you agreeing or disagreeing or neither? Both?
Disagreeing. There were many greater inventions in the 20th century than the internet.
How about computers at all? Or home computers? Pesticides/green revolution, saving millions if not billions from starvation? The birth control pill, saving us from Malthusian doom?
I think people like Zanza might vote for the internet because it's a change that has happened within our lifetimes, so we've seen how dramatic a change it has been. But other things we take for granted (like penecillin) have probably caused much greater change.
Quote from: Zanza on October 13, 2009, 12:28:29 PM
Quote from: The Brain on October 13, 2009, 12:07:15 PM
I would have to say that, using some conventional metric and looking at something that has had and continues to have an impact all over the world:
Based on that, I'd say that the reformation was perhaps the greatest German (not exclusively of course) positive contribution to world history.
Good one.
the internet sucks.
Quote from: Barrister on October 13, 2009, 12:31:55 PM
Quote from: The Brain on October 13, 2009, 12:26:03 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 13, 2009, 12:24:14 PM
Quote from: Zanza on October 13, 2009, 12:09:45 PM
There is a difference between Internet and internet?
By the way, I'd say the internet was the greatest invention of the 20th century, eclipsing stuff like spaceflight or nuclear fission. The internet has changed the daily lifes of billions and has not yet realized its full potential.
That said, spaceflight might still outdo it if it ever becomes viable for mass use.
The internet is cool and all, but in the 20th century I'd have to say that manned flight, the automobile, and penecillin are all greater. They've had far more effect on far more people. And that's just off the top of my head.
Are you agreeing or disagreeing or neither? Both?
Disagreeing. There were many greater inventions in the 20th century than the internet.
How about computers at all? Or home computers? Pesticides/green revolution, saving millions if not billions from starvation? The birth control pill, saving us from Malthusian doom?
I think people like Zanza might vote for the internet because it's a change that has happened within our lifetimes, so we've seen how dramatic a change it has been. But other things we take for granted (like penecillin) have probably caused much greater change.
Your heresy has been noted. I will observe that a lack of humans was not a great problem in 1900.
Quote from: Caliga on October 13, 2009, 08:09:46 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 13, 2009, 08:06:31 AM
Indeed nobody remember the Magna carter either.
It hasn't been 1,000 years yet. ^_^
Also it's amusing how you try to take a shot at me and don't even know how to spell "Magna Carta" correctly. :lol:
Ahem...
Magna Charta
:huh: Maybe in Latin, but my post was not written in Latin, was it?
Quote from: Caliga on October 13, 2009, 12:38:26 PM
:huh: Maybe in Latin, but my post was not written in Latin, was it?
It's the name of a specific document.
OMG LOL don't you see? Raz-Putin? He's the thing we have feared for so long finally come to pass.
Quote from: The Brain on October 13, 2009, 12:39:41 PM
OMG LOL don't you see? Raz-Putin? He's the thing we have feared for so long finally come to pass.
:lmfao:
ttfn
After doing some research, I believe I have discovered Canada's greatest acheivement.
http://www.cbc.ca/inventions/inventions.html?inventionID=49
:yeah:
Quote from: Razgovory on October 13, 2009, 08:06:31 AM
Indeed nobody remember the Magna carter either.
Precisely. They remember the Magna Carta, but the more important Magna carter of 1009, who carried what would be the Magna Carta in his wagon, is forgotten.
Quote from: The Brain on October 13, 2009, 12:39:41 PM
OMG LOL don't you see? Raz-Putin? He's the thing we have feared for so long finally come to pass.
:LOL:
:lmfao:
Quote from: The Brain on October 13, 2009, 12:39:41 PM
Raz-Putin? He's the thing we have feared for so long finally come to pass.
The Russian bear who won't send his armies out of Russia for fear of the nebulous 'lions' beyond the border? :)
Quote from: Caliga on October 13, 2009, 12:41:54 PM
Quote from: The Brain on October 13, 2009, 12:39:41 PM
Raz-Putin? He's the thing we have feared for so long finally come to pass.
The Russian bear who won't send his armies out of Russia for fear of the nebulous 'lions' beyond the border? :)
So basically you are saying
Georgia ∈ Russia ?
Quote from: Zanza on October 13, 2009, 12:09:45 PM
There is a difference between Internet and internet?
By the way, I'd say the internet was the greatest invention of the 20th century, eclipsing stuff like spaceflight or nuclear fission. The internet has changed the daily lifes of billions and has not yet realized its full potential.
That said, spaceflight might still outdo it if it ever becomes viable for mass use.
depending on how you look at spaceflight, that too has changed the lives of billions of people, albeit in less obvious ways
Quote from: Martinus on October 13, 2009, 11:56:13 AM
Uhm, I said the Internet with the capital I. Do you have vision problems?
My dyslexia is well known.
Woops.
For the Internet its too early in the day to judge if its the best thing ever (what with it only really picking up in the last 15 years) but the signs are good that it could well be in the future.
Quote from: Caliga on October 13, 2009, 09:48:45 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 13, 2009, 09:46:22 AM
The word "abandoned" suggests that anybody survived, nobody did to the best of our knowledge. They were probably wiped out by the weather and the Inuit which moved into Greenland from the canadian arctic in the 1200s
I think the most prevalent theories today are that the Inuit enslaved/killed them, or possibly Portuguese/Basques/other early seafarers enslaved/killed them. Or it might be something as random and depressing as the remaining Greenlanders decided to evacuate Greenland due to the deteriorating conditions, and piled into one ship which sank before it reached Iceland or wherever they tried to get to.
I think that they basically just starved out. The question of when the Norse settlement finally ended in Greenland is an interesting one as well. Seems like anytime between 1450 and 1690 is possible, with something like 1500-1550 being most likely.
OTOH there are still stories of a pale and blond master race of Eskimos living in very high latitudes.
Quote from: Caliga on October 13, 2009, 12:38:26 PM
:huh: Maybe in Latin, but my post was not written in Latin, was it?
"Charta" is definitely NOT in Latin.
It's Magna Carta.
Quote from: dps on October 13, 2009, 02:43:26 PM
I think that they basically just starved out. The question of when the Norse settlement finally ended in Greenland is an interesting one as well. Seems like anytime between 1450 and 1690 is possible, with something like 1500-1550 being most likely.
:huh: I thought the Danish crown started searching for the Norse as soon as like 1525 and found only ruins?
Anyway, if there was a final famine that wiped them out, you'd think there would have been more late-period remains found than actually were unearthed. The suggestion is that they abandoned the settlements rather than died there, but it's unclear why and if they did so voluntarily.
Quote from: dps on October 13, 2009, 02:43:26 PM
I think that they basically just starved out. The question of when the Norse settlement finally ended in Greenland is an interesting one as well. Seems like anytime between 1450 and 1690 is possible, with something like 1500-1550 being most likely.
The last recorded date in greenland is 1408 (a marriage record). The last recorded ship is in 1410. The Norse society there is thought to have ended between 1450 and 1480.
Quote from: The Brain on October 13, 2009, 02:45:53 PM
OTOH there are still stories of a pale and blond master race of Eskimos living in very high latitudes.
There actually have been pale, blonde Eskimos with blue eyes, but genetic testing done over the last decade or so seemed to prove they did not have Scandinavian ancestry. I forget where exactly they lived but there was at least one tribe/clan/whatever of them somewhere in the Canadian High Arctic.
Quote from: Caliga on October 13, 2009, 02:48:40 PM
Quote from: dps on October 13, 2009, 02:43:26 PM
I think that they basically just starved out. The question of when the Norse settlement finally ended in Greenland is an interesting one as well. Seems like anytime between 1450 and 1690 is possible, with something like 1500-1550 being most likely.
:huh: I thought the Danish crown started searching for the Norse as soon as like 1525 and found only ruins?
Anyway, if there was a final famine that wiped them out, you'd think there would have been more late-period remains found than actually were unearthed. The suggestion is that they abandoned the settlements rather than died there, but it's unclear why and if they did so voluntarily.
I don't think that there was a "final famine"
per se, just gradually deteriorating conditions. There weren't that many of them to start with. With a really low population, you don't need a catastrophic event for a settlement to die out. And while it wouldn't surprise me if some of them went to Iceland or back to Europe, towards the end, I don't think they had the means to leave if they had wanted to.
Quote from: Caliga on October 13, 2009, 02:50:04 PM
Quote from: The Brain on October 13, 2009, 02:45:53 PM
OTOH there are still stories of a pale and blond master race of Eskimos living in very high latitudes.
There actually have been pale, blonde Eskimos with blue eyes, but genetic testing done over the last decade or so seemed to prove they did not have Scandinavian ancestry. I forget where exactly they lived but there was at least one tribe/clan/whatever of them somewhere in the Canadian High Arctic.
Genetics? You should listen to their bodies.
Quote from: dps on October 13, 2009, 03:10:39 PM
Quote from: Caliga on October 13, 2009, 02:48:40 PM
Quote from: dps on October 13, 2009, 02:43:26 PM
I think that they basically just starved out. The question of when the Norse settlement finally ended in Greenland is an interesting one as well. Seems like anytime between 1450 and 1690 is possible, with something like 1500-1550 being most likely.
:huh: I thought the Danish crown started searching for the Norse as soon as like 1525 and found only ruins?
Anyway, if there was a final famine that wiped them out, you'd think there would have been more late-period remains found than actually were unearthed. The suggestion is that they abandoned the settlements rather than died there, but it's unclear why and if they did so voluntarily.
I don't think that there was a "final famine" per se, just gradually deteriorating conditions. There weren't that many of them to start with. With a really low population, you don't need a catastrophic event for a settlement to die out. And while it wouldn't surprise me if some of them went to Iceland or back to Europe, towards the end, I don't think they had the means to leave if they had wanted to.
Archeology has show that there is a progressive change in midden heap composition from cow in the early 1400s to goats and sheep 20 years later and seals and whales after 1450. Not to mention the last recorded ship in 1410.
The marginal farmland experienced the change first and was abandoned first, the best land did it last. It seems to have been a slow decline from about 1000 people to 0 in about 100 years.
No or very little fish.
Viking, you seem to know more about this than Cal or I. I do remember reading about the Danish government sending out an expedition around 1525 to check on the settlements, and it reported the settlements as being abandoned, but I seem to recall that they just sailed past briefly and didn't go ashore to make sure--the first expedition to go ashore wasn't until much later, around 1700. Is that roughly correct?
Quote from: dps on October 13, 2009, 03:36:11 PM
Viking, you seem to know more about this than Cal or I. I do remember reading about the Danish government sending out an expedition around 1525 to check on the settlements, and it reported the settlements as being abandoned, but I seem to recall that they just sailed past briefly and didn't go ashore to make sure--the first expedition to go ashore wasn't until much later, around 1700. Is that roughly correct?
The Danish Crown did send missions in the 16th and 17th century to trade and explore. But it wasn't until the 18th Century that they sent governors and priests. But it has always been a backwater.
Quote from: Martinus on October 13, 2009, 02:47:08 PM
Quote from: Caliga on October 13, 2009, 12:38:26 PM
:huh: Maybe in Latin, but my post was not written in Latin, was it?
"Charta" is definitely NOT in Latin.
It's Magna Carta.
You remain a confident dumbass.
Motown, melodrama, meprobamate, and Miller.
Quote from: Caliga on October 13, 2009, 08:09:46 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 13, 2009, 08:06:31 AM
Indeed nobody remember the Magna carter either.
It hasn't been 1,000 years yet. ^_^
Also it's amusing how you try to take a shot at me and don't even know how to spell "Magna Carta" correctly. :lol:
I'm talking about Jimmy!
So Jimmy was Magna, eh? Liberaltard :mad:
Age of exploration, of course.
Caliga, about the Dutch, just look it up in Wiki, look to the Portuguese empire in 1580 and in 1640, look the gaps, they are all filled by the Dutch. They simply took over the Portuguese possessions.
Portugal became poor, because no money was ever invested in Portugal. Because Portugal thought the spice monopoly would never end, why would we need to invest in the mainland? We would just need to buy everything from the outside.
Quote from: Caliga on October 14, 2009, 07:19:11 AM
So Jimmy was Magna, eh? Liberaltard :mad:
Wait Jimmy is a feminine noun?
All your achievements pale in comparison to the invention of the financial bond.
L.
Quote from: Valmy on October 14, 2009, 03:43:44 PM
Quote from: Caliga on October 14, 2009, 07:19:11 AM
So Jimmy was Magna, eh? Liberaltard :mad:
Wait Jimmy is a feminine noun?
Magna is an adjective; "Carter" must be the feminine noun. :smarty:
Quote from: Pedrito on October 14, 2009, 03:48:55 PM
All your achievements pale in comparison to the invention of the financial bond.
L.
I see your financial bond and raise you Canada's greatest invention: the push-up bra. :contract:
I think the Alkaline Battery is much more important then the push up bra.
Quote from: Barrister on October 14, 2009, 03:52:01 PM
Quote from: Pedrito on October 14, 2009, 03:48:55 PM
All your achievements pale in comparison to the invention of the financial bond.
L.
I see your financial bond and raise you Canada's greatest invention: the push-up bra. :contract:
In some circles, persons get excited by a bond rather than by a bra.
L.
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 14, 2009, 03:52:56 PM
I think the Alkaline Battery is much more important then the push up bra.
I don't.
The push up bra has killed one of the greatest joys known to man, the visible nipple erection.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 14, 2009, 08:05:44 PM
The push up bra has killed one of the greatest joys known to man, the visible nipple erection.
I must see a lot of women sans push up bra, or it pays to be in cold climate.. :unsure:
Quote from: Rasputin on October 13, 2009, 06:54:01 AM
Limited Government (although we're giving it back voluntarily).
Most of the ancient and medieval world had "limited government" as well.
Quote from: katmai on October 14, 2009, 08:32:00 PM
I must see a lot of women sans push up bra, or it pays to be in cold climate.. :unsure:
Alot of chicks around her show nip, probably because very few of them need pushup bras. Southern diet FTW :)
Quote from: Viking on October 13, 2009, 03:15:39 PM
Quote from: dps on October 13, 2009, 03:10:39 PM
Quote from: Caliga on October 13, 2009, 02:48:40 PM
Quote from: dps on October 13, 2009, 02:43:26 PM
I think that they basically just starved out. The question of when the Norse settlement finally ended in Greenland is an interesting one as well. Seems like anytime between 1450 and 1690 is possible, with something like 1500-1550 being most likely.
:huh: I thought the Danish crown started searching for the Norse as soon as like 1525 and found only ruins?
Anyway, if there was a final famine that wiped them out, you'd think there would have been more late-period remains found than actually were unearthed. The suggestion is that they abandoned the settlements rather than died there, but it's unclear why and if they did so voluntarily.
I don't think that there was a "final famine" per se, just gradually deteriorating conditions. There weren't that many of them to start with. With a really low population, you don't need a catastrophic event for a settlement to die out. And while it wouldn't surprise me if some of them went to Iceland or back to Europe, towards the end, I don't think they had the means to leave if they had wanted to.
Archeology has show that there is a progressive change in midden heap composition from cow in the early 1400s to goats and sheep 20 years later and seals and whales after 1450. Not to mention the last recorded ship in 1410.
The marginal farmland experienced the change first and was abandoned first, the best land did it last. It seems to have been a slow decline from about 1000 people to 0 in about 100 years.
No or very little fish.
The "no or very little fish" is interesting - in Jared Diamond's "Collapse" he explains that usually archeologists who come to Greenland can not believe they didn't eat fish, given how the surrounding waters are so full of it, and so they start looking for the fish-bones that have got to be there somewhere. But they never find any. Diamond theorize that they developed a taboo against fish, for some reason.
He does seem to draw a picture of death by final famine - he describes, for example, how the bones of the dogs are found at the top along with the seeds that would have grown next years harvest, which is to say they were eaten only when no hope remained.
Don't fish bones decompose alot more quickly that cow/human/dog bones, though? Also, maybe they ate the bones?
Quote from: Caliga on October 15, 2009, 07:03:53 AM
Quote from: katmai on October 14, 2009, 08:32:00 PM
I must see a lot of women sans push up bra, or it pays to be in cold climate.. :unsure:
Alot of chicks around her show nip, probably because very few of them need pushup bras. Southern diet FTW :)
Mew
Quote from: Caliga on October 15, 2009, 07:16:23 AM
Don't fish bones decompose alot more quickly that cow/human/dog bones, though? Also, maybe they ate the bones?
No.
Fish were taken in iceland and the rest of scandinavia. Diamond speculates that they developed a taboo. But I'm leaning towards the idea that fishing was difficult or inconvenient rather than a taboo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit_diet
The Inuit today don't really eat alot of fish. Catching fish under the ice is hard and a low volume means of getting food. Net fishing on european boats in the local fjord is how norsemen caught fish. If you run out of nets or boats you can't fish. If the fjord is icebound half the year then you can't fish during that time.
I find the taboo hard to accept for my own cultural reasons. We've had a taboo on horse flesh and crabs in iceland for religious and cultural reasons. (we now eat crab and lobster and they are delicious). But a taboo on fish? Impossible.
The norsemen were taking seal and whale so they were getting out onto the ice-sheet presumably with boats. So that leaves nets.
This is a marginal society which gets cut off from the homeland and is put under environmental stress. They didn't have ships and if there was something they couldn't make, well, then they didn't have it. The Inuit do not fish with nets. They fish with lines.
Maybe they developed a taste for Greenland shark rather than bony fish.... and maybe cartilage decomposes much more rapidly? I'm taking shots in the dark here.
Quote from: Caliga on October 15, 2009, 07:47:45 AM
Maybe they developed a taste for Greenland shark rather than bony fish.... and maybe cartilage decomposes much more rapidly? I'm taking shots in the dark here.
We'd see shark teeth in the middens. But here is a more considered view.
http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/greenland/
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_sharkGreenland sharks as food
The flesh of a Greenland shark is poisonous. This is due to the presence of the toxin trimethylamine oxide, which, upon digestion, breaks down into trimethylamine, producing effects similar to extreme drunkenness. Occasionally, sled dogs that end up eating the flesh are unable to stand up due to the neurotoxins. However, it can be eaten if it is boiled in several changes of water or dried or rotted for some months to produce Kæstur Hákarl, often Hákarl for short. Traditionally this was done by burying the shark in boreal ground, exposing it to several cycles of freezing and thawing. It is considered a delicacy in Iceland and Greenland.
Yeah, I know you people eat that hideous stuff. :)
Are you maybe suggesting the Greenlanders ate it, but didn't process it correctly, thus poisoning themselves over time?
Quote from: Caliga on October 15, 2009, 08:02:44 AM
Yeah, I know you people eat that hideous stuff. :)
Are you maybe suggesting the Greenlanders ate it, but didn't process it correctly, thus poisoning themselves over time?
no, just that you can't base a diet on poisonous fish.