Hacker News Reader

Comment by fallingfrog | Hacker News Reader

One interesting thing I’ve learned about the Viking settlers is that they didn’t come to Iceland and Greenland as conquerors, like Columbus did- in fact when they arrived in both places, they were the first inhabitants. Iceland is one of the few places anywhere in the world that never went through waves of immigration or displacement or ethnic cleansing or what have you. The Greenland settlement was abandoned, but that was for economic reasons- the market for ivory was flooded by cheap elephant ivory, so the trade in walrus ivory became worthless. But there was no starvation or donner party scenario- they just packed everything onto ships, locked the doors and moved back to Denmark. Pretty peaceful overall for people who have a reputation for being barbarians.

View on HN

There is plenty of archaeological evidence of Dorset culture settlement in Greenland long before the Vikings arrived there.

There are a lot of reasons for the abandonment of the Greenland colonies, including a changing climate hostile to subsistence farming and domestic squabbles back in Denmark leading to a lack of supply ships (the colonies were not fully self-sustaining). Actual records of the end of the Greenland colonies have not been found and probably won't be because those supply ships that did not get sent out also never returned.

The European settlers were later replaced by Inuit migrants, who eked out a maritime existence instead of a pastoral one.

Iceland was probably not uninhabited when the Vikings got there.[0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papar

That’s splitting hairs, a few monks living in seclusion (not having children) doesn’t really count as habitation per se.

One tradition says that they felt compelled to leave. That still means that Norse settlement was not as peaceful and rosy as you made it out to be.

I'm just pointing out that most of the inhabited places in the world have extremely bloody histories; England went through waves of conquest by Gauls, Brits, Romans, Norse, Normans, etc, etc. Other places are similar. Any given city in Asia or Europe has probably been sacked and its inhabitants slaughtered at some point or another. Whereas Iceland has not gone through the same thing, and today, it is remarkable peaceful- the violent crime rate is super low. I just wonder if there is a connection there- perhaps having a region be conquered and subjugated leaves generational scars that never heal.

Or maybe they were just incredibly antisocial and felt compelled to leave by their desire to not live near other people. Such a seclusionist mindset might explain why they were there in the first place...

It's the same thing. If we’re going to laud Iceland for being the settlement of a terra nullius, then clearly those Irish monks had claim to it, and the subsequent settlement of the Norse without their invitation represented encroachment on someone else’s land.

Maybe it was 'trespassing' I suppose. I don't know much about this subject but from what's been described in this thread, assuming there must have been violence seems like a leap.

"Had claim" that's naive

Trying to apply legal concepts to unclaimed barren islands not subject to any legal system does not work.

"Bigger army diplomacy" is the rule, not the exception. Weapons usually beat legal documents and concepts

Really? Downvotes? I don’t get it. What did I say?

No evidence cited, far fetched claims, and a political bent. Quite simply, that isn't how it (history) works. Mass immigration of different cultures always comes with at least a little violence and everybody doesn't pack up and leave ever - there are always some who stay. And then you go into a "Western imperialism violent / all other cultures peaceful" thing which is just sily. Without reading anything, I'm tempted to say your underlying political beliefs are slanting your claims. Let's see what the internet says...

BBC quotes an expert (https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26431858):

> The correction to "cuddly" Vikings had gone too far, says Prof Simon Keynes, an Anglo-Saxon historian at Cambridge University. "There's no question how nasty, unpleasant and brutish they were. They did all that the Vikings were reputed to have done."

> They stole anything they could. Churches were repositories of treasure to loot. They took cattle, money and food. It's likely they carried off women, too, he says. "They'd burn down settlements and leave a trail of destruction." It was unprovoked aggression. And unlike most armies, they came by sea, their narrow-bottomed longships allowing them to travel up rivers and take settlements by surprise. It was maritime blitzkrieg at first.

> Worse was the repeat nature of the raids. The Vikings, like burglars returning over and over again to the same houses, refused to leave places alone.

Simon Keynes appears to be a reliable source, an expert at a prestigious university free if scandal. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Keynes

But let's find another. https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/sorry-the-vikings-really... quotes David Dumville (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Dumville) and Stefan Brink (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Brink)... Seems like two more reliable sources to me.

So, basically, you were downvoted for being wrong. People downvoted without replying because it was obvious that you were wrong, but they couldn't work up the effort to provide you with references (as I've done here).

Also, you're not supposed to complain about votes.

I didn't make any claims about their raids on Europe though. I was talking specifically about Iceland, and Greenland, and only about Iceland and Greenland. So all your sources are completely irrelevant to what I said. You're reading things I never wrote.

The Thule people of Greenland arrived in 1300-1400, after the vikings had arrived.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Greenland#:~:text=A....

I was writing things I find interesting from a social development perspective, and a historical information perspective, but there was nothing political implied about what I said. Nor did I make any sort of far fetched claims, I claimed that Iceland and Greenland were uninhabited when the Vikings arrived, and that claim is true. And the point I was making is how much of an outlier that is, I understand that contact is usually followed by violence, that's why I pointed out how unusual that situation was.

I think that this is the result of people assuming political intent where there is none, reading into what I wrote things that weren't there, and basically just failing to be open minded in terms of exploring little known corners of history. The knee jerk downvote reflex is toxic and I think it's acceptable to talk about that.

I understand that in this day and age everything gets transmuted into politics but in this case I’m just a history nerd relaying something fascinating I know and to get this instant negative response is.. well it’s discouraging and frustrating. We’re all hackers here; don’t we want to learn new things and not just have our biases confirmed? Seeing the Vikings in their aspect as explorers rather than warriors is an aspect that isn’t often talked about. Of course they were warriors too, I don’t want to paint them as perfect people.

Oh whatever, I’m just shouting into the wind.

All the links I posted are relevant to your last sentence which said:

> Pretty peaceful overall for people who have a reputation for being barbarians.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com