Experts Present the Case That Even The Vikings Were Not The First To Discover America Due To New Evi
61 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;49472443]i was going to say i want to see romans vs mongols under genghis khan, but that would 100% result in mongol victory[/QUOTE]
probably but from what i've always seen the mongols always won simply by outnumbering or overpowering their enemy, they took so much land because they didn't have any powerful forces (like the romans) to stop them, and they took over parts of china because they were largely disorganized
where as the romans did the same, they used tactics, fortifications, and mobility to their engineering to win fights when they couldn't overpower or outnumber their foes
[QUOTE=FingerSpazem;49471203]
i swear this is FP's favorite word[/QUOTE]
It literally is.
Oak Island is an interesting place. It's been said to contain vast treasure (not yet found) and it's been looked for since the 17th century apparently. There are tales of landowners there who suddenly gained lots of wealth or even paid their debt in ancient coins.
It's also a place with a fuckton of differing and crazy theories.
[QUOTE=Elspin;49472499]Not that I think it's unreasonable to be skeptical, I certainly am, but if romans did make it to america that doesn't necessarily mean they'd make it back to have the information recorded.[/QUOTE]
the romans were an extremely literate society that left their crap lying around everywhere.
it would be extremely unusual for them to discover an entirely new continent, and not only ignore it, but to have virtually nothing of their presence. romans weren't navigators also, their ships were largely designed for travel on coastal seas rather than the open ocean
[QUOTE=Ajacks;49471575]Romans vs American Indians. That'd be interesting. Someone should do an alternative history timeline game of the Americas being colonized by Rome, causing the Roman empire never to fall.[/QUOTE]
tbh rome was already doomed to fall, colonizing america (or attemping to) would have probably sped it up
Romans getting shipwrecked in the new world seems possible.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49474305]the romans were an extremely literate society that left their crap lying around everywhere.
it would be extremely unusual for them to discover an entirely new continent, and not only ignore it, but to have virtually nothing of their presence. romans weren't navigators also, their ships were largely designed for travel on coastal seas rather than the open ocean
tbh rome was already doomed to fall, colonizing america (or attemping to) would have probably sped it up[/QUOTE]
A not very likely option is that maybe the Romans got to the Americas at a bad time, and the same thing as the winter of 1609 for the pilgrims happened to the Romans before they could actually start documenting things and setting up, who knows.
A more likely option is that mabye it was a single ship for exploring that got shipwrecked, leaving the Romans stranded on the island.
Uhh, what about the native Americans?
[QUOTE=Toro;49474385]A not very likely option is that maybe the Romans got to the Americas at a bad time, and the same thing as the winter of 1609 for the pilgrims happened to the Romans before they could actually start documenting things and setting up, who knows.
A more likely option is that mabye it was a single ship for exploring that got shipwrecked, leaving the Romans stranded on the island.[/QUOTE]
It's possible the Romans didn't even survive long enough to shipwreck.
The winds and currents of the Atlantic would bring a ship from off the coast of Morocco to the Bahamas, and potentially up the East Coast (or maybe down towards Brazil). Roman ships of the time did not have enough stores for the sailors to survive such a long voyage. So any such ship would be effectively unmanned by the time it reached the Americas.
Bullshit.
[QUOTE]"The shipwreck is still there and has not been worked,” said Pulitzer. “We have scanned it, we know exactly where it lays, but it will be a touchy thing for the Nova Scotia government to allow an archaeological team to survey it. We know beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is Roman.[/QUOTE]
If they haven't dug it yet how can they be so sure? If their scans are evidence that it is a Roman ship why not show them?
Also this: [url]https://archive.is/Z317f[/url]
curious to know if disease would've been a factor this time around.
of course that assumes they actually crossed the fucking ATLANTIC
There's no guarantee that this "smoking gun" sword wasn't already an ancient artifact brought by more recent passengers to the New World. Maybe a viking ship brought it, maybe a ship from the 1800's brought it, who knows. Until we see scans of the ship itself and until a full dig happens, we can't come to any productive conclusions.
This guy is talking absolute nonsense, [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oak_Island#Ark_of_the_Covenant"]he also thinks that ancient peoples might have hidden the Ark of the Covenant on the island.[/URL]
This would be a pretty fucking amazing discovery, if it is indeed real.
[editline]7th January 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=The mouse;49475799]This guy is talking absolute nonsense, [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oak_Island#Ark_of_the_Covenant"]he also thinks that ancient peoples might have hidden the Ark of the Covenant on the island.[/URL][/QUOTE]
Impossible, it's being handled by top people.
Sounds like one of my CK2 to EU4 playthroughs.
Well I dont mean to be that guy, but isnt it possible that the vikings that settled in the Americas were veterans of the Varangian Guard, afterall the Byzantines did keep Roman shit lying around, not to mention that sword looks more greek in origin than Germanic. It'd also explain the burial mounds, which was a common practice at the time. Not to mention that the norsemen who did colonize vinland were Christian.
Wow, sure is amazing that the Romans discovered America before the ancient Asians that crossed the land bridge hundreds of thousands of years before their empire even existed.
Thise crafty Romans.
[QUOTE=Sableye;49473170]probably but from what i've always seen the mongols always won simply by outnumbering or overpowering their enemy, they took so much land because they didn't have any powerful forces (like the romans) to stop them, and they took over parts of china because they were largely disorganized
where as the romans did the same, they used tactics, fortifications, and mobility to their engineering to win fights when they couldn't overpower or outnumber their foes[/QUOTE]
it is understandable that you would see the mongols as being just a horde of people rampaging across the steppes, always winning because they had more people, since that is how media portrays them. this is actually false. the mongols were extremely tactical and would regularly defeat enemies fielding double and more the number of units they had on the field. they were able to successfully seige several heavily fortified chinese cities of millions of people, and were practically undefeated for an absurd amount of time. genghis khan probably was the greatest general this planet has ever seen.
its just the wikipedia page but it is still really interesting, at least to me
[url]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_military_tactics_and_organization[/url]
Seems like a hoax.
it may surprise you to hear, but genghis khan had a spy network so vast it rivals spy networks of the cold war. he would want to know as much as he could about the enemy before planning to attack them. the mongols are far from the dirty hordes most people think them to be (they are still dirty, though, because they didn't wash their clothes ever)
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;49476984]it may surprise you to hear, but genghis khan had a spy network so vast it rivals spy networks of the cold war. he would want to know as much as he could about the enemy before planning to attack them. the mongols are far from the dirty hordes most people think them to be (they are still dirty, though, because they didn't wash their clothes ever)[/QUOTE]
the mongols were basically an extremely efficient form of parasite, which is what impresses people the most
[QUOTE=Sableye;49473170]probably but from what i've always seen the mongols always won simply by outnumbering or overpowering their enemy, they took so much land because they didn't have any powerful forces (like the romans) to stop them, and they took over parts of china because they were largely disorganized
where as the romans did the same, they used tactics, fortifications, and mobility to their engineering to win fights when they couldn't overpower or outnumber their foes[/QUOTE]
They toppled Persian and Chinese dynasties outnumbered greatly.
[QUOTE=Toro;49474385]A not very likely option is that maybe the Romans got to the Americas at a bad time, and the same thing as the winter of 1609 for the pilgrims happened to the Romans before they could actually start documenting things and setting up, who knows.
A more likely option is that mabye it was a single ship for exploring that got shipwrecked, leaving the Romans stranded on the island.[/QUOTE][QUOTE=gman003-main;49474577]It's possible the Romans didn't even survive long enough to shipwreck.
The winds and currents of the Atlantic would bring a ship from off the coast of Morocco to the Bahamas, and potentially up the East Coast (or maybe down towards Brazil). Roman ships of the time did not have enough stores for the sailors to survive such a long voyage. So any such ship would be effectively unmanned by the time it reached the Americas.[/QUOTE]Mind you I'm no expert on sailing but you're both missing a critical point here: the Romans didn't have the ships capable of actually surviving the voyage, nor did they have the expertise to even do so. They could have absolutely packed enough to survive the voyage but their ships would have likely capsized as they lost sight of the African or Spanish coast.
Really the only reason why the Norse sailors were able to reach North America is they were quite familiar with arctic waters, had the ability to navigate, [I]had the tools to navigate,[/I] and also the sailing expertise needed to survive such a voyage. Most of the best "Roman" sailors weren't Italians at all, in fact for most of the history of Rome Greek sailors and oarsmen dominated the shipping workforce. Greek sailing techniques largely hadn't changed for hundreds of years and were limited to the square-rigged, (relatively) shallow drafted vessels that were found all throughout the Aegean and to a larger extent the Mediterranean as a whole. Beyond that? It would take at least four centuries after the fall of the Western Roman Empire before you saw ships that could handle the Atlantic. Hell, if you took a knarr or a snekkja (viking ships) and tried to make the journey further south it likely wouldn't have been as successful despite the advantage given by the wind. (compare the distance from Iceland to the Canadian coast, then Spain to Brazil and you'll see what I'm talking about)
That said though, sailors in the Roman Empire were quite used to the seasonal winds of the Mediterranean and would have avoided launching in winter or spring, but instead launched during the beginning of summer and would have likely ran square into fall storms out on the open ocean. Mind you these were slow, fat boats and weren't the military biremes and triremes we're familiar with today, who would actually fare even worse in the storms given that their sailing qualities in really rough seas were total shit.
Simply put unless the Romans had mastered shipbuilding techniques that wouldn't show up again for a millennia, this whole thing is definitely complete bullshit and the Romans never went to North America. Plus,
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49474305]the romans were an extremely literate society that left their crap lying around everywhere.
it would be extremely unusual for them to discover an entirely new continent, and not only ignore it, but to have virtually nothing of their presence. romans weren't navigators also, their ships were largely designed for travel on coastal seas rather than the open ocean[/QUOTE]There would have been [I]something[/I] left behind had they actually landed, even if they all died off the Native Americans would have fucking snatched up all their coins, jewelry, and cookware and we'd find that shit all over the place. Plus, again, they didn't have any of the shit necessary to actually make the journey anyway as both Sobotnik and myself have said.
What this thread has proven to me is that vikings are the superior master race.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;49479775]Mind you I'm no expert on sailing but you're both missing a critical point here: the Romans didn't have the ships capable of actually surviving the voyage, nor did they have the expertise to even do so. They could have absolutely packed enough to survive the voyage but their ships would have likely capsized as they lost sight of the African or Spanish coast.
Really the only reason why the Norse sailors were able to reach North America is they were quite familiar with arctic waters, had the ability to navigate, [I]had the tools to navigate,[/I] and also the sailing expertise needed to survive such a voyage. Most of the best "Roman" sailors weren't Italians at all, in fact for most of the history of Rome Greek sailors and oarsmen dominated the shipping workforce. Greek sailing techniques largely hadn't changed for hundreds of years and were limited to the square-rigged, (relatively) shallow drafted vessels that were found all throughout the Aegean and to a larger extent the Mediterranean as a whole. Beyond that? It would take at least four centuries after the fall of the Western Roman Empire before you saw ships that could handle the Atlantic. Hell, if you took a knarr or a snekkja (viking ships) and tried to make the journey further south it likely wouldn't have been as successful despite the advantage given by the wind. (compare the distance from Iceland to the Canadian coast, then Spain to Brazil and you'll see what I'm talking about)
That said though, sailors in the Roman Empire were quite used to the seasonal winds of the Mediterranean and would have avoided launching in winter or spring, but instead launched during the beginning of summer and would have likely ran square into fall storms out on the open ocean. Mind you these were slow, fat boats and weren't the military biremes and triremes we're familiar with today, who would actually fare even worse in the storms given that their sailing qualities in really rough seas were total shit.
Simply put unless the Romans had mastered shipbuilding techniques that wouldn't show up again for a millennia, this whole thing is definitely complete bullshit and the Romans never went to North America. Plus,
There would have been [I]something[/I] left behind had they actually landed, even if they all died off the Native Americans would have fucking snatched up all their coins, jewelry, and cookware and we'd find that shit all over the place. Plus, again, they didn't have any of the shit necessary to actually make the journey anyway as both Sobotnik and myself have said.[/QUOTE]
You have a point, I mean it took Odysseus ten years just to cross the Mediterranean.
[QUOTE=elowin;49479808]What this thread has proven to me is that vikings are the superior master race.[/QUOTE]
Until they got their pansy bearded asses whooped by the natives because they gave them bad cheese.
[QUOTE=Mingebox;49479848]You have a point, I mean it took Odysseus ten years just to cross the Mediterranean.[/QUOTE]I don't know why but I laughed hard :v:
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;49479864]Until they got their pansy bearded asses whooped by the natives because they gave them bad cheese.[/QUOTE][citation needed]
They left willingly because Canada sucks. (fite me canadians)
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;49479864]Until they got their pansy bearded asses whooped by the natives because they gave them bad cheese.[/QUOTE]
According to the sagas Canada was just shit, all they had was bush grapes and moose, not to mention the vikings ran low on supplies and had to leave, though after several attempts to resettle they just stopped because money was tight
I find it funny how they abandoned Canada after five years on account of it being shit but they remained in Greenland for four centuries
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49482707]I find it funny how they abandoned Canada after five years on account of it being shit but they remained in Greenland for four centuries[/QUOTE]
Best stick with the shit you know, than the shit you don't.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49482707]I find it funny how they abandoned Canada after five years on account of it being shit but they remained in Greenland for four centuries[/QUOTE]
Might have something to do with the distance to Europe. In Greenland they could (for a long time) have some kind of cultural and supply trade with Denmark/Norway/etc, probably wouldn't be as easy in Canada - after all people lived on both Iceland and Færøerne which could function as jump point to Greenland. The colonies on Greenland died out not long after contact with Europe ended, though the cut off may also just be a byproduct of what killed the colonies.
Also iirc the first encounters with the indians weren't exactly pleasant, might be it went better in Greenland - or it might be that they simply didn't meet that many eskimoes.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.