Happy Columbus Day

[Yama]

15 hours ago, bojan said:

This.

Vikings were opportunists, and where there was nothing to plunder or trade - they were not interested in that area.

What kept Greenland colonies going was walrus ivory. However, I have read that at some point, trade connections to East improved, resulting to Elephant ivory coming from Africa and India, and Mammoth ivory coming from Siberia, which made walrus ivory trade unprofitable. That may have led to Vikings gradually abandoning Greenland (although ultimate fate of the colonies is shrouded in mystery). Colonizing Markland and Vinland with Greenlandic and Icelandic population base, and very limited shipbuilding capability*, was probably not very realistic.

*Greenlanders actually had to sail to North America for proper timber - must have been exciting journeys!

Edited October 16, 2025 by Yama

[rmgill]

I'm surprised Stuart forgot St Brendan. Maybe it's cause he was Irish?

The recount of the voyage by Tim Severin and his cohorts is intersting to read. 

[Yama]

Well that would take spotlight off from Prince Madoc...

Legend of St Brendan's voyage is so fantastical it is impossible to say if it's based on any real trip. Nevertheless, Irish and Scottish monks are among the most underappreciated historical navigators. Sailing only small leather boats, reaching Faroes - and possibly even Iceland - before Vikings, is extremely impressive feat of seamanship.

[rmgill]

The reproduction of the event in the 70s by Tim Severin and crew has me convinced it would have worked for St Brendan. The descriptions from the  historical text and the landfall and events seen makes sense. And serendipitously, the currents and winds work to make it possible bsaed on timing. St Brendan seems to have had as much luck as fortitude. 

Their actually having done it is rather dramatic proof. 

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

On 10/16/2025 at 3:20 PM, rmgill said:

I'm surprised Stuart forgot St Brendan. Maybe it's cause he was Irish?

The recount of the voyage by Tim Severin and his cohorts is intersting to read. 

I am Irish you dope.

But if we really want to go down obscure rabbit holes, pretty much the entire Pacific rim gets a look in.

https://www.voanews.com/a/who-discovered-america/3541542.html

And to add one fascinating wrinkle to the story of America's discover, consider the Sweet Potato. Yes, that's right the sweet potato. This humble pinkish-red tuber is native to South America. And yet, there have been sweet potatoes on the menu in Polynesia as far back as 1,000 years ago. So how did it get there?

By comparing the DNA of Polynesian and South American sweet potatoes, scientists think it's clear that someone either brought them back to Polynesia after visiting South America, or islanders brought them from South America when they were exploring the Pacific Ocean. Either way, it suggests that about the same time Nordic sailors were cutting trees in Canada, someone in Polynesia was trying sweet potatoes from South America for the first time.

Speaking of genetics, a 2014 study of the DNA of natives on the Polynesian island of Rapa Nui, also known as Easter Island, found a fair amount of Native American genes in the mix. The entry of American DNA into the genetics of the Rapa Nui natives suggests that the two peoples were living together around 1280 AD.

There are other theories out there. A retired British Naval officer named Gavin Menzies has been pushing the idea that the Chinese colonized South America in 1421.

Another theory from a retired chemist named John Ruskamp suggests that pictographs discovered in Arizona are nearly identical to Chinese characters. He puts the Chinese in the U.S. state of Arizona sometime around 1300 BC.

We mention these two only because we have seen them pop up in newspaper articles recently. They're thoroughly discredited, so we'll leave it at that.

 

[rmgill]

2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

I am Irish you dope.

 

1 then you have no excuse. 
2 you’ve repeatedly claimed to be british and not english. 
3 are you some kind of white supremacist now, claiming to be Irish ?

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

Im Anglo-Irish. If you Americans can wear your Irishness like Linus's blanket, Im sure I can too.

My Grandmother was born in a united Ireland (before partition). Consequently as part of her bloodline, the EU legislation says im Irish, and even the Irish will say Im irish because I can, through a neat accident of history, apply for an irish passport due to EU legislation.  My British born cousin, whom has absolutely no time for Brexit, already has one, just to avoid the interminable queues going to the continent arranged by Mr Farrage and Johnson.

So yes, im Irish, and Ill be Irish till I decide to be British, and hence back again, except when I decide to be both. Contraryism is an Irish thing too I believe, as you would probably know. 

As for White Supremacy, you know what Clement and Frenais said about the Irish.

 

Edited October 20, 2025 by Stuart Galbraith

[rmgill]

You've repeatedly stated you are British. Not English. 

Now you claim to be Anglo Irish. IS this how you feel today? tomorrow you'll feel British again? Or Internationalists? 

[Stuart Galbraith]

18 hours ago, rmgill said:

You've repeatedly stated you are British. Not English. 

Now you claim to be Anglo Irish. IS this how you feel today? tomorrow you'll feel British again? Or Internationalists? 

Yes, and you still dont get what I mean by that, do you? Lets look at the flag as an example of inclusivity.

Thats the flag of England, thats the flag of Scotland, that is the flag of Scotland. So here is the scottish bit,

thats the flag of St Paddy,

and the cross of St George.

Not Wales, which is a bit of an oversight, but not to worry, its assumed to be implicit of their presence.

And thats just how I feel. Ive got Scottish, English and Irish ancestry. Im a bitzer. I may have been born in England, but I dont feel particularly English. I feel more scottish and Irish than I do English, simply because the English these days are so bitterly xenophobic, divided and small minded. About everything actually.

So yes, I claim to Anglo Irish, though Ive no particular pride in the anglo part . Far easier day to day to say im 'British', then I dont have to get into the tangled nationalist crap  that make up any part of my ancestry. Being British is inclusive, and even Indians and Pakistani's that live and were born in England prefer to cop to being 'British' than English. And I entirely grasp why.

What about you? You cop to being Irish, except when you want to be American. I dont see any particular contradiction there, and clearly neither should I. You think your Italian Americans dont feel as much pride being Italian as American? Why shouldnt an Anglo Italian feel the same way?

 

 

[rmgill]

I don't see the Indian, Pakistani or any African flags in those....

So, they're flags of nationalism. Which you've stated is bad. 

[Ivanhoe]

 

Why am I not surprised that Columbus detractors are on the same sheet of music with pederasts?

[Yama]

On 10/20/2025 at 3:17 AM, rmgill said:

The reproduction of the event in the 70s by Tim Severin and crew has me convinced it would have worked for St Brendan. The descriptions from the  historical text and the landfall and events seen makes sense. And serendipitously, the currents and winds work to make it possible bsaed on timing. St Brendan seems to have had as much luck as fortitude. 

Their actually having done it is rather dramatic proof.

 

It would have been physically possible, whether it was actually done was another matter entirely (Heyerdahl sailed to American with an Egyptian reef boat, but few would suggest that ever happened).

There were probably several accidental crossings, based upon historical anecdotes such as Japanese fishing boats drifting to North America, and Inuit canoes found on British Islands. It's possible some Carthagian or Japanese or Irish vessel got lost and drifted to New World, but even if they survived, they would have had made little impact and had no way to return.

[rmgill]

Well we know Norse made it as far as Greenland and Iceland and went back and forth. The Little iceage made Greenland harder to sustain. 

And in the case of St Brendan we do have a historical text. It was just treated as a fanciful story. 

[Ivanhoe]

I think its safe to assume that there were actually several times more transoceanic crossings than were documented. Sailors in the fishing or mercantile businesses would have been unlikey to brag about their findings, competition would have brought prices up. 

Sea People sailed everywhere, Phoenicians sailed everywhere, Greeks, Arabs, Chinese, Pacific Islanders, etc. 

[Stuart Galbraith]

2 hours ago, Ivanhoe said:

I think its safe to assume that there were actually several times more transoceanic crossings than were documented. Sailors in the fishing or mercantile businesses would have been unlikey to brag about their findings, competition would have brought prices up. 

Sea People sailed everywhere, Phoenicians sailed everywhere, Greeks, Arabs, Chinese, Pacific Islanders, etc. 

I remember that was the case before Cabot. A lot of Bristolians were very unhappy he related having found land where he did, because the coast of Newfoundland was reportedly the site of very rich catches for them, and they didnt very much like it revealed. It appears that he wasnt relying on Columbus's claims for the journey, he was using claims that were laid down by local fishermen.

[Ivanhoe]

7 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

I remember that was the case before Cabot. A lot of Bristolians were very unhappy he related having found land where he did, because the coast of Newfoundland was reportedly the site of very rich catches for them, and they didnt very much like it revealed. It appears that he wasnt relying on Columbus's claims for the journey, he was using claims that were laid down by local fishermen.

Fishermen from Britain and France sure as hell knew about the Grand Banks long before landlubbers. 

Imagine hauling in so much cod you need to throw your ballast stones overboard.