Discovery of Australia

Oct 2015
5,179
Matosinhos Portugal
#51
You say that the Vikings discovered North America between 1000 years 1100 and was never disclosed the discovery was perhaps a secret of the Vikings because of the Pope..

hehehe joke
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
5,369
Portugal
#52
We are technically speaking here.

Vikings were the first ones, to not only discover, but to settle on the American continent.

Colombus was second.
If you want to speak technically, neither the Norsemen were the first nor was Columbus the second to arrive to America. You seem to forget that America was already inhabited when they arrived, possibly in two or three waves if not more.

You have to consider the time when it was made. Vikings couldn't do much impact on the Western World by its discovery simply because at that time literacy wasn't widespread, therefore people cannot understand the importance of the finding. You cannot simply draw the line and compare the impact by modern standards.
The comparison that I made was not by modern standards, but by Early Modern and Early Medieval standards, in other words by the impact that the voyages had to those societies.

I mean had the Vikings (or their successors) found America in the time of Colombus it could have been having much greater impact, maybe comparable.
The “had” part belongs to the speculative subforum. I am not talking about speculative history here.

It's the same as comparing a house from 1000s and 1500s and say... hey this house is way better than the other.

There must be the factor time in this thing.
Sorry, I didn’t understood this “housing” analogy.

Vikings/Norsemen (and their today's descendants) have the legal right to claim America. At least North America.
Legal right to claim what? That they arrived there? It is not a legal right, it is a history.
 
Oct 2015
5,179
Matosinhos Portugal
#55
Okay thanks, I've never heard of them, I just know that the Vikings passed through the Iberian Peninsula in the year 800 if I'm not mistaken, hug.

Está bem obrigado,nunca tinha ouvido falar neles,apenas sei que os Vikings passaram pela Peninsula Ibérica no ano 800 se eu não estou enganado,abraço.
 
Feb 2015
111
south Slavic guy
#56
If you want to speak technically, neither the Norsemen were the first nor was Columbus the second to arrive to America. You seem to forget that America was already inhabited when they arrived, possibly in two or three waves if not more.
Native tribes technically cannot be native and first explorers. They cannot be both. It's like being homo and hetero at the same time.

Native tribes are native for a reason. Plus, I doubt that any historian can know for sure what happened some 12,000 thousand years ago.
Hell we have troubles finding what happened some 1000 years ago, let alone so HUGE time frame.

Vikings were the first explorers. Period.

Or we can consider the dinosaurs as the first who found it.
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
5,369
Portugal
#57
Native tribes technically cannot be native and first explorers. They cannot be both. It's like being homo and hetero at the same time.

Native tribes are native for a reason. Plus, I doubt that any historian can know for sure what happened some 12,000 thousand years ago.
Hell we have troubles finding what happened some 1000 years ago, let alone so HUGE time frame.

Vikings were the first explorers. Period.

Or we can consider the dinosaurs as the first who found it.
Well “Native tribes” weren’t natives in America when they migrated there. Originally they were native Siberians. They became American natives when they born there, settled there, and then generation after generation moved further south. Native means “relating to or describing someone's country or place of birth or someone who was born in a particular country or place” (NATIVE | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary).

By the way, out of theme, but related with your remark, because I didn’t understood the analogy, but can’t a person that is “homo” and “hetero” and the same time be considered a “bi”?

As for what happened circa 14000 years ago we have enough evidences to know that there was a migration from Siberia. The South Pacific migration is currently a theory that as far as I know still lacks further evidences.

And yes, the Norse were the first Europeans, as far as we know, to reach America.

As for your last remark about dinosaurs, I will recall you that this is a history forum. Dinosaurs are out of our time frame. History is a human and social discipline/science. Without the human presence there is no history under the present paradigm.
 
Feb 2015
111
south Slavic guy
#58
Well “Native tribes” weren’t natives in America when they migrated there. Originally they were native Siberians. They became American natives when they born there, settled there, and then generation after generation moved further south. Native means “relating to or describing someone's country or place of birth or someone who was born in a particular country or place” (NATIVE | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary).

By the way, out of theme, but related with your remark, because I didn’t understood the analogy, but can’t a person that is “homo” and “hetero” and the same time be considered a “bi”?

As for what happened circa 14000 years ago we have enough evidences to know that there was a migration from Siberia. The South Pacific migration is currently a theory that as far as I know still lacks further evidences.

And yes, the Norse were the first Europeans, as far as we know, to reach America.

As for your last remark about dinosaurs, I will recall you that this is a history forum. Dinosaurs are out of our time frame. History is a human and social discipline/science. Without the human presence there is no history under the present paradigm.
You are trying to reach.. too much I think.

Because if we follow this pattern, EVERY one of us will be considered a migrant. But that's not exactly right, yes? Because there is such thing called evolution, and we are not sure how it happened.

My point is that we must set a point in time from where to start "our history". And I think year 0 (the born of Christ) is a good start. I don't really care what happened before that. So should the others I think. As you can definitely not know your lineage (or even remotely accurate) before that time.
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
5,369
Portugal
#60
You are trying to reach.. too much I think.
Not sure what you think what I am trying to reach.

Because if we follow this pattern, EVERY one of us will be considered a migrant. But that's not exactly right, yes? Because there is such thing called evolution, and we are not sure how it happened.
Only those who really migrate. Even today there are still people that are born, live and die in the same place. Those are obviously not migrants. And this has nothing to do directly with evolution.

My point is that we must set a point in time from where to start "our history". And I think year 0 (the born of Christ) is a good start.
It is a good start for some it isn’t necessarily for others. Anyway History doesn’t begin in year 0. By the way Jesus Christ officially born in the year 1, in the AC calendar there isn’t a year “0”.

I don't really care what happened before that.
The fact that you state that you don’t care doesn’t mean that history as a discipline/social science doesn’t care.

So should the others I think. As you can definitely not know your lineage (or even remotely accurate) before that time.
And the object of history is not to know your lineage. That is only a part of history. As all attracts some and doesn’t attract others. Personally I like history, I have a professional qualification in history, I am a history teacher for years and the only lineage that I know are my parents and grandparents, I don’t have curiosity to know more about my lineate, but I have curiosity to know more about other aspects of history.

Tulius

The first living creatures to discover America were the migratory birds, then the fish.
Well, don’t know much about it, but I think that there are Fauna and Flora in America since the continents separated from Pangea. But that is Natural History, not History.
 

Similar History Discussions