Do you believe that the Vikings beat Columbus by 500 years?

Question

I only ask because I've met some people who get really, really upset when I mention this. It's not like this fact is ruining anybody's life.

Answer 1

It's true. They didn't want to stay though. They just raped and pillaged a bit then went home.

Answer 2

I do, there is evidence to support it.

Answer 3

"Believe" is the wrong word to use.   There is factual evidence that the Vikings had a settlement on the New World in Labrador and on Greenland.  So, we KNOW that they beat Columbus.

However, unlike Columbus, and those who followed him, who established permanent settlements, the Vikings eventually retreated to their Norwegian homeland.

Answer 4

you should suggest they take a trip to L'Anse aux Meadows.  Kinda hard to dispute it when it's a world heritage site and it's staring you in the face.....

Answer 5

Believe?

Genetic studies of native Americans from the Algonquin and I believe Potomac (if that's what they're called.....) tribes have confirmed scandinavian ancestry in some of them.  Not only that, but many Eskimo in what is now Greenland have light skin and blue eyes.  There is genetic evidence among native american tribes originally from the northeastern seaboard of the U.S. of scandinavian admixture from BEFORE Jamestown.

500 Years?  Try nearly 1,000.

No archeological evidence has been found, and the reason it has not been placed in oficial history has to do with the fact that tales of "Newfoundland" and all that c**p are only found in the sagas.  In other words "here say."  Regardless of what academics personally believe, withou hard evidence, you can not commit anything to a history texts.  Also, some Viking sagas never have a direct source, many involve "the nephew of my best friend's great grandfather's uncle," or some other "distant" "source."

Naturally many people from Norway, Denmark, Sweden and of course Iceland, actually, specially Iceland, insist that the Vikings DID land in the Americas, specifically north america, way before Columbus.  Also while genetic evidence is compelling, its still not history.

For instance, I have pure Hebrew blood; genetic studies have revealed, that my closest genetic relatives are found, almost spot on, on the eastern end of the fertile crescent, geographically, precisely where Ur and Babylon were located.  My parents are both, also, Iraqi Jews.

By all rights, that makes me Hebrew; not just "Jewish," not just a "Jew with Hebrew ancestry" or "whose ancestors were Hebrew who lived in the holy land."  I am talking Hebrew as in, you look at me, you know what the people who wrote the bible looked like.  To look at me, is to look at the soldiers who served in King David's army, to look at the scribes who wrote the old laws.  In many ways I'm a living fossil; most ancient peoples are extinct, or mixed and therefore changed.  Iraqi Jews on the other hand, because the separate semitic peoples do not mix because of tribal and pride issues, are Hebrew almost 100% for most of us.  Because appearance wise we have not changed at all it is safe to say Iraqi Jews, and the Hebrew Muslims of Saudi Arabia, are living fossils.

However, family tradition, and cultural attitudes, to the academic mind do not constitute as proof.  Even with DNA evidence, it is still not proof that I am Hebrew, for all I know my ancestors could ancient Babylonian converts to Judaism.  However, that is looking at things with a western mind; westerners have got no clue at all how fiercely proud different semitic groups are though, both men and women, and how little they mix with outsiders.  Many tribes in Saudi Arabia in fact will not mix with some Arab tribes of Jordan, and the great majority of Jordanians descend, like them, from Ishmael.

However....... its still not proof.  They likely get upset because Columbus should not hog up all the credit, and hey, there are some proud Vikings out there....

Answer 6

If only they could beat the Packers.

Answer 7

I think the evidence of some Viking colonization (temporary, at least) on the Atlantic shores of North America is pretty irrefutable.  Whether it's truly "Vinland" or not is another matter, but there is plenty of evidence that there were Norse folks here well before Columbus.  In fact, to my knowledge, Columbus never set foot in North America, and the Vikings never set foot in the Caribbean or Central America.  

Answer 8

Yes, it is fairly easy to believe that Eric the Red made it here.

I also believe that the Vikings could beat Columbia by 500 points. In about three quarters.

Answer 9

Well, there is archaeological evidence that cannot realistically be refuted, and seeing as Columbus was actually beaten to the Americas by a few other well-documented European voyages (i.e Amerigo Vespucci), I don't see why anyone would be upset by someone pointing this out.

Answer 10

Yes, I do. All Columbus did was usher in European settlement and commit genocide.