What if the Vikings colonized America?
video description
We get successful, liberal and then we get browned out or forcibly replaced. This has happened before and is happening now in Europe and its former colonies. Our doom is our liberalism and pathological altruism.
Date: 2022-07-15
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 9
Mrton
17 century line infantry newer faced nomad tactics.
A well disciplined cavalry is a force to be reckoned with, contrary to the anglosaxon myths, the tactic was viable despite introduction of new infantry formation, and widespread use of bow and arrow.
(This is probably best demonstrated by the polish cavalry defeating soviet troops while being heavily outnumbered between the two world wars, in multiple major engagements)
The typical nomadic horse archer would have not one but two advantages, for one it can easily out range (and aim at that range) the musketeers, while it can dictate the terms of engagement thanks to its superior mobility.
And when dealing with ranged combat mobility rules, as it can create a local superiority, which can be used to destroy that group of enemy forces without much loss, then it can deal with the others more easily.
This is ignoring the fact that Eurasian nomads employed shock cavalry against closed infantry formations that couldn't be broken up with arrows, as early as the late roman empire.
And line infantry didn't have the benefit of good enough armor or proper shields, to survive barage of arrows better than roman legions in testudo formations.
Of course nomadic warfare is at most effective when it can be employed in the open, and when the enemy has no fortifications to retreat.
Their tactics failed with the invention of rifling on guns, but at that time they weren't able to muster a capable army, thanks to internal struggles and cultural assimilation. (After all rulers have an incentive to pursue settlement, since it increases their wealth and power over the population - that is why groups like hungarians settled)
reply
17 century line infantry newer faced nomad tactics.
A well disciplined cavalry is a force to be reckoned with, contrary to the anglosaxon myths, the tactic was viable despite introduction of new infantry formation, and widespread use of bow and arrow.
(This is probably best demonstrated by the polish cavalry defeating soviet troops while being heavily outnumbered between the two world wars, in multiple major engagements)
The typical nomadic horse archer would have not one but two advantages, for one it can easily out range (and aim at that range) the musketeers, while it can dictate the terms of engagement thanks to its superior mobility.
And when dealing with ranged combat mobility rules, as it can create a local superiority, which can be used to destroy that group of enemy forces without much loss, then it can deal with the others more easily.
This is ignoring the fact that Eurasian nomads employed shock cavalry against closed infantry formations that couldn't be broken up with arrows, as early as the late roman empire.
And line infantry didn't have the benefit of good enough armor or proper shields, to survive barage of arrows better than roman legions in testudo formations.
Of course nomadic warfare is at most effective when it can be employed in the open, and when the enemy has no fortifications to retreat.
Their tactics failed with the invention of rifling on guns, but at that time they weren't able to muster a capable army, thanks to internal struggles and cultural assimilation. (After all rulers have an incentive to pursue settlement, since it increases their wealth and power over the population - that is why groups like hungarians settled)
reply
adamnesico
Ugh, as being so early thi timeline has aged horribly.
The author when did this video beleived europeans defeated natives just with gunpowder. Still so rookie.
As someone said, Norway was too small for colonize.
Crusaders would prefer AMerica?
Lets see.
A small trave in sea to a sacred city where pagans are attacking christians with lot of things to pillage and serfs to conquer, vs a long risky sea travel to a far land with no serfs and no wealth to pillage.
Crusaders would amke sam choice as the reality.
Winchester cathedral having american influences?
How? Didnt happened with any colonizer.
Japanese conquering West coast? They never tried such thing in our history, why in this?
Uf, this timeline is a clear juvenilia, but the previous juvenilias I had seen were far better than this one.
reply
Ugh, as being so early thi timeline has aged horribly.
The author when did this video beleived europeans defeated natives just with gunpowder. Still so rookie.
As someone said, Norway was too small for colonize.
Crusaders would prefer AMerica?
Lets see.
A small trave in sea to a sacred city where pagans are attacking christians with lot of things to pillage and serfs to conquer, vs a long risky sea travel to a far land with no serfs and no wealth to pillage.
Crusaders would amke sam choice as the reality.
Winchester cathedral having american influences?
How? Didnt happened with any colonizer.
Japanese conquering West coast? They never tried such thing in our history, why in this?
Uf, this timeline is a clear juvenilia, but the previous juvenilias I had seen were far better than this one.
reply
Rex
The Beothuk did not exist as a group at that time. The Maritime archaic Indians and Dorset Eskimo did. One of these groups attacked the colony of Hop, killing 3 Norsemen. Their enthusiasm for red fabric (they attacked when trade supplies ran out) indicates a connection to the later Beothuk who gave us the term red indians, as they covered their clothes, tools and skin with red ocher, a sacred color to them. The Greenland colony lasted into the 15th century and could have sustained colonies in North America, however it appears that they only stayed from 1000 ad to 1200 ad (see carbon dating from L'anse aux Meadws and Point Rosee.
reply
The Beothuk did not exist as a group at that time. The Maritime archaic Indians and Dorset Eskimo did. One of these groups attacked the colony of Hop, killing 3 Norsemen. Their enthusiasm for red fabric (they attacked when trade supplies ran out) indicates a connection to the later Beothuk who gave us the term red indians, as they covered their clothes, tools and skin with red ocher, a sacred color to them. The Greenland colony lasted into the 15th century and could have sustained colonies in North America, however it appears that they only stayed from 1000 ad to 1200 ad (see carbon dating from L'anse aux Meadws and Point Rosee.
reply
R.
The reasons the Greenland colony died out were: 1) End of the Medieval Warm Period thus making Norse style farming and agriculture impossible. 2) Norse ban on anyone else trading with Greenland except (Bergen I believe. For this alternative history to have happened you need to say the Medieval Warm Period extended for another 1-2 hundred years. Also, probably, some other Icelandic or Norse, or English event which pushes people to Greenland and the Americas. (Which would not be called America's in this timeline)
reply
The reasons the Greenland colony died out were: 1) End of the Medieval Warm Period thus making Norse style farming and agriculture impossible. 2) Norse ban on anyone else trading with Greenland except (Bergen I believe. For this alternative history to have happened you need to say the Medieval Warm Period extended for another 1-2 hundred years. Also, probably, some other Icelandic or Norse, or English event which pushes people to Greenland and the Americas. (Which would not be called America's in this timeline)
reply
Ahora
It would have been just a similar situation as South Africa, with a relatively small Dutch population which assimilated some people but without the demographic pressure of the English, Spaniards and Portuguese. even if that demographic pressure was enforced by people from German states (to English colonies) and Italian states (to Spanish and Portuguese colonies) as those states which later created Germany and Italy during the XIX century, were much more populated than England and Spain themselves.
reply
It would have been just a similar situation as South Africa, with a relatively small Dutch population which assimilated some people but without the demographic pressure of the English, Spaniards and Portuguese. even if that demographic pressure was enforced by people from German states (to English colonies) and Italian states (to Spanish and Portuguese colonies) as those states which later created Germany and Italy during the XIX century, were much more populated than England and Spain themselves.
reply
William
OH and gunpowder was NOT what allowed the Europeans to conquer the Meso-American cultures. Early guns were BARELY more effective than bows and arrows. Many Conquistadors preferred to carry crossbows instead of guns, due to their greater reliability. Better military organization, superior leadership, modernized tactics, a lack of cohesive organization on the part of the natives, and deft manipulation of Native American Spanish allies are what allowed the Spaniards to prevail.
reply
OH and gunpowder was NOT what allowed the Europeans to conquer the Meso-American cultures. Early guns were BARELY more effective than bows and arrows. Many Conquistadors preferred to carry crossbows instead of guns, due to their greater reliability. Better military organization, superior leadership, modernized tactics, a lack of cohesive organization on the part of the natives, and deft manipulation of Native American Spanish allies are what allowed the Spaniards to prevail.
reply
Hayden
The Holy Roman Empire was far far from a united Germany. It was a alliance between small weaker kingdoms and princedoms who (for the most part and in a very general since) shared a smellier religion, culture, ethnic, and in many cases gynecology of the ruling nobility (calf calf Habsburgs) that was seated in the German superpower Austria. I also complacently disagree with the testament about the war being apart of the fall of the empire.
reply
The Holy Roman Empire was far far from a united Germany. It was a alliance between small weaker kingdoms and princedoms who (for the most part and in a very general since) shared a smellier religion, culture, ethnic, and in many cases gynecology of the ruling nobility (calf calf Habsburgs) that was seated in the German superpower Austria. I also complacently disagree with the testament about the war being apart of the fall of the empire.
reply
R.
Disagree---at that point in time no, the Europeans did not use gunpowder. But smallpox has existed in Europe throughout written history. That is why Europeans developed a higher degree of resistance to the disease, although it was still devastating in Europe. Therefore, viking colonists, and other European settlers would have inevitably carried the disease to the Americas with the same, unintended result.
reply
Disagree---at that point in time no, the Europeans did not use gunpowder. But smallpox has existed in Europe throughout written history. That is why Europeans developed a higher degree of resistance to the disease, although it was still devastating in Europe. Therefore, viking colonists, and other European settlers would have inevitably carried the disease to the Americas with the same, unintended result.
reply
William
Transportation and navigation technology in the 11th Century would not have been sufficient to support a mass migration to the Americas. Also populations were considerably lower in Medieval Europe than they were during the Renaissance Europe of the Age of Discovery. Settling the Americas wasn't feasible in the 11th Century. That is why the Vikings couldn't do it successfully.
reply
Transportation and navigation technology in the 11th Century would not have been sufficient to support a mass migration to the Americas. Also populations were considerably lower in Medieval Europe than they were during the Renaissance Europe of the Age of Discovery. Settling the Americas wasn't feasible in the 11th Century. That is why the Vikings couldn't do it successfully.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
