@NaturalBornTraveller said in #5:
> Incorrect. It was called Greenland, as a way to encourage settlers to come. Basically it was false advertisment. Ment to encourage people to venture further, instead of settling in the harsh environment of Iceland.
> Most "vikings" were the second, third born sons. Since they didn't have a claim on the inheritance, they had to search for their own fortune.
>
>
>
> No, far from the climate to Norway, nothing like the coasts and fjords of Norway. They didn't have the dirt and soil to sustain a farming settlement. The "forest" was small bushes at best. And not trees, as we would normally call them. But they had an abundance of fish.
> So maybe they just liked Sushi? Salted and/or fermented sushi...?
>
>
>
> The Norse settlers in eastern Greenland, did bring domesticated animals, but Greenland was never prosperous, and the animals brought was most likely slaughtered for food in the winter, except possibly a few for milking, and for breading in the summer.
> Not a sustainable environment for keeping livestock.
>
>
>
> Greenland was never really cultivated for farming.
> Mainly because there ain't enough good soil.
> A few crops is not enough to create prosperous settlements.
>
> Humans can survive under harsh conditions, the Greenlandic norce settlers did just that, survive, not strive, just survive, until they left. (My theory is that the last settlers, properly arranged with the traders to ship them back to Europe, perhaps becoming a type of indentent servants, but this is just my theory, no one really knows what happened)
I based myself partly on this article in French
www.letemps.ch/sciences/environnement/au-groenland-face-a-l-ineluctable-et-tres-debattu-retour-de-la-foret
these are not majestic forests, but small groupings of trees or bushes, quite puny, with willow, juniper and birch (I hope I am not mistaken on the names)
there is also a “forest” in the Qinngua Valley. insufficient enough to build a fleet of boats, but enough to make fences or cabins (even if most of the materials were imported)
Edit : on the subject of "crops" I was talking about the exploitation of plant resources dedicated to pasture which were already present like grasses - there were also barn-type buildings. there was no market gardening.
I think that the cereals for bread could come by boat but given the danger of such transport, it must have been expensive and rare (and maybe it never happened !)
Thx for the detailed info, I didn't know that it was serious that Erik the Red had made the greenland a lying sales argument, but frankly, the landscape of certain fjords and valleys is quite idyllic for tourist
> Incorrect. It was called Greenland, as a way to encourage settlers to come. Basically it was false advertisment. Ment to encourage people to venture further, instead of settling in the harsh environment of Iceland.
> Most "vikings" were the second, third born sons. Since they didn't have a claim on the inheritance, they had to search for their own fortune.
>
>
>
> No, far from the climate to Norway, nothing like the coasts and fjords of Norway. They didn't have the dirt and soil to sustain a farming settlement. The "forest" was small bushes at best. And not trees, as we would normally call them. But they had an abundance of fish.
> So maybe they just liked Sushi? Salted and/or fermented sushi...?
>
>
>
> The Norse settlers in eastern Greenland, did bring domesticated animals, but Greenland was never prosperous, and the animals brought was most likely slaughtered for food in the winter, except possibly a few for milking, and for breading in the summer.
> Not a sustainable environment for keeping livestock.
>
>
>
> Greenland was never really cultivated for farming.
> Mainly because there ain't enough good soil.
> A few crops is not enough to create prosperous settlements.
>
> Humans can survive under harsh conditions, the Greenlandic norce settlers did just that, survive, not strive, just survive, until they left. (My theory is that the last settlers, properly arranged with the traders to ship them back to Europe, perhaps becoming a type of indentent servants, but this is just my theory, no one really knows what happened)
I based myself partly on this article in French
www.letemps.ch/sciences/environnement/au-groenland-face-a-l-ineluctable-et-tres-debattu-retour-de-la-foret
these are not majestic forests, but small groupings of trees or bushes, quite puny, with willow, juniper and birch (I hope I am not mistaken on the names)
there is also a “forest” in the Qinngua Valley. insufficient enough to build a fleet of boats, but enough to make fences or cabins (even if most of the materials were imported)
Edit : on the subject of "crops" I was talking about the exploitation of plant resources dedicated to pasture which were already present like grasses - there were also barn-type buildings. there was no market gardening.
I think that the cereals for bread could come by boat but given the danger of such transport, it must have been expensive and rare (and maybe it never happened !)
Thx for the detailed info, I didn't know that it was serious that Erik the Red had made the greenland a lying sales argument, but frankly, the landscape of certain fjords and valleys is quite idyllic for tourist
