Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Big Bad Voodoo

Viking mystery

64 posts in this topic

Doesnt that support my idea that trough trade and travel routes in North America small pox would spread too. From Vikings ofcourse.

A rather redundant response as per contributions #16, #26, #50. There would appear to be no indication that the Vikings carried smallpox during the L'Anse aux Meadows period.

Also bear in mind that immunity to this pathogen amongst Indigenous peoples is more related to the survival of a given individual. While there is likely some degree of genetics involved, the transmission of a general immunity over a period of some 500 years would not appear to be consistent with understood patterns. For example, if a modern (and non-inoculated) European population encountered smallpox today, the effects would likely be quite significant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you conquer most of empire roads and capital city I would call that conquered land. Inca mosty live in peace with Spainyards. Tupac Amaru wasnt smart.. He started rebelion after Spainyards were in Peru for 40 years. Only legacy he left is El Movimiento Revolucionario Túpac Amaru.

But conquering a nation is not about taking the capital first. In the American Civil War, the fall of Richmond meant that the CSA was over, but because their fighting force was depleted earlier. The Spanish captured Atahualpa and murdered him, using the chaos to take over the capital while the highly organised Inca Empire functioned on in all other parts. The fact that the Inca were able to mount a resistance movement that lasted 40 years (and they even defeated the Spanish in open battle on a number of occasions) (Túpac wasn't the one who started the fight, he was the one who got defeated) means that they were not a conquered people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For example, if a modern (and non-inoculated) European population encountered smallpox today, the effects would likely be quite significant.

Are you sure about that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But conquering a nation is not about taking the capital first. In the American Civil War, the fall of Richmond meant that the CSA was over, but because their fighting force was depleted earlier. The Spanish captured Atahualpa and murdered him, using the chaos to take over the capital while the highly organised Inca Empire functioned on in all other parts. The fact that the Inca were able to mount a resistance movement that lasted 40 years (and they even defeated the Spanish in open battle on a number of occasions) (Túpac wasn't the one who started the fight, he was the one who got defeated) means that they were not a conquered people.

Historians called that Inca rebellions. Almost all agrees that after Pizzaro and his 168 took initiative and capture capital city, from where Inca ruled their four lands,they never lost it. Inca empire wasnt that strong. It was weakened by epidemic,civil war and people who still remember time without Inca. Spainyards with guns germs steel and horses were unmatchable to Inca.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you sure about that?

Yes.

In the absence of immunity induced by vaccination [or actual survival of the infection], human beings appear to be universally susceptible to infection with the smallpox virus..

In the early 1950s – 150 years after the introduction of vaccination – an estimated 50 million cases of smallpox occurred in the world each year, a figure which fell to around 10–15 million by 1967 because of vaccination.

http://www.who.int/m...ts/smallpox/en/

You may wish to read the rest of the reference.

Edit: Slightly off topic in regards to the Inca, but you may find the following research to be of interest as it applies to the Aztecs. The first is lay-oriented, the second is the technical paper.

http://johnhawks.net...ent_mexico.html

http://www.ajtmh.org.../6/733.full.pdf

Edited by Swede
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes.

In the absence of immunity induced by vaccination [or actual survival of the infection], human beings appear to be universally susceptible to infection with the smallpox virus..

In the early 1950s – 150 years after the introduction of vaccination – an estimated 50 million cases of smallpox occurred in the world each year, a figure which fell to around 10–15 million by 1967 because of vaccination.

http://www.who.int/m...ts/smallpox/en/

You may wish to read the rest of the reference.

Edit: Slightly off topic in regards to the Inca, but you may find the following research to be of interest as it applies to the Aztecs. The first is lay-oriented, the second is the technical paper.

http://johnhawks.net...ent_mexico.html

http://www.ajtmh.org.../6/733.full.pdf

Swede thank you as always for providing actual factual evidence for your posts, rather than just spouting inane questions. People like you are part of what makes this site great. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Swede thank you as always for providing actual factual evidence for your posts, rather than just spouting inane questions. People like you are part of what makes this site great. :tu:

Orangepeaceful79 - My thanks for your kind sentiments. As at least a few other contributors are aware, my personal and professional background is of a nature that has a minimal tolerance for unsubstantiated positions or unqualified "data". Am rather confident that you can personally relate to such.

Hopefully, some of the references provided will be of assistance to others who may have related questions in regards to a given topic.

Swede

.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Swede thank you as always for providing actual factual evidence for your posts, rather than just spouting inane questions. People like you are part of what makes this site great. :tu:

He probably never post and provide actual factual evidence if there where not inane questions. Just a thought.

Edited by the L

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, there are questions that appear to be inane but help us learn things, and there are inane questions that are asked when the information has already been presented.

The second type is what we see a lot of on these boards.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, there are questions that appear to be inane but help us learn things, and there are inane questions that are asked when the information has already been presented.

The second type is what we see a lot of on these boards.

Some are little slow. For some english isnt first language. One are rushness. One needs to told them twice, you know people when you say something to him/her and he/she respond . "You mean ...then say same as you before a second? I guess thats their way of learning but get annoying. Some dont trust some members.

Edited by the L

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with some of the other posts that the most logical reason would be that the vikings didn't bring any infectious diseases and if they did had very little contact with the natives.

We know for sure that vikings reached Greenland in 982 when Erik the red was made an outlaw in Iceland and he set out to find the mountains/cliffs that sailors had seen in the distance when they sailed north west of Iceland (Canadian finds dated around 900-950 AD suggest that vikings had discovered Canada at that point, so it's possible that some of theses sailors did reach Greenland earlier, but we have no proof). The small viking community on Greenland didn't have much contact with Iceland and Scandinavia, maybe 5 merchant ships a year so they were pretty isolated.

About two decades later Leif Ericson (Erik's son) decided to investigate the land that Bjarni Herjolfsson stumbled on when he sailed of course trying to get to Greenland. and he reached "Vinland" "Markland" and Helluland" which is believed to be located on modern day Newfoundland.

At some point they built houses and stayed the winter in this new land - they had a few skirmishes and a little trade with the natives before giving up on settling this new land alone and returned to Greenland. A few vikings later made the journey to Vinland but a new settlement was never really established.

In 1500 the viking settlements on Greenland had disappeared and in the last centuries before that contact with Iceland and Scandinavia had diminished and finally stopped - archaeologist believe that harsh conditions combined with no longer getting essential wares from Scandinavia made the population fall and finally disappear.

Diseases such as smallpox would have been deadly to the natives - but smallpox spread from Africa to the south west parts of Europe around 700-800 AD it didn't really spread to the rest of Europe until the Crusades -> long after the Vikings reached Canada/America. Even if some had contracted a disease such as smallpox and travelled to Scandinavia we know it didn't spread much in Scandinavia because it DIDN'T establish itself in the rest of Europe until the crusades. It's a disease which began in a much warmer climate (and many diseases are very specialised, they need a certain environment to spread or they'll just die out) and without time to mutate it couldn't survive in the cold climates in Scandinavia, so very few Vikings would have had the disease. (most other epidemic diseases also spread from warmer countries meaning Scandinavia was almost always hit last)

Aside from that the vikings were very hygienic, they washed/bathed once a day, combed their hair and beards (when they settled in England the locals found them annoying and self absorbed with their cleanliness because "they caught they eye's of all the local girls" lol ).

So from a large Scandinavian population where almost no one carried any of the times epidemic diseases (which was almost all localized around southern/western Europe, Asia and Africa) a few sailed out and settled Iceland, there's a very small probability more than one carried the disease if any at all.

A few years later an even smaller group leaves for Greenland - making it highly unlikely anyone's carrying a disease. And from those settlers a few ships leave for Vinland. It's really improbable that any of these Vikings who were in contact with the natives only briefly carried a disease at this point.

1)So we're in the year 1000 AD standing on the coasts of vinland trading with the natives --- simultaneously in Europe --- diseases such as smallpox haven't even reached Scandinavia yet.

2) A few more settlers from Greenland visits the coasts of Vinland --- smallpox still haven't reached Scandinavia

3) and probably a few more explores goes to Vinland --- Scandinavia lose contact with the colonies on Greenland.

4) vikings leaves Vinland for good

5) some time later the colonies on Greenland dies out and no one else settles there for years.

When the Spanish settlers reached America they came from a warm climate and reached an area with warm climate, they established large colonies and conquered the natives - all the conditions needed for a disease to spread rapidly were there.

Almost same enviroment = next to no mutation needed.

Large amount of permanent settlers, including slaves and animals = many carriers of the disease.

Conquering the natives = long exposure and living side by side unlike the vikings brief encounters.

I don't think there's much of a mystery here but that's just my opinion.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with some of the other posts that the most logical reason would be that the vikings didn't bring any infectious diseases and if they did had very little contact with the natives.

Not to dig up a dead thread, but with each new archeological find it appears the norse had a decent amount of contact with the natives (norse greenlanders were visiting the shores of north america for at least 400+ years, harvesting timber, hunting, trading, exploring, etc). But like has been pointed out numerous times before, it was the lengths of the voyages that spared the natives from epidemics. It was a 2-3 week sail to Markland (labrador/newfoundland) and even longer to Vinland (Acadia region). Anyone with a serious disease would have likely perished over this time. Not to mention Smallpox had not even reached Iceland, let alone Greenland during this era. Finally, with the Northern European kings doing their best to keep the knowledge of North America a secret, it ensured that traders from other parts of europe did not venture west and bring with them infectious diseases.

On the note of health/washing/etc. Pagan Germanic tribes were usually uber-strick about washing and hair-cutting and grooming. It was the introduction of christianity that led to the decline in cleanliness and helped spread disease.

Cheers.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another theory that the Vikings did not encounter the Small Pox at that time, so they didn't have any way to transfer it to the natives. Because their trip was so brief and short, there wasn't any chance of the natives even being introduced to the small pox.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to dig up a dead thread, but with each new archeological find it appears the norse had a decent amount of contact with the natives (norse greenlanders were visiting the shores of north america for at least 400+ years, harvesting timber, hunting, trading, exploring, etc). But like has been pointed out numerous times before, it was the lengths of the voyages that spared the natives from epidemics. It was a 2-3 week sail to Markland (labrador/newfoundland) and even longer to Vinland (Acadia region). Anyone with a serious disease would have likely perished over this time. Not to mention Smallpox had not even reached Iceland, let alone Greenland during this era. Finally, with the Northern European kings doing their best to keep the knowledge of North America a secret, it ensured that traders from other parts of europe did not venture west and bring with them infectious diseases.

On the note of health/washing/etc. Pagan Germanic tribes were usually uber-strick about washing and hair-cutting and grooming. It was the introduction of christianity that led to the decline in cleanliness and helped spread disease.

Cheers.

I think if I was a Vikiing of that time, and was on a ship, and found out one of the others was sick, I think the crew might have simply thrown them overboard. You can't have the whole ship dying from some plague, so it is better to drown one then to have everyone die.

I don't think it directly was Christianity. I think it was the Medical Science of the time that said that getting water on you was unhealthy and promoted sickness. The opposite of what was true. Same thing with the Black Plague, they said it was the cats that were spreading it somehow, and killed them off allowing the rats who carried the fleas that spread the Plague free reign. (Or is that just a myth?)

Edited by DieChecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.