Why is Leif Ericson not credited with the discovery of the new world?

Question

a)no permanent settlemant was established
b)reasons remain a mystery why the settlement didn't last
c)the settlement was discovered in 1960, nearly 500 years after colombus was given credit for the discovery
d)all of the above
e)none of the above

Answer 1

The reason is a) no permanent settlement was established.

Christopher Columbus, on the other hand, opened the floodgates of Europe, so to speak. In many ways, it was a question of timing. Columus sailed at the end of the 15th century when Europe was both recovering from the Black Death, and was heading into a an intense period of civil wars. There were lots of good reasons to leave!

Eirikson, however, was first of all, a Greenlander, already quasi-isolated from Europe proper. He sailed at a time when climatic conditions were in decline (not yet the Little Ice Age, but it would come soon) and passage of the "West Crossing" was treacherous. In addition, the "Skraelings" (the Norse name for the Native Americans) provided a serious threat (their weapons being more equally matched to the Europeans at the time). Finally, Leif's expedition was seriously hampered by his half sister Freydis Eiriksdottir who had a nasty disposition and had several of the expedition members killed for defying, or otherwise crossing her. Dissent within a expeditionary party is never a good thing.

Leifsbudir (the settlement in Vinland) was abandoned, and by the end of the 14th century, even the Greenland settlements were abandoned.

One more thing to keep in mind: spin.

To Columbus and his contemporaries, what he discovered was a "New World". That just has "exciting" written all over it. The Norse, on the other hand, had no such grand illusions about they "found". To them it was just a west country - and not a very profitable one.


EDIT - Re: kveldulf_gondlir's answer:

1. If the settlement didn't last, by definition, it wasn't permanent. Just building a long house, didn't make permanent. It may have been's Leif's *intention* to establish a permanent settlement, but there is a significant difference between intention and result.

2. The milk theory is one I am not familiar with and I'm fairly well read in the Icelandic literature. Therefore, it can hardly be "the most accepted theory". I'm sorry. The Skraeling had plenty of reason to be antagonistic without resorting to convoluted stories about poisoning or spells. I remain convinced that both the personalities of the would-be settlers, and the general decline of the Greenland colonies were greater factors. Farley Mowat, on the other hand, believed that there were already other "Europeans" (decendents of the Picts - hardly European anymore after several hundred years away) in Vinland (Newfoundland) who held a grudge against the Norse for driving them out of Iceland and who were antagonistic toward the Norse precence in Newfoundland. Obviously, there are lots of theories.

3. You are right about the settlements not being re-discovered until 1960. Until then, the record of the Icelandic Sagas was taken to be sheer fantasy. We have, of course, since then independently confirmed much of them. So "c" could be right, but "a" is more correct.

Answer 2

Reason C. A, of course is false as there were premanent settlements in several places, especially in Lans Au Meadows in New Foundland, Nova Scotia. B is false because they do have some idea why the settlement didn't last. The most accepted theory is that of cows milk. It has been proposed that the Norse Settlers gave the Indians (whom the called Skraelings which in the Norse tongue meant "Ugly men") made them sick. This was because, not having cows milk as part of their diet the Indians were lactose intolerant. When the sickness came upon them, they balieved that either they had been poisoned or bewitched. Once they recovered, they attwcked the Norsemen and eventually drove them out of North America and back to Iceland.
There for C is the right answer as the settlemen was not proven to exist until the 1960's.

Answer 3

it has not been conclusively proven taht he did make it to america, e fro your answers, " a settlement was discovered" "A" being teh key word it has not been conclusively proven it was leif ericson

Answer 4

the reasone Al Gore is not responable for discoving the internet...it was just a thought he told, then someone else made it happen.