History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedAmerindians and Inuits in Europe, before Columbus

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 89101112 19>
Author
Jams View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 06-Sep-2006
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 352
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jams Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Apr-2008 at 16:55
Originally posted by Chilbudios Chilbudios wrote:

Originally posted by Jams Jams wrote:

That is not entirely true. Some events are more probable than others.
Probable and possible are two different things.
 
Quote The probability that Inuits could have traveled to Europe is very high compared to some of the others mentioned. The probability that Inuits could have traveled to Europe is very high compared to some of the others mentioned. They did travel a lot as a lifestyle, remember? By sea!
So, while there's no real hard evidence of Inuits ever reaching Europe, and maybe they never did, there's a high probability that it could have happened!
The probability that Inuits could have traveled to Europe is unknown (do you have any reliable figure on it?), thus this claim rests on no evidence.
 
Quote AS Pinguin mentioned, the flat maps give a wrong impression of the distances, just look at a real globe, and you'll see that they're much shorter in the north.
The distances are the same anywhere, we calculate them in kilometers not in what our eye perceives from a projection. And actually the narrowest width of the Atlantic is between Africa and South America. Maybe you or Pinguin are misled by projections (and probably because of a globe projection he even claimed Newfoundland to be arctic!!), I'm not.
 
 
 
So? They don't have to travel across the Atlantic to reach Europe, they're already on Greenland. What you write above makes no sense at all. And youre dead wrong, the 3-d globe is more accurate than a normal map showing the whole with of earth. The 3d-gobe show earth as viewed from a distant perspective, and as such is almost correct. it depends on the view-angle, obviously, and it's not perfect in the screenshot. If we assume they travel along the width of earth, which they probably would not, the distance is best seen viewing earth from the top - but it's much easier to just look at a real globe.
 
Probability - yes, it's not a calculable probability, of course. So it's not based on numbers, and it ain't a mathematical probablility that I can prove in any way. But despite that, I still maintain that it's more probable, based on the fact that the distance is far shorter, on the fact that it was done in the reverse way, and on the fact that Inuits were know to travel. They could almost be island hopping across, which is not really possible in mid Atlantic.
 
I don't have a clue why you write "Probable and possible are two different things."
 
You think I should have written "More possible"?
 
If so, that makes no sense, it's either possible or impossible, there's no graduation of "possible".
 
Infonor homepage: http://infonor.dk/ RAIPON homepage: http://www.raipon.org/
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar

Joined: 29-Sep-2006
Location: Chile
Status: Offline
Points: 7508
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Apr-2008 at 04:26
Originally posted by Chilbudios Chilbudios wrote:

... Probable and possible are two different things.
 
In this case is both probable and possible. After all Inuits came from Siberia, crossed to the Americas and reached Greenland in a period of a thousand years. From Greenland to Iceland the leap is even shorter than some of theirs previous jumps.
 
Originally posted by Chilbudios Chilbudios wrote:

...  The probability that Inuits could have traveled to Europe is unknown (do you have any reliable figure on it?), thus this claim rests on no evidence.
 
There are lot of documentation about Inuits reaching Europe in POST-Columbian times, even in the 19th century. What is unknown is the probability Inuits did so in PRE-Columbian times.
 
Originally posted by Chilbudios Chilbudios wrote:

...
 The distances are the same anywhere, we calculate them in kilometers not in what our eye perceives from a projection. And actually the narrowest width of the Atlantic is between Africa and South America. Maybe you or Pinguin are misled by projections (and probably because of a globe projection he even claimed Newfoundland to be arctic!!), I'm not.
 
Forget maps. See a globe.
 
The distance between Africa and South America isn't short. The distance between Recife in South America and Yaounde en Africa is 3306 miles or 5329 kilómeters. That's a huge distance, and longer than the distance between Easter Island and South America, for example. You can't cross in canoes or boats paddling that distance without stop. And there is nothing between Africa and Brazil where to stop.
 
The distance between Canada and Greenland are a lot shorter. This is from a kayaker:
 
The crossing between the Canadain arctic islands to greenland, from the point at 66'39"00'''N (approx), to the nearest shore of Greenland is about 175 nautical miles (315km / 210 land miles). Further north, the crossing narrows to a more concievable 15-40 nm, however at that point you are at about 78 degrees north.
There distance is only 30 Kms. from America in some parts of Greenland! One hundred times closer than from Africa to Brazil! That distance can be crossed in kayaks in two or three days, because that boat reach up to 2.5 knots.
 
Now, from Greenland to Iceland (Europe) the distance is 300 kms, which is not a short distance, but can be done by kayak as well in around 15 days; or better, you can do it in the large cargo boats the inuits had to carry women, which are less known that kayaks. That crossing is not impossible. There is even speculation that polar bears could cross that distance swimming LOL.
 
 
Iceland is considered part of Europe. There are other 970 kilometers more to reach Norway.
Unlikely but not impossible. In fact, in Post-Columbian time it hapenned several times.

40.000 years ago Aborigines entered Australian in canoes, probably from New Guinea, crossing 150 km of sea, or perhaps from East Timor, crossing other 800 km (which may have been short at those times, because lower sea levels, but is a large distance, anyways). However, that shows well that people in canoes can take leaps of some hundreds of kilometers.
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 


Edited by pinguin - 26-Apr-2008 at 15:11
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar

Joined: 29-Sep-2006
Location: Chile
Status: Offline
Points: 7508
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Apr-2008 at 04:45
And interesting book I just found in the web: Eskimos in Europe
 
 
From the introduction:
 
It traces the origins of Inuit culture, what happened when Europeans first came into contact with them and the fate that befell those that 'visited' Europe from the Viking period to the early 20th Century.
Exhaustively researched, extensively annotated and closely argued Dr Bonnerjea has produced a work of scholarship that is as exciting as fiction. A noted linguist Dr Bonnerjea knows Eskimo and Aleutian along with a tranche of European languages. This has enabled him to access source material from across the old and new world that has never been brought together before.

 The book is packed with astonishing revelations about Eskimos who for centuries were regarded with wonder and awe. Being mistaken for (in no particular order)  mermaids, seals, fishes, trolls, Tartars, Chinamen, Lapps, Pygmies and naturally American Indians. The name we know them by, Eskimo, comes from the Algonkian speaking American Indians and means raw flesh eater. The 'Eskimos' simply refer to themselves as Inuit, meaning people or mankind.
Anyone interested in ethnology, anthropology, sociology or linguistics and the complex evolution of this unique culture will find this book indispensable. 

Eskimos%20in%20Europe

Material exist to take a look, indeed. I don't know if this book is reliable, but what speak about is supported by other books I have that I will mention later. Wink
 
Perhaps the contacted people of Cathay that witnessed columbus were just Inuits. It is very likely the probability of contact between Europeans and Inuits in Europe skyrocked after Norse settled in Greenland.
 
 
 


Edited by pinguin - 26-Apr-2008 at 04:56
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar

Joined: 29-Sep-2006
Location: Chile
Status: Offline
Points: 7508
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Apr-2008 at 01:44
With respect to large canoes with sails, this is a testimony of Bernal Diaz del Castillo, when the Spaniards reched Yucatan, Mexico (Mayas)
 
 
Bernal dates March 4, 1517 as the first encounter with the Indians of Yucatán, who approached those boats in ten large canoes (called pirogues), using both sails and oars. And there are many with 40 Indians.


"y una mañana, que fueron cuatro de marzo, vimos venir diez canoas muy grandes, que se dicen piraguas, llenas de indios naturales de aquella poblazón, y venían a remo y vela. Son canoas hechas a manera de artesas, y son grandes y de maderos gruesos y cavados de arte que están huecos; y todas son de un madero, y hay muchas de ellas en que caben cuarenta indios."

From Historia Verdadera de la Conquista de la Nueva Espana, by Bernal Diaz del Castillo

 

"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar

Joined: 29-Sep-2006
Location: Chile
Status: Offline
Points: 7508
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Apr-2008 at 02:10

NEWS! NEWS!

It is possible to sail from Panama to Phillipines in a dogout canoe? The answer is yes!
And Argentinean adventurer attempted and made it.
 
 
 
The amazing adventure is in here:
 
 
n 1990, Alberto Torroba sailed alone across the Pacific from Panama to the Philippines. That’s remarkable enough. However, what made his voyage truly amazing is that his boat was a 15-foot open dugout canoe made from a single tree.
 
Of course, rowing a canoe is hardly possible to cross the Atlantic, but what about sailing. Who said that a sailing dugout canoe couldn't do the trip from the Americas to Europe?
 
 
 
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)
Back to Top
Maharbbal View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 08-Mar-2006
Location: Paris
Status: Offline
Points: 2127
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Maharbbal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Apr-2008 at 02:50
Pinguin, we've already established long ago that it was possible. What is missing to you thesis now is some more solid evidence about Inuits (or Amerindians but it is much less likely) in Europe before 1492 (remember the subject of the thread). Columbus writing is interesting but a bit too weak to stand alone.

I mean the fact that you can kill somebody with a carrot doesn't mean Alexander the Great was killed with one.

So now give us some more info. The idea of keeping the thread alive was great for four or five days, now it is getting too long.
I am a free donkey!
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar

Joined: 29-Sep-2006
Location: Chile
Status: Offline
Points: 7508
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Apr-2008 at 12:12
Originally posted by Maharbbal Maharbbal wrote:

Pinguin, we've already established long ago that it was possible. What is missing to you thesis now is some more solid evidence about Inuits (or Amerindians but it is much less likely) in Europe before 1492 (remember the subject of the thread). Columbus writing is interesting but a bit too weak to stand alone.

I mean the fact that you can kill somebody with a carrot doesn't mean Alexander the Great was killed with one.

So now give us some more info. ....
 
Well, I wish I had more solid rock evidence. In that case, I would "believe" that landing happened, rather than just consider it a possibility.
 
Anyways, this is the eight piece of evidence: the fish-men, mer-man or marmaids of the Northern folklore.
 
In the same way ancient greeks and native americans though the first time they saw a horse that rider and animal were a single criature, it is believed many of the folk account of mermaids in the artic ocean could be the sight of proto-Eskimos and Inuits, on where the skin boat and the man were confussed as a single being.
 
EVIDENCE 8
 
Marmaid Stories of Northern Europe.
 
 
In 1187 it is recorded that a "man-fish" was kept for six months in Orforde Castle in Suffolk, England.
 
Radulphus de Coggeshale wrote:
"In the time of King Henry I.... the fishermen took in theirs nets a wild man, having the human shape complete, with hair on his head, a long and picked beard... "
 
American discovery of Europe, Forbes, pag 136
 
 
EVIDENCE 9
 
In 1430 after a storm, a "wild woman" came to a dike near Edam, Holland, and lived for many years in Haarlem.
 
Brand, Brief Description, 51. Wallace, description, 28; Honour, New Golden Land 16, Nooter Old Kayaks, 9.
 
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar

Joined: 29-Sep-2006
Location: Chile
Status: Offline
Points: 7508
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Apr-2008 at 13:23
This is about Marmaid tales in general, from which the two cases above were extracted.
Reality of fantasy? Who knows?
 
 
 
MERMAIDS and Mermen, in the folk-lore of England and Scotland, a class of semi-human beings who have their dwelling in the sea, but are capable of living on land and of entering into social relations with men and women. 1 They are easily identified, at least in some of their most important aspects, with the Old German Meriminni or Meerfrau, the Icelandic Hafgufa, Margygr, and Marmennill (mod. Marbendill), the Danish Hafmand or Maremind, the Irish Merrow or Merruach, the Marie-Morgan of Brittany and the Morforwyn of Wales;2 and they have various points of resemblance to the vodyany or water-sprite and the rusalka or stream-fairy of Russian mythology. The typical mermaid has the head and body of a woman, usually of exceeding loveliness, but below the waist is fashioned like a fish with scales and fins. Her hair is long and beautiful, and she is often represented, like the Russian rusalka, as combing it with one hand while in the other she holds a looking-glass. For a time at least a mermaid may become to all appearance an ordinary human being; and an Irish legend ("The Overflowing of Lough Neagh and Liban 1 The name mermaid is compounded of mere, a lake, and mczgd, a maid; but, though mere wif occurs in Beowulf, mere-maid does not appear till the Middle English period (Chaucer, Romaunt of the Rose, &c.). In Cornwall the fishermen say merry-maids and merry-men. The connexion with the sea rather than with inland waters appears to be of later origin." The Mermaid of Martin Meer "(Roby's Traditions of Lancashire, vol. ii.) is an example of the older force of the word; and such" meer-women "are known to the country-folk in various parts of England (e.g. at Newport in Shropshire, where the town is some day to be drowned by the woman's agency).
2 See Rhys," Welsh Fairy Tales,"in Y Cymmrodor (1881, 1882).
the Mermaid," in Joyce's Old Celtic Romances) represents the temporary transformation of a human being into a mermaid. The mermaid legends of all countries may be grouped as follows. (a) A mermaid or mermaids either voluntarily or under compulsion reveal things that are about to happen. Thus the two mermaids (merewip) Hadeburc and Sigelint, in the Nibelungenlied, disclose his future course to the hero Hagen, who, having got possession of their garments, which they had left on the shore, compels them to pay ransom in this way. According to Resenius, a mermaid appeared to a peasant of Samsde, foretold the birth of a prince, and moralized on the evils of intemperance, &c. (Kong Fredericks den andens Kronike, Copenhagen, 1680, p. 302). (b) A mermaid imparts supernatural powers to a human being. Thus in the beautiful story of "The Old Man of Cury" (in Hunt's Popular Romances of the West of England, 1871) the old man, instead of silver and gold, obtains the power of doing good to his neighbours by breaking the spells of witchcraft, chasing away diseases, and discovering thieves. (c) A mermaid has some one under her protection, and for wrong done to her ward exacts a terrible penalty. One of the best and most detailed examples of this class is the story of the "Mermaid's Vengeance" in Hunt's book already quoted. (d) A mermaid falls in love with a human being, lives with him as his lawful wife for a time, and then, some compact being unwittingly or intentionally broken by him, departs to her true home in the sea. Here, if its mermaid form be accepted, the typical legend is undoubtedly that of Melusine (q.v.), which, being made the subject of a romance by Jean d'Arras, became one of the most popular folk-books of Europe, appearing in Spanish, German, Dutch and Bohemian versions. (e) A mermaid falls in love with a man, and entices him to go to live with her below the sea; or a merman wins the affection or captures the person of an earthborn maiden. This form of legend is very common, and has naturally been a favourite with poets. Macphail of Colonsay successfully rejects the allurements of the mermaid of Corrievrekin, and comes back after long years of trial to the maid of Colonsay.3 The Danish ballads are especially full of the theme; as "Agnete and the Merman," an antecedent of Matthew Arnold's "Forsaken Merman"; the "Deceitful Merman, or Marstig's Daughter"; and the finely detailed story of Rosmer Hafmand (No. 49 in Grimm)..
In relation to man the mermaid is usually of evil issue if not of evil intent. She has generally to be bribed or compelled to utter her prophecy or bestow her gifts, and whether as wife or paramour she brings disaster in her train. The fish-tail, which in popular fancy forms the characteristic feature of the mermaid, is really of secondary importance; for the true Teutonic mermaid - probably a remnant of the great cult of the Vanir - had no fish-tail; 4 and this symbolic appendage occurs in the mythologies of so many countries as to afford no clue to its place of origin. The Tritons, and, in the later representations, the Sirens of classical antiquity, the Phoenician Dagon, and the Chaldaean Oannes are all well-known examples; the Ottawas and other American Indians have their man-fish and woman-fish (Jones, Traditions of the North American Indians, 1830); and the Chinese tell stories not unlike our own about the sea-women of their southern seas (Dennis, Folklore of China, 1875).
Quasi-historical instances of the appearance or capture of mermaids are common enough, 5 and serve, with the frequent use of the figure on signboards and coats of arms, to show how thoroughly the myth had taken hold of the popular imagination.6 See Leyden's "The Mermaid," in Sir Walter Scott's Border Minstrelsy. 4 Karl Blind, "New Finds in Shetlandic and Welsh Folk-Lore," in Gentleman's Magazine (1882).
6 Compare the strange account of the quasi-human creatures found in the Nile given by Theophylactus, Historiae, viii. 16, pp. 2 99-3 02, of Bekker's edition.
6 See the paper in Journ. Brit. Arch. Assoc., xxxviii., 1882, by H. S. Cuming, who points out that mermaids or mermen occur in the arms of Earls Caledon, Howth and Sandwich, Viscounts Boyne and Hood, Lord Lyttelton and Scott of Abbotsford, as well as in those of the Ellis, Byron, Phene, Skeffington and other families. The English heralds represent the creatures with a single tail, the French and German heralds frequently with a double one.
A mermaid captured at Bangor, on the shore of Belfast Lough, in the 6th century, was not only baptized, but admitted into some of the old calendars as a saint under the name of Murgen (Notes and Queries, Oct. 21, 1882); and Stowe (Annales, under date 1187) relates how a man-fish was kept for six months and more in the castle of Orford in Suffolk. As showing how legendary material may gather round a simple fact, the oft-told story of the sea-woman of Edam is particularly interesting. The oldest authority, Joh. Gerbrandus a Leydis, a Carmelite monk (d. 1504), tells (Annales, &c., Frankfort, 1620) how in 1403 a wild woman came through a breach in the dike into Purmerlake, and, being found by some Edam milkmaids, was ultimately taken to Haarlem and lived there many years. Nobody could understand her, but she learned to spin, and was wont to adore the cross. Ocka Scharlensis (Chronijk van Friesland, Leeuw., 1597) reasons that she was not a fish because she could spin, and she was not a woman because she could live in the sea; and thus in due course she got fairly established as a genuine mermaid. Vosmaer, who has carefully investigated the matter, enumerates forty writers who have repeated the story, and shows that the older ones speak only of a woman (see "Beschr. van de zoogen. Meermin der stad Haarlem," in Verh. van de Holl. Maatsch. van K. en Wet., part 23, No. 1786).
The best account of the mermaid-myth is in Baring-Gould's Myths of the Middle Ages. See also, besides works already mentioned, Pontoppidan, who in his logically credulous way collects much matter to prove the existence of mermaids; Maillet, Telliamed <Hague, 1 755); Grimm, Deutsche Mythologie, i. 404, and Altdan. Heldenlieder (181 I); Waldron's Description and Train's Hist. and Stat. Acc. of the Isle of Man; Folk-lore Society's Record, vol. ii.; Napier, Hist. and Trad. Tales connected with the South of Scotland; Sebillot, Traditions de la haute Bretagne (1882), and Contes des marins (1882).
 
 


Edited by pinguin - 27-Apr-2008 at 13:26
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Apr-2008 at 13:28
And it's possible that St Brendan made it to America. It's possible that Sir Palomides and companions crossed the Atlantic after 'going west' after Arthur's death[1]. It's certainly possible that Inuits walked across the top of Siberia into Russia and Norway. After all people have rowed across the Atlantic in small boats, sailed single-handed around the world, ridden a horse from Patagonia to New York, and walked everywhere the sea didn't get in the way, so anyone could have gone pretty well anywhere.
 
That something is possible is a pointless basis for asserting it happened. (If something is impossible, then it could not have happened, but not the other way around.)
 
What's needed here is some contemporary written or archeological evidence.
 
[1] Where do you think the western land of Valinor the elves withdrew to was?


Edited by gcle2003 - 27-Apr-2008 at 13:29
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar

Joined: 29-Sep-2006
Location: Chile
Status: Offline
Points: 7508
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Apr-2008 at 13:48
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

And it's possible that St Brendan made it to America.
 
 
If he had a kayak, of course. In a boat, he would never do Wink
 
 
 
 
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

It's possible that Sir Palomides and companions crossed the Atlantic after 'going west' after Arthur's death[1].
 
 
Never heared of them, perhaps they sunk in the route... LOL
 
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

It's certainly possible that Inuits walked across the top of Siberia into Russia and Norway. After all people have rowed across the Atlantic in small boats, sailed single-handed around the world, ridden a horse from Patagonia to New York, and walked everywhere the sea didn't get in the way, so anyone could have gone pretty well anywhere.
 
That something is possible is a pointless basis for asserting it happened. (If something is impossible, then it could not have happened, but not the other way around.)
 
 
Agree
 
 
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

What's needed here is some contemporary written or archeological evidence.
 
 
Well, the contemporary written evidence is what I have been showing all over this thread. Quotes from Pliny, Columbus and others. If it were for written accounts I believe it is more than established that certain contacts happened.
 
Now, another matter is archaelogical evidence. What do we need? A 600 years old kayak? A painting? I bet it will be hard to find any evidence at this time at all.
 
During centuries, the fact that Norses visited North America was put in doubt because lack of archaelogical remains. There were the sagas, maps and lot of historical evidence, but without archaeology there was no way to settle the issue. Today the matter is solved for good, thanks to the discoveries in Newfoundland.
 
With respect to Inuits or Amerindians in Europe in pre-Columbian times, perhaps someday with luck some hard evidence will appear, although I doubt it. If one counts the events, they are perhaps no more than a dozen, and some of them perhaps are just fantasy. So, the probability of founding hard evidence at this time is close to nill.
 
 
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

[1] Where do you think the western land of Valinor the elves withdrew to was?
 
No idea. Greenland? Confused
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Apr-2008 at 15:37
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

And it's possible that St Brendan made it to America.
 
 
If he had a kayak, of course. In a boat, he would never do Wink
 
This one made it - in 1896:
 
 
 


Edited by gcle2003 - 27-Apr-2008 at 15:38
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar

Joined: 29-Sep-2006
Location: Chile
Status: Offline
Points: 7508
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Apr-2008 at 17:42
Well, perhaps St. Brendan adventure is not such impossible as it may seem, after all.
 
55 days, or two months, to cross the Atlantic is a nice record, and tell us a lot. Frank Samuelson and George Harbo travelled from New York to Scilly islands in Britain, though, following the current that goes WEST TO EAST.
 
 
So, if you can cross a distance of 5384 kilometers (3346 miles) in just 55 days, rowing, you could as well cross the distance from Greenland to Europe (400 to Iceland and 800 more to the British Islands). 1200 kilomers is only the 22% of the distance between New York and Britain! so, in the same kind of boat it is a path that could be done in twelve days!
Besides, Kayaks are a lot faster than standard boats, so I bet in 10 days that journey could be done. If a Kayak travels at 8 kms. per hour (4,5 knots), then it can cross with relative easy 120 kms daily. So, it is not that far off to think Inuits kayaked to Europe some times.
 
The return trip would have been tricker, though. That's what St. Brendan would have to do: row against the current.
 
 
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar

Joined: 29-Sep-2006
Location: Chile
Status: Offline
Points: 7508
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Apr-2008 at 02:11
End of the case:
 
This thread has gone for too long, so I am going to put the sources of these speculations.
The book that I read, and that has the sources to most of the legends and notes about Americans in Europe before Columbus is:
 
American Discovery of Europe, by Jack Forbes.
 
The%20American%20Discovery%20of%20Europe
 
 
Just to call the attention of anyone interested in the topic, this is the table of contents:
 
1. Americans across the Atlantic: Galway and the Certainty behind Columbus's voyage
 
2. The Gulf Stream and Galway: Ocean currents and American Visitors
 
3. Seagoing Americans: Navigation in the Caribbean and Vicinity.
 
4. Ancient Travelers and Migrations
 
5. From Iberia to the Baltic: Americans in Roman and Pre-Modern Europe
 
6. The Inuit route to Europe
 
7.Native Americans Crossing the Atlantic after 1493
 
The author made an excellent work in getting into a single volume tons of data about this topic. The refferences are in there for further study.
 
Forbes is a bit too much enthusiastic for the topic, for my taste. No matter he presents information that is really amazing, and more especulative than what I have shown here. However, he has such a good bibliography in the book that anyone interested to go further in the study of this possibility, should buy this book.
 
What I do personally believe? Well, I believe Inuits were seen, very rearly though, in Europe between after Norses and before Columbus, and that most of the legends I mentioned, about people of Cathay, are based on them. Perhaps it is not necesary they landed in Europe, but more that once some European vessel, particularly fishers, would have encounter an Inuit rowing in the Artic.
 
With respect to Amerindians landing in Europe, that may be possible, but I believe if  it ever happened, it is more likely they were from Eastern North America rather than from the Caribbean (the distances are shorter). I bet they were Algonquin or other people of the region. Forbes mentions the construction of advanced canoes and cathamarans in Eastern North America, perhaps with similar technology that Tainos, Mayas or Western North Americans. And ships like those could, actually, survive an accident and being carried to Europe by the Gulf Stream. This may have happened once in several centuries.
 
It is also interesting that the book mentions the destiny of hundred of thousand of Amerindians that ended as slaves and servants in Europe in colonial times. Not many people think about it, but the fact that many Spaniards and even some British people has certain amerindian look may be not casual.
 
In short, a very interesting book. There are other books more specific on Inuits contacts on Europe for instance, but this book is a good resume of every speculation known.
 
For historical refferences, it is interesting to get these two books:
 
(1) The Biography on Columbus by his son Ferdinand.
 
(2) The books on notes of Columbus.
 
By the way, Columbus is important in this topic, because he was one of the first to research it and really believe in its possibility. Still today, not many people believes in Columbus ideas. Perhaps it is time to study it more fully Wink
 
 
 
 
 


Edited by pinguin - 28-Apr-2008 at 02:18
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1900
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Apr-2008 at 21:17
Originally posted by Jams Jams wrote:

So? They don't have to travel across the Atlantic to reach Europe, they're already on Greenland.
The Inuits reached eastern coast of Greenland somewhere in the 13-14th centuries, which leaves them a very narrow time-window for this journey before Columbus. For most of the time (and for all the accounts presented by Pinguin as evidence), an alleged Inuit journey must start from modern Canada. The other Native American cultures also must start their journey from the mainland.
 
Quote What you write above makes no sense at all. And youre dead wrong, the 3-d globe is more accurate than a normal map showing the whole with of earth. The 3d-gobe show earth as viewed from a distant perspective, and as such is almost correct. it depends on the view-angle, obviously, and it's not perfect in the screenshot. If we assume they travel along the width of earth, which they probably would not, the distance is best seen viewing earth from the top - but it's much easier to just look at a real globe.
I have not said that. All I said is that distances are measured in kilometers (miles) not in eye-estimations. For instance, the globe projection made you believe the narrowest width of Atlantic is in north, whereas it is between Africa and South-America (more precisely between modern Liberia and modern Brazil).
 
Quote
Probability - yes, it's not a calculable probability, of course. So it's not based on numbers, and it ain't a mathematical probablility that I can prove in any way. But despite that, I still maintain that it's more probable, based on the fact that the distance is far shorter, on the fact that it was done in the reverse way, and on the fact that Inuits were know to travel. They could almost be island hopping across, which is not really possible in mid Atlantic.
 
Any probability is quantifiable and estimable, otherwise it is not a probability. You can't say about an X that is more probable than a Y if you have no scale, no criterion to determine what exactly makes X more probable. An unprovable probability is a mere possibility.
 
The distance is not the shortest one - according to your hypothesis, the highest probability of crossing the ocean should be in equatorial zone. Is it?
Also this argument does not really work in many other cases. From eastern Canada to Ireland are roughly 3000 km. It is false that Inuits travelled with high probability anywhere on a radius of 3000 km around their habitation area, likewise for any other population. Is like saying is highly probable to find Romans in Equatorial Africa or Siberia (at roughly similar distances of the border of their empire). Or finding Romans in North America.
 
The argument of the "reverse" it means that St. Brendan's journey, but also many other alleged journeys of Romans, Celts in America as well of any other European living on the north-western shores are equally probable (it was claimed Inuits reached Ireland or other North-Americans Germany), while they were repeatedly rejected in this thread.
 
Island hopping does not shorten the overall length of the travel, on the contrary. Moving from Canada through island "hopping" (Greenland, Iceland) to north-western coast of Europe it results in a considerable longer travel. Not to say that these "hops" mean actually hundreds of kilometers through deep ocean (possibly going over 1000 if the leaps are not optimal).
 
Quote
I don't have a clue why you write "Probable and possible are two different things."
 
You think I should have written "More possible"?
 
If so, that makes no sense, it's either possible or impossible, there's no graduation of "possible".
I only think you should have written "possible", but this is not contested by anyone in this thread.
 
Originally posted by Pinguin Pinguin wrote:

In this case is both probable and possible. After all Inuits came from Siberia, crossed to the Americas and reached Greenland in a period of a thousand years. From Greenland to Iceland the leap is even shorter than some of theirs previous jumps.
But they reached eastern Greenland less than two centuries (possibly less than one) beforeColumbus. And you claimed they reached Ireland or even continental coast.
 
Quote There are lot of documentation about Inuits reaching Europe in POST-Columbian times, even in the 19th century. What is unknown is the probability Inuits did so in PRE-Columbian times.
There are lot of documentation about Europeans reaching America in POST-Columbian times. What is unknown is the probability Europeans did so in PRE-Columbian times.
 
Quote
Forget maps. See a globe.
 
The distance between Africa and South America isn't short. The distance between Recife in South America and Yaounde en Africa is 3306 miles or 5329 kilómeters.
The shortest distance between Liberia and Brazil across the Atlantic is 2848 km.
 
Quote
The crossing between the Canadain arctic islands to greenland, from the point at 66'39"00'''N (approx), to the nearest shore of Greenland is about 175 nautical miles (315km / 210 land miles). Further north, the crossing narrows to a more concievable 15-40 nm, however at that point you are at about 78 degrees north.
There distance is only 30 Kms. from America in some parts of Greenland! One hundred times closer than from Africa to Brazil! That distance can be crossed in kayaks in two or three days, because that boat reach up to 2.5 knots.
 
Now, from Greenland to Iceland (Europe) the distance is 300 kms, which is not a short distance, but can be done by kayak as well in around 15 days; or better, you can do it in the large cargo boats the inuits had to carry women, which are less known that kayaks. That crossing is not impossible. There is even speculation that polar bears could cross that distance swimming LOL.
 
 
Iceland is considered part of Europe. There are other 970 kilometers more to reach Norway.
Unlikely but not impossible. In fact, in Post-Columbian time it hapenned several times.

40.000 years ago Aborigines entered Australian in canoes, probably from New Guinea, crossing 150 km of sea, or perhaps from East Timor, crossing other 800 km (which may have been short at those times, because lower sea levels, but is a large distance, anyways). However, that shows well that people in canoes can take leaps of some hundreds of kilometers.
The overall distance between Canada and Ireland by island hopping is longer than 3000 km (where 3000 km is roughly the straight route, across the Atlantic). Between Greenland and Iceland are 300 km only if you navigate more than 1200 km along the south-eastern shore of Greenland, amounting thus for more than 1500 km of navigation. The distance from the southern tip of Greenland to Iceland in straight line is longer than 1100 km.


Edited by Chilbudios - 28-Apr-2008 at 21:27
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar

Joined: 29-Sep-2006
Location: Chile
Status: Offline
Points: 7508
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Apr-2008 at 22:33
Originally posted by Chilbudios Chilbudios wrote:

Originally posted by Jams Jams wrote:

So? They don't have to travel across the Atlantic to reach Europe, they're already on Greenland.
The Inuits reached eastern coast of Greenland somewhere in the 13-14th centuries, which leaves them a very narrow time-window for this journey before Columbus. For most of the time (and for all the accounts presented by Pinguin as evidence), an alleged Inuit journey must start from modern Canada. The other Native American cultures also must start their journey from the mainland.


Wrong. Pre-eskimos cultures lived in Greenland before Inuits arrived there. That's a small problem of concept. Anyways, if so, that would only put in doubt the citation from Pliny, not the claims of contact in Columbus times.

Originally posted by Chilbudios Chilbudios wrote:


 I have not said that. All I said is that distances are measured in kilometers (miles) not in eye-estimations. For instance, the globe projection made you believe the narrowest width of Atlantic is in north, whereas it is between Africa and South-America (more precisely between modern Liberia and modern Brazil).


You are hard headed, aren't you?

We have said several times that the distance between Greenland and Iceland is 200 Kms more or less, in the south, and just 30 km in the north. And the distance between iceland and Europe is 1000 km . You are assuming things once again.

And what has the distance from Africa to South America to do with this thread?

Originally posted by Chilbudios Chilbudios wrote:


The distance is not the shortest one - according to your hypothesis, the highest probability of crossing the ocean should be in equatorial zone. Is it?


Nope. You don't need to be in the equator. You need skillful sailors and the right sea currents.

 
Originally posted by Chilbudios Chilbudios wrote:

The argument of the "reverse" it means that St. Brendan's journey,


Get informmed about the Gulf Stream current.
 
  
Originally posted by Chilbudios Chilbudios wrote:

Originally posted by Pinguin Pinguin wrote:

In this case is both probable and possible. After all Inuits came from Siberia, crossed to the Americas and reached Greenland in a period of a thousand years. From Greenland to Iceland the leap is even shorter than some of theirs previous jumps.
But they reached eastern Greenland less than two centuries (possibly less than one) beforeColumbus. And you claimed they reached Ireland or even continental coast.


I am not claimming anything. I just was pointing to the evidence comming from literature.

Originally posted by Chilbudios Chilbudios wrote:


Quote There are lot of documentation about Inuits reaching Europe in POST-Columbian times, even in the 19th century. What is unknown is the probability Inuits did so in PRE-Columbian times.
There are lot of documentation about Europeans reaching America in POST-Columbian times. What is unknown is the probability Europeans did so in PRE-Columbian times.
 


This is not the point in this thread. For European contact you have dozen of other threads in this same section of the forum. For African, Chinese and whatever contact there are also other threads. What do you pretend to say? That Europeans did and Indians couldn't? If so, just forget it, please. We are not talking about assumed intellectual superiority but accidents.


Originally posted by Chilbudios Chilbudios wrote:

Forget maps. See a globe.
 
The distance between Africa and South America isn't short. The distance between Recife in South America and Yaounde en Africa is 3306 miles or 5329 kilómeters.
The shortest distance between Liberia and Brazil across the Atlantic is 2848 km.
 [/quote]

Check your figures, please. Anyways. What has the distance to Africa got to do with this topic? Please, focus in the topic.
 
Originally posted by Chilbudios Chilbudios wrote:


The overall distance between Canada and Ireland by island hopping is longer than 3000 km (where 3000 km is roughly the straight route, across the Atlantic). Between Greenland and Iceland are 300 km only if you navigate more than 1200 km along the south-eastern shore of Greenland, amounting thus for more than 1500 km of navigation. The distance from the southern tip of Greenland to Iceland in straight line is longer than 1100 km.


Check your figures, please. Besides, if the navigators came from North America they had sailing canoes, which are fast ships.



Edited by pinguin - 28-Apr-2008 at 22:39
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1900
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Apr-2008 at 23:00
Originally posted by Pinguin Pinguin wrote:

Wrong. Pre-eskimos cultures lived in Greenland before Inuits arrived there. That's a small problem of concept. Anyways, if so, that would only put in doubt the citation from Pliny, not the claims of contact in Columbus times.
The claims of contact were during 12th century when Inuits were not yet in Greenland.
 
Quote We have said several times that the distance between Greenland and Iceland is 200 Kms more or less, in the south, and just 30 km in the north. And the distance between iceland and Europe is 1000 km . You are assuming things once again
You're wrong and confused, the distance between Greenland and Iceland is 300 km or more (you said it yourself: "Now, from Greenland to Iceland (Europe) the distance is 300 kms, which is not a short distance"). The overall distance from American mainland to European one is however 3000 km or more.
 
Quote And what has the distance from Africa to South America to do with this thread?
 It is the narrowest width of the Atlantic, the shortest distance. Read Jams' argument and mine as a reply to it.
 
Quote Nope. You don't need to be in the equator. You need skillful sailors and the right sea currents.
Jams made an argument about distance, I was replying to him. Actually the Greenland currents are in reverse, like Vikings traveled.
 
Quote Get informmed about the Gulf Stream current.
Brendan could navigate easily by Columbus' route or Vikings' route.
 
Quote I am not claimming anything. I just was pointing to the evidence comming from literature.
This is how you started: "the evidence of the presence of Amerindians in Europe exist and it is registered in historical records. They are well documented, and they are also part of the possible sources from where columbus got his inspiration to reach the Indies navigating to the West." which is a claim going beyond the existing evidence. After the discussion which followed your "evidences" you conceded it is not certain, but possible. You have also used the term "claim" repeatedly, like in the beginning of this post I'm replying to.
 
Quote This is not the point in this thread. For European contact you have dozen of other threads in this same section of the forum. For African. What do you pretend to say? That Europeans did and Indians couldn't? If so, just forget it, please. We are not talking about assumed intellectual superiority but accidents.
You missed my point, post-Columbian voyages do not prove anything about pre-Columbian ones.
 
Quote Check your figures, please. Anyways. What has the distance to Africa got to do with this topic? Please, focus in the topic.
My figure is in several encyclopedias and geographical atlases and it's as accurate as I can verify with a GoogleEarth-based tool.
It's you and Jams who started ranting about the shortest distances in the north and the long distances in south. You said: "The distance between Recife in South America and Yaounde en Africa is 3306 miles or 5329 kilómeters." and I showed which is actually the shortest distance between these continents. 
 
Quote Check your figures, please. Besides, if the navigators came from North America they had sailing canoes, which are fast ships.
 I approximated those numbers and I hold them correct until I find a mistake. If you do find it before me, be my guest and show where the error is.


Edited by Chilbudios - 28-Apr-2008 at 23:38
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1900
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Apr-2008 at 23:31
 
 
 
Don't worry about the plane projection Wink
 
 
 


Edited by Chilbudios - 28-Apr-2008 at 23:32
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar

Joined: 29-Sep-2006
Location: Chile
Status: Offline
Points: 7508
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Apr-2008 at 00:04
Originally posted by Chilbudios Chilbudios wrote:

Originally posted by Pinguin Pinguin wrote:

Wrong. Pre-eskimos cultures lived in Greenland before Inuits arrived there. That's a small problem of concept. Anyways, if so, that would only put in doubt the citation from Pliny, not the claims of contact in Columbus times.
The claims of contact were during 12th century when Inuits were not yet in Greenland.
.
 
 
 
Pre-eskimos were there, and kayaks have been in use for at least 10.000 years.
 
Originally posted by Chilbudios Chilbudios wrote:

Brendan could navigate easily by Columbus' route or Vikings' route.
 
 
So, what's the point ?
 
Originally posted by Chilbudios Chilbudios wrote:

This is how you started: "the evidence of the presence of Amerindians in Europe exist and it is registered in historical records. They are well documented, and they are also part of the possible sources from where columbus got his inspiration to reach the Indies navigating to the West."
 
 
Originally posted by Chilbudios Chilbudios wrote:

which is a claim going beyond the existing evidence. After the discussion which followed your "evidences" you conceded it is not certain, but possible. You have also used the term "claim" repeatedly, like in the beginning of this post I'm replying to.
 
 
Semantics. I have just show you what is writen. They are evidence of probable contact; not demonstrations of actual contacts. You are just trolling.
 
Originally posted by Chilbudios Chilbudios wrote:

 You missed my point, post-Columbian voyages do not prove anything about pre-Columbian ones.
 
 
Agree. But Columbus notes, letters and biography shows what he believed.
 
 
 
Originally posted by Chilbudios Chilbudios wrote:

 I approximated those numbers and I hold them correct until I find a mistake. If you do find it before me, be my guest and show where the error is.
 
 
The error is that you don't take into account the Gulf Stream, and believe that the shorter distance to navigate is the straight line. Anyways.
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar

Joined: 29-Sep-2006
Location: Chile
Status: Offline
Points: 7508
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Apr-2008 at 00:08
Originally posted by Chilbudios Chilbudios wrote:

 
 Don't worry about the plane projection Wink
 
 
I use your tool and I found out this.
 
------------------------------
Brazil Africa 3068
Newfoundland Ireland 3174 kms
------- (which could seem gaves you the reason, but)-----
 
Greenland Ireland 2295 kms (too far away, it sees)
Greenland Iceland 294 kms
Iceland Britain 861 kms
Iceland Norway 1062 kms
-------------------------------------- But.
Iceland Faroe 490 KMS
Faroe Britain 459 Kms
 
So, you can do the trip in small jumps Wink
 
 
 
"He who attempts to count the stars, not even knowing how to count the knots of the 'quipus'(counting string), ought to be held in derision."

Inca Pachacutec (1438-1471)
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1900
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Apr-2008 at 01:21
Originally posted by Pinguin Pinguin wrote:

Pre-eskimos were there, and kayaks have been in use for at least 10.000 years.
It is generally held that most of Greenland was uninhabited (not that today is crowded LOL) during the 12th century when your evidences reported that landing in Germany. And even when the first cultures stepped into Greenland, they did through its north-western parts, closer to the American mainland. It would take decades, if not centuries until they settled properly the eastern shores so they could take advantage of good starting points for a hypothetical navigation towards Iceland. That's why I was saying the time-window for a pre-Columbian journey starting from Greenland to Europe is rather narrow.
As for the archaic period, boats have been used for long, yet we do not discuss any possible crossing. Yourseld did the distinction between "wild claims" and "serious evidence".
 
Quote So, what's the point ?
When I mentioned Brendan's journey you argued that I should get informed about the Gulf-Stream. Neither the Viking route nor Columbus' route did not face the Gulf-Stream coming from American shores to Europe's.
 
Quote Semantics. I have just show you what is writen. They are evidence of probable contact; not demonstrations of actual contacts. You are just trolling
If anyone is trolling here is you. What you emphasized is actually about "possible sources from where Columbus got his inspiration", yet we were talking about the claim of contact, as you said it then, "the evidence of the presence of Amerindians in Europe exist and it is registered in historical records". Later on the thread we noticed this evidence does not really mention Amerindians or Inuits but various aliens (Indians), we noticed the historical records are not really reliable, etc. So we moved from certainty to possibility. Now you moved your claim on probability but without really adding conclusive evidence.
 
Quote But Columbus notes, letters and biography shows what he believed.
If he really believed (and was not selling stories to gather support for his voyage), he believed the those travellers were Indians, not the inhabitants of a new continent.
 
Quote
The error is that you don't take into account the Gulf Stream, and believe that the shorter distance to navigate is the straight line. Anyways.
The Gulf-Stream does not take an American boat to Europe by Greenland and Iceland (the Greenland currents flow in opposite direction), but through open ocean on a distance longer than 3000 km (which is roughly the distance in straight line).
This is the map you posted earlier in the thread:
 
Originally posted by Pinguin Pinguin wrote:

Brazil Africa 3068
Newfoundland Ireland 3174 kms
------- (which could seem gaves you the reason, but)-----
 
Greenland Ireland 2295 kms (too far away, it sees)
Greenland Iceland 294 kms
Iceland Britain 861 kms
Iceland Norway 1062 kms
-------------------------------------- But.
Iceland Faroe 490 KMS
Faroe Britain 459 Kms
 
So, you can do the trip in small jumps Wink
Funny, all the shortest distances I imagined and measured between Brazil and West Africa were between 2800 and 2900.
However, please take in account a travel starting from American mainland. You'll see that in navigation along the shores it includes a long part of Greenland's coast.
 


Edited by Chilbudios - 29-Apr-2008 at 01:46
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 89101112 19>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.