• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Viking Horsemen

Amapola said:
Details, details........ sheesh!
Click to expand...

This is referencing a sketch from Monty Pythons "The Holy Grail."

At a number of key places in the film the question is raised, What is the average airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow? It is introduced in the opening scenes of the film, and remains an open question right up to the end. The only clear response is given by King Arthur, requesting clarification: "What do you mean, an African or European swallow?" References to swallows are ubiquitous in the film, and in one scene Sir Bedivere is seen holding a dove in one hand and a coconut in the other, tied together in an attempt to prove that swallows can carry coconuts. According to the Internet Movie Database[1], "The airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow is roughly 11 meters per second, or 24 miles per hour, beating its wings 7-9 times per second rather than 43. And a 5 ounce bird cannot carry a one pound coconut."
 
qayak said:
This is referencing a sketch from Monty Pythons "The Holy Grail."

At a number of key places in the film the question is raised, What is the average airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow? It is introduced in the opening scenes of the film, and remains an open question right up to the end. The only clear response is given by King Arthur, requesting clarification: "What do you mean, an African or European swallow?" References to swallows are ubiquitous in the film, and in one scene Sir Bedivere is seen holding a dove in one hand and a coconut in the other, tied together in an attempt to prove that swallows can carry coconuts. According to the Internet Movie Database[1], "The airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow is roughly 11 meters per second, or 24 miles per hour, beating its wings 7-9 times per second rather than 43. And a 5 ounce bird cannot carry a one pound coconut."
Click to expand...

Yes, qayak, I know. I guess I should have put one of these on :D so that all could see it was a joke. After all, a swallow can't carry a horse, whether it's a migrating swallow or not.
 
I was thinking about this movie tonight and came to the conclusion that historical accuracy is completely unimportant. The movie is fictitious entertainment pure and simple. Let the Vikings ride dragons for all I care.
 
If the Vikings brought horses over to America some horses probably would have been released into the wild. Then when the Spanish came they would have found horses in America. So this shows that the Vikings did not bring many (if any) horses into America.

Why would the Vikings have released their horses in America?
1. Accidents happen.
2. When it is time for the Vikings to go home it would have cost a lot for them to carry the horse home so unless the horse was very valuable they would have either had to kill and eat it or let it go free.
 
rjh01 said:
If the Vikings brought horses over to America some horses probably would have been released into the wild. Then when the Spanish came they would have found horses in America. So this shows that the Vikings did not bring many (if any) horses into America.

Why would the Vikings have released their horses in America?
1. Accidents happen.
2. When it is time for the Vikings to go home it would have cost a lot for them to carry the horse home so unless the horse was very valuable they would have either had to kill and eat it or let it go free.
Click to expand...

OTOH, they could bring them, and kill them on the way for food.
 
rjh01 said:
If the Vikings brought horses over to America some horses probably would have been released into the wild. Then when the Spanish came they would have found horses in America. So this shows that the Vikings did not bring many (if any) horses into America.
Click to expand...

They could have released tons of horses in Newfoundland. It's an island, so they wouldn't have been able to spread to mainland to shock and horrify the Spanish.

But the horses might have been eaten by the moose, or pitcher plants, or black flies, or Newfoundland dogs, or any of the numerous terrors that plague the dense tropical jungles of Newfoundland. Boa constrictors the size of small octopusses, octopusses the size of small monkeys, and small monkeys the size of large monkeys swinging from liana to llama, with perpetual grins and bloodlust in their beady little Newfoundland eyes!





Well, it's twice as foggy as Silent Hill, so that's pretty damn scary in itself.
 
Just checked my atlas. Newfoundland is only separated from the mainland by a couple of miles. Should be easy for a small horse to swim. I would also assume that the Vikings would have explored more than Newfoundland.

I take it the other comments about my post are a joke.
 
Let's assume the Vikings brought 50 horses and 10 of them escaped or were left (but leaving them makes no sense to me.. even a bad horse would surely be brought for food).

What are the odds that 10 horses would form a surviving population? I'm no biologist, but I'm pretty sure they would have rather bad odds. Especially considering they would have been tame animals, not accustomed to fend for themselves.

I think it's quite clear that the Viking settlements were really only an outpost. Why they were left, we can only speculate about. My guess is that they were too far from home. ;-)
 
CFLarsen said:
What is that in real measurements?
Click to expand...

49 hogsheads, or 291 rods, or 124,909 ells, or 1,400,985 cloth yards, or 13,380,004 fluid hectaric fathoms to the triangled nautical handspan.

Simplicity and clarity is the key to the measurement system invented by Jean Pierre Confusion-Difficulte.
 
Merko said:
Let's assume the Vikings brought 50 horses and 10 of them escaped or were left (but leaving them makes no sense to me.. even a bad horse would surely be brought for food).

What are the odds that 10 horses would form a surviving population? I'm no biologist, but I'm pretty sure they would have rather bad odds. Especially considering they would have been tame animals, not accustomed to fend for themselves.
Click to expand...

Lessee, a pregnant horse will lay a thousand eggs per clutch. At five clutches per year over a productive lifespan of a hundred years, that would yield 5 billion horses in the first generation. Since half of those would be female, and three-quarters of those would be successful at reproducing themselves, you're looking at something in the neighborhood of 300 trillion horses in the second generation, and over 50 quaballion horses in the third. At that point the increased gravitational pull of the earth due to the added mass of horses would pull the moon so close that it would be scraping against the backs of the top layer of horses.

Since none of that happened, and I'm very confident in my math, I'd say it's proof that the Vikings trained their horses to use contraception.
 
Merko said:
I think it's quite clear that the Viking settlements were really only an outpost. Why they were left, we can only speculate about. My guess is that they were too far from home. ;-)
Click to expand...

Actually the indigenous Beothuks were a very violent and territorial people who basically chased the Norsemen away. They were the Skraelings of the Sagas. That and the winters there are miserable. Miserable I tells ya.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom