Quote Originally Posted by rvg View Post
Yeah, and my bad, it's 20%, not 17.


Let's put the tax issue to rest, shall we? This is a bit dated (from 2008), but things aren't looking in Britain's favor. http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad....-us-taxes.html
Is fuzzing the figures - it counts all UK tazes but only Federal Income Tax in the US. Bear in mind that the poorest fifth in the UK get essentially free healthcare as well, by far the largest expediture Per Capita in the US.

Let's keep things in perspective here: it's a Norse Saga. Sagas oftentimes exaggerate enemy casualties while minimizing friendly losses. More importantly though, it shows a pattern: Vikings try to settle, they trade with the natives, natives want something that Vikings wouldn't sell (weapons), conflict ensues, skirmish happens, Vikings leave before a serious retaliation by the natives occurs (Thorvald's Expedition specifically). Vikings were farmers while the natives were hunters: vikings were tied to the land (unless they chose to completely evacuate) while the natives were mobile. The pattern of harassment by the natives occurs throughout the saga with varying level of success, but in at least one case (Thorvald) harassment is a direct cause of the Vikings abandoning a settlement and heading back to Iceland.
The Greenlanders were only there a few years, five at the outside, there is no "pattern" of harrasment because they weren't there long enough to form one. Also, you'll note that the attack apparently happened in the winter and they returned the following Ssummer with lumber and grapes. The latter means they could travel unimpeded down the Eastern Seaboard of America and go far enough inland to harvest wild fruit.

What the Sagas make clear is that it wasn't exactly worth the trouble.

As to the Norse being "tied to the land" this is not an accurate charactarisation. The fact that a small expedition crossing the Atlantic took its own women and livestock should tell you that.