Why I find the idea of a European settlement in America 500 years early via Newfoundland (potentially giving more time for other native groups recover when disease strikes) fascinating, I am always struck by a lack of good PODs for it. Threads like this show a good case for Vinland becoming quite successful if established even a tiny bit due to basic demographics, yet many of these treads always get hung up over the 700-strong natives blocking all settlement, or the issue of whether the Norse would even want to settle there or not, thus killing many of these (admittedly often not-very-well-thought-out) posts before discussion can even begin. A common one is pagan Icelanders flee to Vinland due to religious persecution, but that runs the issue to diplomatically isolating it from Europe (and then quite literally when the Little Ice Age comes), creating a similar situation to the Native Americans when the Age of Exploration comes around, except this time the natives are white. So I am wondering: what are some good PODs for a successful Vinland? Preferably keeping contact with Europe, so as to not isolate it from disease (and also to wreak havoc with Scandinavian politics 🙂). Thoughts?
Good Vinland PODs?
- Thread starter atlatlman
- Start date
-
- Tags
- pre colombian vikings vinland
I wonder if settling Labrador (Markland) first would have been the key to a successful Vinland. Labrador has a similar climate to Greenland, which is actually perfect for the Norse, except it has far more trees. It seems expeditions there became common in the 13th and 14th century when the Thule Inuit blocked access to traditional Norse hunting grounds to the north of their settlements, and did result in trade with natives since Labrador Indian tools have been found in Greenland. Although curiously, there is no archaeological evidence of wood from trees that grow in Labrador since Greenlanders continued to use driftwood which in Greenland mostly comes from Siberian trees. But there would have been nothing stopping them from that, nor from replenishing their supplies of metals (bog iron) which they were forced to stretch in later centuries.
So theoretically if you have someone like Thorfinn Karlsefni realise Vinland is unviable without something in-between, and that Markland is a better Greenland which is actually kind of green, that could draw enough settlers to plant a few settlements in the fjords there. The indigenous people of Labrador probably didn't number more than a few thousand in that whole area and politically had no higher organisation than bands of a few extended families which numbered 50-100 (especially in the pre-HBC era). They could probably be bought off with Norse goods and there could be a symbiotic relationship--the Norse won't go on long hunting expeditions into native territory, but the natives will sell them deerskins and meat (IOTL reindeer hunting was popular in Greenland) while the natives won't mess with Norse cattle or sheep and the Norse will give them woolen garments, leather, etc.
Once coastal Markland fills up--which it might by 1100 or so--then Vinland looks a lot more inviting and feasible to settle.
So theoretically if you have someone like Thorfinn Karlsefni realise Vinland is unviable without something in-between, and that Markland is a better Greenland which is actually kind of green, that could draw enough settlers to plant a few settlements in the fjords there. The indigenous people of Labrador probably didn't number more than a few thousand in that whole area and politically had no higher organisation than bands of a few extended families which numbered 50-100 (especially in the pre-HBC era). They could probably be bought off with Norse goods and there could be a symbiotic relationship--the Norse won't go on long hunting expeditions into native territory, but the natives will sell them deerskins and meat (IOTL reindeer hunting was popular in Greenland) while the natives won't mess with Norse cattle or sheep and the Norse will give them woolen garments, leather, etc.
Once coastal Markland fills up--which it might by 1100 or so--then Vinland looks a lot more inviting and feasible to settle.
As has been mentioned on Vinland threads in the past, this is not the case due to how epidemiology works. Distances in North America are too far and populations too sparse to allow any resistance to disease in the long-term.
It is unlikely that the Norse will establish long term friendly relationship with natives of Labrador. After all they failed to do so in Greenland and Vinland.
Fair enough. I should have specified that this would likely only happen to close-by civilizations, like the Mississippian peoples, and even then only somewhat. I wonder if Thorfinn’s colony being nicer to the natives would have done it, or if the Norse there had just realized the native’s incredibly low numbers. Would that be enough, or was his colony doomed from the start?
Maybe the Vikings leave behind all the livestock on Greenland and give the Native Americans fish? That could make sure relations between the Native Americans and the Norse remain less hostile.
There’s a saga about King Harald Bluetooth Gormson planning to invade Iceland, because the Icelanders have insulted him, he send a warlock to scout out the invadion but the warlock find four Vettir defensing Iceland agains him. While this is likely mostly folklore a invasion by Harald is not impossible and would make sense when looking at his foreign policy, and Harald is deeply unpopular in the Icelandic sagas indicating he did have some kind of conflict with them.
So Harald invades and is crowned king of Iceland (let’s say in the 970ties), he establish a ring fort (Trelleborg) at Reykjavik bay. Erik the Red still end up in Greenland and takes some settlers with him and Vinland is still discovered. After Harald’s death the Icelanders rise up in revolt and Sveyn Forkbeard invades again (990), but is more brutal and takes much of the best land gives it to his followers, this result in a large number of Icelanders having to choose between having to settle on worst land or serving the new Danish land owners. So what follows are the migration of many Icelanders in the following decades, especially as the knowledge of Vinland becomes known.
So Harald invades and is crowned king of Iceland (let’s say in the 970ties), he establish a ring fort (Trelleborg) at Reykjavik bay. Erik the Red still end up in Greenland and takes some settlers with him and Vinland is still discovered. After Harald’s death the Icelanders rise up in revolt and Sveyn Forkbeard invades again (990), but is more brutal and takes much of the best land gives it to his followers, this result in a large number of Icelanders having to choose between having to settle on worst land or serving the new Danish land owners. So what follows are the migration of many Icelanders in the following decades, especially as the knowledge of Vinland becomes known.
The Beothuk might have been a different case than Labrador given they were on an island and may have been more isolationist or more apt to interpret Norse actions in a negative light. Labrador seems to have been ethnically fragmented since at least 2 cultures--Dorset and the ancestors of the modern Naskapi and Innu--existed in 1000 AD. It's possible that the Norse displace the Dorset in Labrador and end up with generally positive relations with the Naskapi, since the Norse don't need the deep forests and high hills for their lifestyle and the Naskapi can live without the coast (especially if the Norse simply trade them excess fish and seals). IIRC several bands of Naskapi and Innu lived almost entirely in the interior and rarely ventured to the coast--I'd assume this was moreso or definitely the case before European traders established themselves in Labrador meaning traveling to the coast made a lot more sense. And Labrador Indian artifacts show up in Norse Greenland and there's little record of the Norse having problems with the natives of Markland.
This sort of ecological symbiosis was not possible in Greenland, since the Inuit needed the same walruses and seals the Norse would hunt, which left them no doubt with very negative views of the Norse which culminated in the Inuit devastating Norse settlements.
The Mississippians are not "close by." They are separated by thousands of kilometers of mostly sparsely populated wilderness. New England and the Canadian Maritimes were a backwater before around 1500 or so, and even the lands inhabited by Iroquoian peoples weren't well populated before 1200 or so. Not many Mississippian goods reached beyond the mid-Appalachians and Virginia, either, indicating those two regions weren't much in contact.
As an illustration, consider that despite smallpox being present in Mexico since the 1520s, it did not reach the Pacific Northwest for around 250 years (and there is no evidence any European disease did before the 1770s). It didn't even reach New England until the late 16th century, and that's with far greater trading networks and population migrations than happened OTL in this period. Both areas are about 3,500 km from Mexico.
How many would actally move to Iceland though? The main apeal was that it was outside the rule of Kings and Jarls. Otherwise it's not that attractive with basically little wood and game.
Honestly enough, there were plenty of second or third sons, who wanted land, and couldn’t get it at home and here they get a free farm and honestly the best parts of Iceland are better than a lot of marginal farmings areas in Denmark. It should also be remembered that Iceland likely only got 3000-4000 farms (if each farm had the same average population as on Greenland), so you don’t need a lot of people.
Yeah, volcanic soil tends to be fertile. I should have thaught about that
Perhaps Harald III comes out on top in 1066 and decides to assert his sovereignty over Iceland. As king of Norway *and* England, he might be strong enough to make it stick. Were this to cause thousands rather than hundreds to move west, Vinland might be in with a chance.
Olaf Trygvasson, prevent from him becoming King of Norway or otherwise make the Christianization of Norway/the North Sea delayed and or more traumatic and significantly delayed.
Why?
Come up with a population who sees the writing on the wall, and are much more likely to stay because they literally can't go home again. It would likely not be our Vinland, but it would be a Vinland.
Why?
Come up with a population who sees the writing on the wall, and are much more likely to stay because they literally can't go home again. It would likely not be our Vinland, but it would be a Vinland.
1) The Norse were the sort of people who killed strangers just to see what colour their blood was. Assume eventual bad relationships with any natives.
2) If the Norse in Labrador had excess fish and seals (and I assume that you are talking about them) they are more likely to trade such stuff with Greenland in return for more iron along with European imports. If you are talking more generally more fish means less seal in the diet.
3) The Norse may not in theory need the deep forests, However, if they cut them down they can create pasture for cattle, sheep and goats and they can trade the timber with Greenland for the stuff in 2 along with animals to graze the pasture. Greenland was timber poor and milk products are part of the ideal Norse cuisine.
A successful Norse Markland is not good for any natives.
I don't really think there are any purely out of logistical considerations. The ships Columbus used were pretty tiny, one gets surprised when they see replicas. Norse longships? Even smaller, basically completely exposed, limiting your travel to the summer and meaning you can't get a lot of supplies to go.
Then consider that on the journey to America, they basically island-hopped. Iceland sucks. Greenland sucks even more. Helluland sucks most. Markland, if we assume it's Labrador, sucks less than Iceland, but is full of angry strangers. Finally you get to Vinland which might be Newfoundland or more south and discover that it's also pretty meh, and also full of angry strangers.
That's a lot of coast to cover, and in order to establish a colony, you'd have to establish them in all those places mentioned above that are barely worth considering. And don't forget, no swanky navigational tools the Portuguese first used centuries later. It would simply be comically expensive and a logistical nightmare. Nobody would agree to this.
Then consider that on the journey to America, they basically island-hopped. Iceland sucks. Greenland sucks even more. Helluland sucks most. Markland, if we assume it's Labrador, sucks less than Iceland, but is full of angry strangers. Finally you get to Vinland which might be Newfoundland or more south and discover that it's also pretty meh, and also full of angry strangers.
That's a lot of coast to cover, and in order to establish a colony, you'd have to establish them in all those places mentioned above that are barely worth considering. And don't forget, no swanky navigational tools the Portuguese first used centuries later. It would simply be comically expensive and a logistical nightmare. Nobody would agree to this.
Not in the case of Iceland, but here’s the thing the Icelandic south west has a mild climate with cool summer and warm winters, it’s honestly better than living in the moorland of the British islands or the Jutish heathland. But here’s more important thing while Iceland is not great for cereal crops, it can be used for pasture, and while that means lower population density it often result in the individuals tending to be richer. Fundamentally the agriculture of Iceland means a weaker local nobility, but a stronger and richer peasantry. So a Danish jarl have little interest in getting land on Icleand, but for your average yeoman it’s a great deal, they get to be a big fish in a small lake.
I did come with a point here, which I think do deserve a greater perspective.
Norway and its North Atlantic settlements was very much middle class settlements, it was not societies which really did well to uphold a class of rich landlords, which had the effect of the burgher class and large farmers being much stronger than in much of the rest of Europe, but it also lend itself to a stronger church, because its hierarchy consolidate a lot of power in the hand of the upper clergy and on Iceland which lacked nobility and with royalty living oversea, the clergy was the upper class.
But that will not necessarily replicate itself in America. While Newfoundland will likely look quite similar to Iceland or Norway, the further south the Vinlanders expand the more likely the are to redevelop a knightly class and feudal structures. The Vinlanders may set up Icelandic style peasant republics, but they will likely in time be taken over by a class of large landlords and most will likely become noble republics, but some may develop a strong kingship and overrun their neighbors with weaker central power.
I wonder whether the history of challenging PoDs this thread alludes to comes from PoDs chosen on the Norse side.
One or more Inuit kayakers coming East to Iceland might spur more curiosity on the Norse side than Ericsson’s tales.
Or scale that up: Iceland is more hospitable than Greenland. The Inuit were already present in Greenland. Set your PoD earlier and have the Norse arrive in Iceland to find the “Fire Island Inuit” culture already deep-rooted.
Then have Norse do Norse things. The better the natives look, the more the Norse should want to see where they came from before.
One or more Inuit kayakers coming East to Iceland might spur more curiosity on the Norse side than Ericsson’s tales.
Or scale that up: Iceland is more hospitable than Greenland. The Inuit were already present in Greenland. Set your PoD earlier and have the Norse arrive in Iceland to find the “Fire Island Inuit” culture already deep-rooted.
Then have Norse do Norse things. The better the natives look, the more the Norse should want to see where they came from before.
The Inuits didn’t exist [1] when the Norse found Iceland, instead northern Greenland has a population of Paleo-Eskimos who were called the Dorset culture. The Dorset Culture was later eradicated by the Inuits in the 13th century and left no genetic traces [2]. The reason why the Dorset culture didn’t settle southern Greenland was because the climate there was to warm for their lifestyle, Iceland would have been even worse lacking megafauna and the sea ice the Dorset culture used to catch seals.
[1] Their ancestors were the Thule culture which at this point dwelled at the Bering strait.
[2] This is not unusual several Paleo-Eskimo cultures have disappeared without leaving any genetic traces, Paleo-Eskimo cultures seems to exist for a period, diversified and one group when developed a new superior tool kit and the other groups disappeared leaving no genetic traces behind. The expanding culture usually also came from the west and expanded east like the proto-Inuits.
I thank you for the corrections and will duly amend:
Have either the Thule or Dorsets or any other group capable of the trip get to Iceland and thrive. Their name for themselves might or might not be linguistically similar to "Inuit" - this doesn't matter, for our purposes they'd end up as the native Icelanders.
They would have had to adapt lifestyle-wise to be less about megafauna and more about fish, for example - distinctions that might cause them to have more lasting trade ties (even if intermittent) to cultures back wherever they came from.
The overall point remains the same: a PoD putting a "New World" people firmly in Iceland before the Norse would change how the Norse view the New World.
There’s nothing wrong with the idea, the problem is that Iceland is a really bad fit. The irony is that the mild climate make it bad for any Amerindian group to settle (as sea ice make fishing and hunting of sea mammals easier [1] and Iceland lack sea ice). Honestly the Dorset culture developing a proto-Inuit tool kit and settling southern Greenland would be better model.
[1] Arctic human populations more or less filling the same ecological niche as polar bears.