Colonization begins with Vikings, not Columbus

[spinelli]

I feel that colonization of the new world beginning with Columbus makes more sense than with the Vikings for several reasons. But I'm curious, how would the world have changed if the settlements or Vinland and Markland had succeeded? Would colonization on the massive scale we see post-1492 occur, would it be slower as the powers of Europe were still fighting each other, the plague, muslims, pagans, etc., would the natives band together in more state-like societies to survive and thrive in the face of European expansionism. Or would colonization be impossible, in that 1000-1100 AD is just too early a time for Europe to look westward across the Atlantic for land and riches?

 

[wkwillis]

There wouldn't have been any colonisation. Colonisation depended on gunpowder weapons, large state finance (because it was unsuccessfull economically, which is why they put Columbus in jail), disease transmission chains involving relatively large oceangoing ships, etc.
1000 AD had essentially no gunpowder weapons in Europe.
1000 AD had essentially no large states (except the Byzantines) with developed financial systems.
1000 AD had a two year transmission system for plagues, from the population centers of Europe to the Norse territory and from there to the New World.
1500 AD had a slave system to feed their recent acquisitions of the Azores, the Canaries, Cape Verde, etc. The first smallpox epidemic was from a slave called Narvaez of some such, from the southern part of the European empire off the shores of Africa. This epidemic was the one that disrupted the local empires in America and allowed Pizarro to ally with the locals and conquer them.
A slow motion contact from 1000 to 1500 would allow the population to recover from each epidemic. The resistant population would build up and become an increasing part of the population each time.
Syphillis would have made it to Europe fairly quickly though. A reformation in 1050 AD?

 

[Redbeard]

There wouldn't have been any colonisation. Colonisation depended on gunpowder weapons, large state finance (because it was unsuccessfull economically, which is why they put Columbus in jail), disease transmission chains involving relatively large oceangoing ships, etc.
1000 AD had essentially no gunpowder weapons in Europe.
1000 AD had essentially no large states (except the Byzantines) with developed financial systems.
1000 AD had a two year transmission system for plagues, from the population centers of Europe to the Norse territory and from there to the New World.
1500 AD had a slave system to feed their recent acquisitions of the Azores, the Canaries, Cape Verde, etc. The first smallpox epidemic was from a slave called Narvaez of some such, from the southern part of the European empire off the shores of Africa. This epidemic was the one that disrupted the local empires in America and allowed Pizarro to ally with the locals and conquer them.
A slow motion contact from 1000 to 1500 would allow the population to recover from each epidemic. The resistant population would build up and become an increasing part of the population each time.
Syphillis would have made it to Europe fairly quickly though. A reformation in 1050 AD?

Your points are all valid, but still, if western Europe hadn't been as fractured as it was after Charlesmagne a larger number of Vikings might have been tempted to go further west - there being no easy prey in Europe.

It would still be very unlikely to lead to a large scale colonisation of the American continents, but perhaps lasting settlements in the Nova Scotia, Labarador and New England areas - and accepted knowledge of a new continent to the west.

In the next centuries the north American native tribes IMO are going to be displaced anyway, but the central and south American civilisations have a greater chance of adapting to the challenge from Europe. Perhaps ending up like Japan or China - i.e. relatively intact original civilisation and culture, but interacting with western ditto.

The absense of American gold and silver in Europe must have some consequences too, but I'm not quite sure of what kind. I'm not sure the precious metals brought much else than inflation and the Iberians growing fat and lazy?

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

 

[carlton_bach]

I don't think colonisation needs big ships, deep pockets or gunpowder weapons. Of course the shapew ansd scope of earlier European settlements would be very different indeed (there's a good chance they'd go native almost completely), but the only thing that colonisation really requires is a good reason.

 

[Dave Howery]

colonization would require royal backing from someone in Scandinavia. The expeditions to Vinland were essentially private affairs carried out from Greenland, which was a private colony of Erik the Red. It's hardly surprising that no one tried colonizing the place, what with the limited resources they had. You'd need to first of all have someone realize just what they had found over there (most people thought of it as 'just another island', and had no idea that a whole continent was there). Then you'd need royal funding to sponsor a real colonial expedition, with ships, hundreds of settlers and soldiers, and artisans of all kinds.
It seems to me that if you had all this, the Norse might well indeed have been able to settle large parts of Canada/Newfoundland... the climate was suitable for their agriculture, the fishing nearby was great, and they could have built their usual forts to hold off the natives (who would be dying off in large numbers from diseases soon). The Iceland/Greenland/Vinland route would work fine for getting ships over there. The big question is, just what happens when the big freeze returns to Greenland and cuts off this waypoint... do the Norse have the ships capable of bypassing Greenland and going straight to Vinland?

 

[carlton_bach]

colonization would require royal backing from someone in Scandinavia. The expeditions to Vinland were essentially private affairs carried out from Greenland, which was a private colony of Erik the Red. It's hardly surprising that no one tried colonizing the place, what with the limited resources they had. You'd need to first of all have someone realize just what they had found over there (most people thought of it as 'just another island', and had no idea that a whole continent was there). Then you'd need royal funding to sponsor a real colonial expedition, with ships, hundreds of settlers and soldiers, and artisans of all kinds.
It seems to me that if you had all this, the Norse might well indeed have been able to settle large parts of Canada/Newfoundland... the climate was suitable for their agriculture, the fishing nearby was great, and they could have built their usual forts to hold off the natives (who would be dying off in large numbers from diseases soon). The Iceland/Greenland/Vinland route would work fine for getting ships over there. The big question is, just what happens when the big freeze returns to Greenland and cuts off this waypoint... do the Norse have the ships capable of bypassing Greenland and going straight to Vinland?

By then, they would have had. The problem I see is rather why those hundreds would want to go to Vinland. The Norse were coming to America, as it were, from the wrong direction, and you would have to have ships going much farther south to find anything that is tempting to traders, raiders or settlers. I don't think there is anything in Vinland that you can't have in Iceland at much smaller risk. Or, for that matter, in the eastern Baltic.

 

[Atom]

It depends on what diseases are transmitted. If one person can come over with smallpox/measles/mumps/typhus etc. then it is quite likely that the colony could have survived if there weremore people. Once one disease is released then about a third to a half of the population is likely to die, to because it will be a verdant ground plague, and a number of other factors. With that and more people the vikings can succesfully colonize the Americas, although once the mini ice age sets in, they may be cut off from Europe.

 

[carlton_bach]

The absense of American gold and silver in Europe must have some consequences too, but I'm not quite sure of what kind. I'm not sure the precious metals brought much else than inflation and the Iberians growing fat and lazy?

It changed the Asian trade patterns massively. Europe became a much more important player not just because of its naval power projection but possibly even more so as a customer not just of spices, dyestuffs and gems, but also of textiles, ceramics, saltpetre and other bulk goods. A good part of the thriving economies that supported the Mughal, late Ming and Qing dynasties was based on this unprecedented shopping spree based on American gold and silver. Especially the textile manufacturing sector realised huge profits. Without that source of revenue, the legendary riches of the orient would come to look a bit more domesticated (though the place would still be rich).

Another effect was the brutal social divide that opened un in Europe through an unholy alliance of customer price inflation and wage stagnation. In many places, labour wages had been fixed in the fifteenth century at relatively generous levels. By the sixteenth, population growth began to pick up and put pressure on labour markets. At the same time, consumer prices began their century-long climb. A job which in 1450 could comfortable support a family would by 1600 have paid a starvation wage, even if nominal pay had risen (which, in many cases, it did not, wages being subject to tradition). It is by this time we see something like an urban proletariat appear in significant numbers.

Another factor was investment capital. There was significant capital sloshing around Europe in the sixteenth and seventeenth centurioes, and while it is hard to quantify how much of it was sourced from the Americas, a good deal of it likely was. That money went into private landholdings (despite historically illiterate economists claiming the opposite, the true tragedy of the commons was their privatisation), livestock, machinery, ships, and buildings. I do wonder how much of the industrial boost of that era was not so much down to invention as to the unique combination of cheap labour, cheap credit and exploding demand for goods.

 

[Homer]

It depends on what diseases are transmitted. If one person can come over with smallpox/measles/mumps/typhus etc. then it is quite likely that the colony could have survived if there were more people.

I fully agree with that. Europeans of that time might not be technologically superior, but the diseases they may bring could still depopulate most of the Americas as IOTL. Therefore within some decades, the Vikings would find mostly empty lands free for small scale colonization.

Of course, trading would be limited to fish and furs - which would be easier to get from the Baltics or Iceland, as is said above. However, as far as I know, trading was not the main reason for Viking settlements. The Vikings needed land, and land is plenty in Vinland and further south. And all these lands are perfectly suited for Viking settlers climatically, unlike Iceland or Greenland which were quite hard even for Vikings.

 

[Atom]

Of course, trading would be limited to fish and furs - which would be easier to get from the Baltics or Iceland, as is said above. However, as far as I know, trading was not the main reason for Viking settlements. The Vikings needed land, and land is plenty in Vinland and further south. And all these lands are perfectly suited for Viking settlers climatically, unlike Iceland or Greenland which were quite hard even for Vikings.

But who would be coming? It's such a dangerous and long journey.

 

[ninebucks]

Colonisation is perhaps a bit of an anachronistic term for this time and place, but it is true that Medieval Europe had a pretty efficient method of societal expansion. The twin phenomena of primogeniture and a remarkably strong economic concentration on land meant that a huge class of people (the second, third, and so on, sons of land owners) with significant wealth and a strong desire to win themselves somewhere to feudalise over. It was this system that created Europe's many knightly orders that kept the continent so chaotic and war-torn throughout the Middle Ages.

Now, if the Vikings establish a stable and reliable route through the North Atlantic to North America, and let this route become well known to the rest of Europe - then its possible that a lot of the martial classes of the continent will chose to hitch a ride with the Norsemen and seek to establish their own patch of land in the New World. For many, such a prospect would be preferable to the constant warfare in Europe. Furthermore, if we butterfly away the Crusades, that takes away one of the primary vents for the martial build-up in Europe, and would instead encourage more Knights to scamper off to America.

 

[Johnrankins]

The Vikings might be able to take and hold some islands. Their ships were better then the natives. The continent is a different matter. They might be able to get the natives to allow trading posts.

 

[carlton_bach]

The Vikings might be able to take and hold some islands. Their ships were better then the natives. The continent is a different matter. They might be able to get the natives to allow trading posts.

I think you're underestimating the disruptive potential of disease, Christianity and new technologies. European colonisation would massively change the social structures of any American peoples it encounters and in the process is likely to put the Europeans on the top more likely than not. The whole thing would still not approach the steamroller effect of OTL, but we are not talking about something like Chinese 'concession ports'.

 

[Fabilius]

As I have previously pointed out, one colonization attempt was made and was unsuccesful.

It could have suceeded in which case a few norse farms would´ve popped up there.

Actually there are theories that people went over there to chop lumber. And english sailors sailed to the new world for fishing as well.

I think you could´ve easily ended up with another Icelandic commonwealth over there if Thorfinn Karlsefni hadn´t pissed of the natives.

But you see the thing is, the vikings weren´t good diplomats. That´s why they died in Greenland.

 

[Redbeard]

As I have previously pointed out, one colonization attempt was made and was unsuccesful.

It could have suceeded in which case a few norse farms would´ve popped up there.

Actually there are theories that people went over there to chop lumber. And english sailors sailed to the new world for fishing as well.

I think you could´ve easily ended up with another Icelandic commonwealth over there if Thorfinn Karlsefni hadn´t pissed of the natives.

But you see the thing is, the vikings weren´t good diplomats. That´s why they died in Greenland.

What has diplomacy to do with the settlements in Greenland dying out?

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

 

[carlton_bach]

What has diplomacy to do with the settlements in Greenland dying out?

They didn't exactly make good friends with the expanding Inuit, and if they had there's a good chance they could have survived trading food from them.

 

[Fabilius]

They didn't exactly make good friends with the expanding Inuit, and if they had there's a good chance they could have survived trading food from them.

Bingo. The viking problem was that they were racists. "Skraelingjar" is a quite nasty name in fact.

It sort of gives the image of a man who has had his skin peeled of. (It´s a term pretty difficult to translate, but it´s really quite nasty).

 

[Dave Howery]

By then, they would have had. The problem I see is rather why those hundreds would want to go to Vinland. The Norse were coming to America, as it were, from the wrong direction, and you would have to have ships going much farther south to find anything that is tempting to traders, raiders or settlers. I don't think there is anything in Vinland that you can't have in Iceland at much smaller risk. Or, for that matter, in the eastern Baltic.

Iceland was nearly filled up by the time of the Greenland voyages... one of the main reasons why Erik went to Greenland. Vinland has timber and lots of it, while Iceland has none. But mainly, it'd take the Norse realizing just what they'd found... a new continent and not just another island out there... once it's realized that this place is big and populated by stone age tribes with no steel (not to mention the rich soil, good climate, and good fishing), that would be a strong pull for settlers.... the Norse wouldn't have to go that far south, Newfoundland was pretty damn good land by their standard, and it wasn't hard to reach....

 

[Matthais Corvinus]

The POD to allow large scale Norse settlement in "Vinland" is probably something that also has large knock on effects in Europe. Lets say though that Charlemagne has a really chip off the old block son and grandson and they are able to successfully battle the Norse barbarians.

So the Norse fill up Iceland faster, go to Vinland faster, and most important, start exploring down the coast. The norse were an exploring people, and from their southern most settlements on the Hudson Bay or maybe the Chesapeake Bay they go south, hear stories about a really, really rich culture, just a bit further south, and sometime around 1000 they find the rich Mesoamericans. The wealth that the first traders bring back brings in a huge wave of settlers. The norse get involved in Mesoamerica as skilled craftsmen and mercenaries. With their skills, advanced tech, and just plain ruthlessness theses norse settlers are able to quickly take over leadership of these cultures.

The problem that we now run into is that the norse tended to be the ones who got assimilated, not the other way around. Would this be the case though in a culture that it so totally alien? Maybe, maybe not.

The real important part of the scenario that I just layed out is that the norse need to find the gold-rich cultures of mesoamerica. The lure of gold would bring in the norse. I think that only a very light sprinkling of norse settlers along the east coast of north america would be necessary in order to establish bases from which to launch the missions of explorations to the south.

 

[Fabilius]

The real important part of the scenario that I just layed out is that the norse need to find the gold-rich cultures of mesoamerica. The lure of gold would bring in the norse. I think that only a very light sprinkling of norse settlers along the east coast of north america would be necessary in order to establish bases from which to launch the missions of explorations to the south.

How? Why?

Viking explorations didn´t go such long distances really. It´s not organized exploration, it´s a migration resulting from a population explosions only going into unknown territories when there is something suggesting a lot of gain.

Vikings only went to Constantinople because they knew it was there.