If Viking trans-Atlantic exchange, then better fate for Native Americans?

[Hearkener]

A lot of those advantages are still true. But they didn't really fight on horseback and not sure we should expect the Vinlanders to be that good at dense formation fighting either. Iceland/Greenland didn't have military combat and military-type experience in new world will largely be for at least long time a mixture of low-intensity raiding conflicts with natives and ax duels with the guy who your wife had an affair with.

True. And even the English, who did both, struggled badly against the natives during King Phillip's war. Although I do think that Nordic warfare is more similar to NA warfare than that of Early Modern Europe. The pattern of raiding and counter-raiding would be intimately familiar to the icelanders, at least.

But iron metallurgy is still a huge advantage: there isn't much a guy with a flint or copper-tipped spear can do against mail, although I'm not sure how widespread that armor would have been.

There's a reason that farming peoples thrived on the Plains long after horses were introduced. The nomadic bison hunters relied on them for extra calories and goods.

AFAIK bison hunting only became a mode of subsistence once the Europeans created a huge market for bison products, which the Plainspeoples could exchange for firearms and horses. There's even a theory that that pattern of subsistence was not sustainable in the long term, and precipitated the collapse of bison populations in the latter half of the 19th century. Hence I doubt that even introducing the horse would replicate OTLs bison hunters. When we look at other horse-nomads in Eurasia and Africa, they are almost invariably pastoralists rather than hunter gatherers.

Give them another couple of millennia and they might domesticate bison though.

 

[Arkenfolm]

AFAIK bison hunting only became a mode of subsistence once the Europeans created a huge market for bison products, which the Plainspeoples could exchange for firearms and horses. There's even a theory that that pattern of subsistence was not sustainable in the long term, and precipitated the collapse of bison populations in the latter half of the 19th century. Hence I doubt that even introducing the horse would replicate OTLs bison hunters. When we look at other horse-nomads in Eurasia and Africa, they are almost invariably pastoralists rather than hunter gatherers.

Horseback bison hunting was likely not sustainable long-term because the natives were still stuck in a pre-horse mindset on bison hunting. But it absolutely was a major mode of subsistence from the minute horses were introduced since it made hunting them so much easier. The idea of "used every part of the bison" is a bit overstated (Indians were perfectly capable of killing bison for sport and games), but it was truly valuable to their societies and is part of why the horse-mounted bison hunters became so dominant over other Plains Indians.

It is true IIRC that bison were not frequently hunted before the horse in some areas--they were too dangerous and smaller game offered enough meat and protein. But other places were used for millennia as sites where bison were stampeded over cliffs.

 

[Hearkener]

But it absolutely was a major mode of subsistence from the minute horses were introduced since it made hunting them so much easier. The idea of "used every part of the bison" is a bit overstated (Indians were perfectly capable of killing bison for sport and games), but it was truly valuable to their societies and is part of why the horse-mounted bison hunters became so dominant over other Plains Indians.

Yes, but the large-scale hunting of bison was not originally driven by the need for calories, but furs which could be traded to Europeans. That they could also eat bison was a happy coincidence. The efficiency of their hunting methods (caloric yields must have outstripped comsumption by a factor of thousands) suggests to me that the plains tribes could have easily subsisted off much smaller and less dangerous game, and that the bison's prominence was a result of the highy prices achieved by its products on the international market.

So without a huge trade in bison products, the plains tribes may look a lot more like Eurasian nomads, i.e being primarily herders of sheep. Which would long term provide a more stable, more easily managed, and less dangerous source of food and clothing, while also allowing access to dairy products.

 

[Arkenfolm]

Yes, but the large-scale hunting of bison was not originally driven by the need for calories, but furs which could be traded to Europeans. That they could also eat bison was a happy coincidence. The efficiency of their hunting methods (caloric yields must have outstripped comsumption by a factor of thousands) suggests to me that the plains tribes could have easily subsisted off much smaller and less dangerous game, and that the bison's prominence was a result of the highy prices achieved by its products on the international market.

It had nothing to do with the European market and was the culmination of process that began in the 17th century where tribes were migrating toward the Plains to occupy mostly vacant lands (due to their prior inhabitants having migrated elsewhere due to drought). They started relying more heavily on bison, and then eventually got access to horses which allowed them to convert their society into full-on bison hunters. Bison were an incredibly useful animal whose bones, hide, sinews, etc. could supplement or replace other traditional goods (although this declined over time as more and more European goods became easy to acquire). There are also reports from as early as the first decade of the 19th century that regionally low bison numbers caused famines among Plains Indians, so even before Europeans much penetrated the Plains, it's clear bison was a highly valuable animal. You also have horseback bison hunting as being clearly important in areas little-touched by Europeans such as among the Blackfoot in the 18th century, or accounts of access to the Plains--and thus bison hunting--being valuable for the natives west of the Rockies such as the Kutenai and Nez Perce who adopted many elements of Plains Indian culture (both groups were barely in contact with whites at this point).

So I'm not really sure where you're getting the idea that Plains Indians became bison hunters because they were hunting pelts for Europeans. Even before then, they were trading pelts to sedentary river valley farmers on the Plains and at times even explicitly driving away bison from their villages so the villagers would be unable to hunt the bison for themselves.

 

[the_Atom]

But iron metallurgy is still a huge advantage: there isn't much a guy with a flint or copper-tipped spear can do against mail, although I'm not sure how widespread that armor would have been.

Not very. For the most part combat would be between unarmoured people with stone axes vs unarmoured people with iron axes. Not a particularly huge gap when it comes down to it.

 

[kholieken]

Not very. For the most part combat would be between unarmoured people with stone axes vs unarmoured people with iron axes. Not a particularly huge gap when it comes down to it.

Even small gap add up over time. Battle after battle those who had advantage would slowly push weaker group out of prime real estate.

 

[Hearkener]

So I'm not really sure where you're getting the idea that Plains Indians became bison hunters because they were hunting pelts for Europeans. Even before then, they were trading pelts to sedentary river valley farmers on the Plains and at times even explicitly driving away bison from their villages so the villagers would be unable to hunt the bison for themselves.

Because the river valley farmers had no commodity even close to the value of fire-arms, horses and alcohol. The first two especially soon became vital to the Nations' security interests. Guns and horses changed plains warfare so dramatically that the no. 1 economic concern, after subsistence, became access to these ressources, and on them, the Europeans maintained a strong monopoly.

Breeding horses started relatively late on the plains, and for quite some time all horses had to be purchased from the Europeans - mostly Spain and then Mexico until the US become involved towards the very end of the period. Guns would always stay a European monopoly.

There are also reports from as early as the first decade of the 19th century that regionally low bison numbers caused famines among Plains Indians, so even before Europeans much penetrated the Plains, it's clear bison was a highly valuable animal. You also have horseback bison hunting as being clearly important in areas little-touched by Europeans such as among the Blackfoot in the 18th century, or accounts of access to the Plains--and thus bison hunting--being valuable for the natives west of the Rockies such as the Kutenai and Nez Perce who adopted many elements of Plains Indian culture (both groups were barely in contact with whites at this point).

The impacts of European colonialism affected every last NA society on the continent from the 1600s onwards. They created ripples that spread across the entire continent and fundamentally changed it. Just the existence of horses in North America, after 10,000 years of regional extinction, provides ample illustration.

By the time the Europeans begann settling the plains in mass (c. 1880), they had already been part of the regional political, cultural and economic landscape for almost three centuries.

 

[Arkenfolm]

Because the river valley farmers had no commodity even close to the value of fire-arms, horses and alcohol. The first two especially soon became vital to the Nations' security interests. Guns and horses changed plains warfare so dramatically that the no. 1 economic concern, after subsistence, became access to these ressources, and on them, the Europeans maintained a strong monopoly.

Sure they did--food. A game rich diet is poor in carbs, and having to keep mobile limits the amounts of roots and other wild plants that can be gathered to supplement the diet. They would also trade for other goods such as pemmican, tools, etc. Any goods produced by a village is one the nomadic tribe does not have to produce which is the key symbiotic relationship that all nomads had with nearby sedentary people.

Breeding horses started relatively late on the plains, and for quite some time all horses had to be purchased from the Europeans - mostly Spain and then Mexico until the US become involved towards the very end of the period. Guns would always stay a European monopoly.

Horse theft from the Spanish was incredibly rampant and produced a vast trading network in horses (either purchased or stolen from other tribes). Plenty also learned horsemanship and even horse breeding through being forced to work in Spanish missions and subsequently escaping. The Nez Perce for instance were breeding horses by the mid-late 18th century (ancestors of the Appaloosa breed). Or the Blackfoot far the north of Spanish land gained few horses from Europeans but stole many from the Shoshone.

The impacts of European colonialism affected every last NA society on the continent from the 1600s onwards. They created ripples that spread across the entire continent and fundamentally changed it. Just the existence of horses in North America, after 10,000 years of regional extinction, provides ample illustration.

By the time the Europeans begann settling the plains in mass (c. 1880), they had already been part of the regional political, cultural and economic landscape for almost three centuries.

Sure. But to say that bison hunting was driven mostly by European/American demand is not supported by tribal ethnohistory or European/American accounts. If Europeans were barely in a given area, then they would not be warping local economies outside of their goods being available. Bison pelts were not even much sought after in some remote areas in the 18th century--fur traders preferred the more valuable beaver pelts instead. And Indians trading bison pelts to other Indians would be precisely what was done in precolonial times, with the main thing that changed being the superior-quality goods they purchased.

 

[Dancing Fool]

perhaps the smaller, more isolated settlements would spread disease among the indigenous Americans at a slower rate,

contact with the Eastern Seaboard doesn't really change much for the Mesoamericans and South Americans

like chickenpox/shingles (not much more than 5% lethality in adults)

That last part is the whole game.

Slower over the decades, more isolated settlements, maybe greater chance of the more minor version of smallpox 1st. Or at least, a re-roll of the dice and things might go better. I’ve heard the more minor version called

Alastrim, and

Variola minor.

 

[Dancing Fool]

On the origin of smallpox: Correlating variola . . .​

“ . . . mild smallpox described from the American continents, and isolates from West Africa. This clade diverged from an ancestral VARV either 1,400 or 6,300 YBP . . . ”

Pretty wide range, but—

Bingo! Gives us exactly what we need. Just a matter of getting “lucky enough.”

YBP = Years Before Present

 

[the_Atom]

Even small gap add up over time. Battle after battle those who had advantage would slowly push weaker group out of prime real estate.

Not really. Historically the natives fought back for an extremely long time from a much greater position of disadvantage, even rolling back the frontier in a handful of places. In real life a distinction as minor as 'what is your axe made of' is completely irrelevant, even if they did stick with stone tools the entire time (they wouldn't).

 

[Jürgen]

Honestly I think people focus too much on horse and not the more important thing the Norse would sell; metal and metal products. In OTL the Europeans sold iron to the native which their blacksmiths could work, but also finished products like tomahawks and arrow heads, and this will have significant effect on the natives in peace and warfare.

 

[Umbral]

The difference in population between hunter-gatherers and fully mature agriculture using populations should not be underestimated.

At this time, Newfoundlands population was about 750 people, and its about the size of Ireland. Bands of 30-50 people with no real coordination or united leadership. Which means about 250 fighting age men maximum. The larger Norse longboats could carry 100 men. Leif Eriksons generation was simply unaware of this.

Some of the most revolutionary developments in warfare was iron, the stirrup and the wheel. The Norse has all of them plus a huge naval edge. Erik the Reds generation was well acquainted with fighting, the shield wall, cavalry etc. Erik himself had been metaphorically disallowed from going viking for being too violent and banned from being a berserker for having too bad a temper and just bringing the whole thing into disrepute.
But the main problem the natives have is the European disease package. Its not just smallpox. There is a vast number of diseases that would be hitting at the same time, some of them harmless to Europeans. A type of salmonella, cocoliztli, harmless to Europeans, took the indigenous population in Mexico from 14 million to two million in the first half of the 1500s.

However, genetic mixing with the Norse could help.

The big techs the Norse could transfer to the Native Americans are, in my opinion, horses and the naval techs. Both communications boosters. Leif Ericson to Columbus was almost 500 years. As much time as the time from the 1650s to today. Giving the natives the tech to establish huge trading networks and meeting the Europeans at sea with navies would be a huge boost for the Native Americans. As would the Norse agriculture.

The Americas will be unrecognizable.

 

[Arkenfolm]

On the origin of smallpox: Correlating variola . . .​

“ . . . mild smallpox described from the American continents, and isolates from West Africa. This clade diverged from an ancestral VARV either 1,400 or 6,300 YBP . . . ”

Pretty wide range, but—

Bingo! Gives us exactly what we need. Just a matter of getting “lucky enough.”

YBP = Years Before Present

I find that hypothesis dubious since if it were around for so long, why would variola major still exist? Diseases usually evolve toward more mild forms (like the coronavirus of the 1889-90 "Russian flu" is still around as a generic common cold, just as the more recent novel coronavirus is trending toward), so if a mild form of smallpox evolved at such an early date, it surely should have replaced the more dangerous strain at a far earlier date.

Not really. Historically the natives fought back for an extremely long time from a much greater position of disadvantage, even rolling back the frontier in a handful of places. In real life a distinction as minor as 'what is your axe made of' is completely irrelevant, even if they did stick with stone tools the entire time (they wouldn't).

That's clearly not the case given agriculturalists rolled over hunter gatherers pretty much everywhere agriculture worked. Africa is a great example where the metalworking Bantu drove out peoples less skilled at metalworking, or the whole advantage that iron gave over bronze (cheaper but still very good). This happened in the Americas too--groups with more contact with Europeans could drive out groups with less contact who in turn could drive out groups with no contact. The Beaver Wars is a great example of this.

The difference in population between hunter-gatherers and fully mature agriculture using populations should not be underestimated.

At this time, Newfoundlands population was about 750 people, and its about the size of Ireland. Bands of 30-50 people with no real coordination or united leadership. Which means about 250 fighting age men maximum. The larger Norse longboats could carry 100 men. Leif Eriksons generation was simply unaware of this.

Some of the most revolutionary developments in warfare was iron, the stirrup and the wheel. The Norse has all of them plus a huge naval edge. Erik the Reds generation was well acquainted with fighting, the shield wall, cavalry etc. Erik himself had been metaphorically disallowed from going viking for being too violent and banned from being a berserker for having too bad a temper and just bringing the whole thing into disrepute.
But the main problem the natives have is the European disease package. Its not just smallpox. There is a vast number of diseases that would be hitting at the same time, some of them harmless to Europeans. A type of salmonella, cocoliztli, harmless to Europeans, took the indigenous population in Mexico from 14 million to two million in the first half of the 1500s.

The Norse weren't a cavalry culture. They used them as scouts and skirmishers, especially in Iceland. As for disease, there's plenty of evidence that a "Leifian exchange" would be unable to transmit many disease, and most disease it transmitted would not spread far.

The big techs the Norse could transfer to the Native Americans are, in my opinion, horses and the naval techs. Both communications boosters. Leif Ericson to Columbus was almost 500 years. As much time as the time from the 1650s to today. Giving the natives the tech to establish huge trading networks and meeting the Europeans at sea with navies would be a huge boost for the Native Americans. As would the Norse agriculture.

Maybe horses, but IMO iron working is going to be more valuable since it makes slash and burn agriculture far easier among so many other things. As for ships, sails are nice but the existing ships known to be used by Algonquian-speaking peoples were more or less sufficient. Although the historically known designs used by New England Indians probably were not in use at the time of Norse expeditions, so a hybrid Indian/Viking design would be very nice. Norse agriculture is debateable--IMO really only in the immediate area of the Gulf of St. Lawrence since that's very near the northern limit of maize farming, but most places south wouldn't see too much benefit. That Gulf of St. Lawrence area and northern Maine/New Hampshire is where I'd expect the most Norse-influenced Indian cultures to arise.

 

[Dancing Fool]

I find that hypothesis dubious since if it were around for so long, why would variola major still exist? Diseases usually evolve toward more mild forms

I like this kind of intellectual tension.

Yes, diseases usually, and I myself might even add “almost always,” evolve toward more minor versions. And yet, the two versions of smallpox seemed to co-exist for a good long time.

#####

Another example of a changing and evolving disease is strep—

in 1800s, a specific type of childbirth fever,

in the mid-1900s, rheumatic fever. Common enough in the U.S. so that people being turned down for military service during WWII for “rheumatic heart” was a thing.

And today, maybe PANDAS which is one cause of rapid-onset OCD [in PANDAS, the body’s own antibodies to strep attack the brain’s basal ganglia]. One study found 50% of cases of rapid-onset OCD were likely PANDAS. So far, they’ve mainly looked at children, but just like rheumatic fever, it stands to reason that it could affect adults, too.

And easily enough treatable with prophylactic antibiotics, that it might be worth a blood test for strep titer level [PANDAS is related to Sydenham chorea which was first described in something like 1690].

 

[Gloss]

The southern Sami weren't actually herders! I could see similar trend of staying on garbage land. For a time. Once Newfoundland fills up in 1200s though... That is basically what happened to Beothuk OTL, they died out once Newfoundland's population crept into 10s of thousands and will be worse here because land pressure inland will rapidly exceed anything in OTL where farming was largely not economical and economy was *very* sea-skewed.

Not sure what odds are of the herding/flourishing thing. Beothuk didn't show themselves the greatest tech adaptors OTL. I think they likely last a while in less desirable areas, sort of like OTL, since good odds no one systematically tries to purge them.

They weren't? The entire reason they were so far south is because of herding.