What if Vinland would have succeeded as a colony

[Swamidude]

I was doing some research and I love to think about these things. It has probably been discussed before, but still I wonder. Now I assume Vinland was located on Newfoundland and / or Labrador. From the Vinland saga it seems Vinland wasn't a colony but they did trade a bit and got wood there which was rare on Greenland. I think that to even consider a colony on Vinland you should assume the colonies on Greenland would also prosper more. Main export product was ivory and in lesser extends furs, so let's assume demand for those resources would be higher. Also a lot of the people in norway emigrated because they were exiled or overpopulation. Let's assume one group of people decides to head into the west instead of somewhere else in Europe, either they don't get invited or they just heard of Vinland and I dunno they hoped it might be a better place then were they went in real history. A bishop in Bremen did write down that the king of Denmark knew about Vinland, so it can be assumed that some nobles also heard of it and at least in that timeframe some stories of this new land were known.

So I can see a standing colony from Vinland happen when

1. Greenland succeeds a bit more or at least sees some increase in the demand of wood so more vessels are send to Vinland to get resources eventually becoming a colony.
2. An exiled guy, pretty much the same way as with Greenland, decides to head west and set up camp there. Either way I think Greenland and trade with Europe is a must.

Now let's assume camp is set up and they are either friendly or at least not hostile with the natives and can fend them off. Vinland would mostly be able to trade wood with Greenland and maybe furs to Iceland and from there further into europe. In this timeframe aggriculture should be possible as it was even practiced on greenland. Now I don't believe enough people would emigrate to Vinland to really start a norse colony, but I do believe that they might be able to overcome the natives or interact with them, very much as most of the vikings did in europe, like normandy. They would still have better weapons and things. Eventually though the little ice age would make the Greenland colony go downwards just as it did in real history. Maybe when Vinland would actually be there it would become a place were refugees would go.

Now it's assumed arround 3.000 people lived in Greenland in real history, in my case greenland would prosper a bit more, but let's be real over 10.000 people wouldn't be living in greenland, I'm guessing that at that time maybe a few hundered or a thousand max might be living in Vinland and then I'm considering how economically viable that would be if all they traded was wood, fur and ivory. Also the fact that wood might be scarce, but assuming Vinland could actually get better farming and cattle going they might be even going to export food to support Greenland. Now assuming things get going a bit better in Vinland and with the little ice age Greenlanders actually migrate there, since that's now an option. Ties are still cut with Iceland pretty much and we have a colony of maybe 3.000 to 5.000 or so Vinlanders. They wouldn't conquer an empire in North America soon and I think it's foolish to assume mass migration would find place.

However what would be the implications of a small yet prospering colony on Newfoundland. First off all I think they would interact with the locals, maybe some wars, but let's assume Norse influence gets established firmly on Newfoundland. Also there's the question wether christianity would be introduced into Vinland, since Greenland did get a monastery I would assume that if Greenland would prosper more and from there Vinland would be a viable option to colonize, christianity might have reached it. Allthough it's interesting since I don't think Vinland would be in a position were it would be appointed a monk from Europe... So christianity might be mixed more with the pagan religion from the other Norse settlers and maybe the local population. Also it might be more introduced via the people that eventually would come from Greenland when the little ice age conditions force these people to flee. This would maybe lead to a christian inspired religion.

Now assuming they find some of the metals found on Newfoundland and assimilate the locals into their communities Vinland might actually become a really weird state, with it's own religion but also a state based on medieval Europe. With a norse elite and weapons inspired on medieval Europe. I dunno if they would eventually still have 'knights' I guess not, but if they started trade or war with other natives further south Vinland might become of a bigger influence. Now I don't think that when europe eventually arrived it would have been different going with guns against swords instead of guns against spears, but there are some factors to take into account.

If Vinland prospers it'll in the end mostly be natives adopting the religion and stateform of the norse and interacting with them, eventually I don't think it will stay a norse elite only and as such I don't think explorers later on would really run into europeans. However in the 18th century Denmark reclaimed Greenland and maybe with some supplies from Vinland there might actually still be small communities there, mostly under influence of Vinland after contact with Iceland was broken, so when this connection is re-established that would be interesting. Honestly I could imagine Denmark just claiming that they still own Greenland and after discovering Vinland they might extend that claim to there. Vinland would now be independent for several 100 of years, about 400 years since the start of the little ice age and I could hardly imagine them caring about the claim. I don't see Denmark actually invade north America at that point, but they might start resetteling Greenland. Other option is that Vinland actually still remembers were they came from and sailing back to iceland themself to re-establish contact. It wouldn't be unthinkable they have saga's telling about their coming to the new world and they probably would have more reason to remember Europe then Europe would have remembering them.

Would it change much in the end. I think it might not matter much for the rest of the new world, allthough if Europeans really did colonize diseases might have spread in the America's earlier and at a much slower rate, giving the locals time to adapt and have some immunity by the time European explorers arrived. Still I think that Vinland would have been a colony before the black death and maybe some other medieval diseases from Europe, so there might still be something to kill off a lot of the locals. Maybe also a bit of technology exchange, but I doubt it would reach southern or middle America. Allthough if Vinland would have kept exploring they would have had a 400 or 500 year timeframe to really trade and who knows what they would have done when they knew about the riches in the maya cities. But do keep in mind that in this timeframe the aztecs were also starting to prosper, now what would have happened if they would have also gotten into contact with Vinland and not only got acces to their technology, but maybe more important got influenced by their political structures from medieval europe.

In the end I think the conquest of the new world would have been harder, less dissease and maybe more organized natives with a little better weapons. They would still lose in the end I think, but maybe profits would be less and thus less effort would be put into going to the west and more in going to the east. I guess when the natives were given more time to adapt to the Europeans some states might have actually survived. Vinland itself might have survived or might have been taken, that itself isn't even the biggest impact, it would probably be taken but still have an identy, making that when the colonies would become independent from their respective European countries, Vinland would become so as Vinland and not Canada. All in all I think it might eventually lead to some native countries still existing to this day in America, probably modernized by European influences, but never taken. Also Vinland would take up eastern Canada most likely. I guess maybe the colonisation of Africa might have been earlier or more foccused upon when things would go more rough in the new world.

In the end options fan out way to far at this point, since you need to assume what influenced what... I enjoyed thinking about this subject though and I thought share it and maybe hear some interesting views from other people on this subject.

[IrishBlood]

Nice topic! it would make a cool setting for a book or game!

I think the overall idea is fairly plausible, but it would depend on a few pretty big factors.

You would need at LEAST one noble from either Denmark, Norway, the Isle of Man or other Viking possessions in Ireland and Scotland to immigrate with a significant number of well armed and equipped followers with the specific intention of starting a colony in Vinland, rather than going to the less attractive options of Iceland of Greenland.

Vinland was described as being a virgin land, full of grapes, bountiful supplies of fish, good climate and good agricultural land with plenty of timber and wildlife for hunting, so it was a very attractive prospect. The numerous, but 'primitive' natives would also have been an incentive for those looking to engage in slavery or relatively easy raiding, so there's no reason to categorically say such an expedition could never have happened.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinland

Secondly such a colony would have to be able to either subjugate or ally with the natives of where ever they settle (for arguments sake we'll say Newfoundland based on the settlement of L'Anse Aux Meadows). Firstly for the obvious reason that they would be outnumbered by the natives so removing them as an immediate threat would drastically improve the chances of the colony's success, but secondly (and possibly more importantly) so that they can intermarry with them and boost their population. If we go by the little ice age scenario you proposed where by there would be no more colonists coming from Europe for at least a few hundred years, the initial colonists would have to interbreed if they have any chance of establishing a successful kingdom/state.



(Model of the Anse Aux Meadows settlement, note the turf roofs on the houses.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27Anse_aux_Meadows

This wouldn't be too hard to do as the Vikings in general didn't really have much of an issue when it came to mingling and marrying locals wherever they settled and there is apparently DNA evidence to suggest that settlers on Newfoundland brought their Beothuk Indian wives back to Iceland/Greenland with them. A likely scenario for this to happen could be the settlers intervening in a conflict/war between two tribes. Superior Viking steel and technology etc would help one of the tribes to defeat their rival, allowing for the colonists to have a ready made ally with which to trade and intermarry with. Native tribes were at war fairly often over hunting and fishing grounds etc, so I think it's a fairly plausible scenario. It would definitely fit in with what the Norse did in Ireland; marrying locals and intervening in the wars of Irish kings and Chieftains for their own benefit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newfou...brador#History

From a cultural perspective the Beothuk and other tribes in the 'Vinland' area weren't TOO different in some regards; they were a hardy people used to a cold climate and had a tradition of seafaring and fishing in canoes which allowed them to trade with the mainland (with some scholars believing that they could have traded as far south as modern day New York). Christianity wasn't that firmly rooted (if at all present) among-st Norse settlers at this time so I don't think they would have had much of an issue with the natives religious customs and practices. My point being that the Norse would in theory have a much easier time of integrating themselves into the native 'Vinland' population than the Spanish did with the central American population. The Spanish were religious fanatics hell bent on converting and conquering the natives and plundering their cities in search of gold and silver, where as the Norse settlers would have been more interested in settling land and trading and probably wouldn't have cared all that much about converting the natives.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beothuk

If there was to be a 'Vinland' kingdom or state it would likely follow the pattern set by the IRL Viking conquest and settlement in the British isles, where by they would focus on conquering islands allowing them a safe base of operations (Scottish Islands, Isle of Man) and only colonize areas on the mainland beside areas of strategic value for trade and exploration such as the mouth of major rivers (Dublin, Cork, etc). This is far more likely than one big homogeneous kingdom I think, as they would have less to gain from attempting to subdue a large area, then they would from having strategically placed trading cities along fertile farming areas on select islands and rivers.



Another important factor would be how well established the colonies become as manufacturing centers before they are cut off from contact with the rest of Europe. What I mean specifically is that they are able to establish specialized areas for the production of ships and iron/steel tools/weapons. If the colonies become purely export based, where by they send furs, timer etc to Greenland in exchange for manufactured goods such as ships, weapons and tools, then the colony will collapse pretty quickly without trade with Greenland. The existing manufactured goods would eventually break down and become hard to replicate and over time the knowledge of doing so would fade away and be lost. This would eventually result in the colonists being on an even footing with the natives who would eventually conquer or completely assimilate them.

I think it would be possible for the colonies to become self sufficient as they had all the materials they needed to do so and there is apparent evidence of Viking settles mining bog iron in Newfoundland, so as long as they are able to continue metal working and ship building then they would have the major edge over the native tribes.



(snapshot of the bog iron process)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27Anse_aux_Meadows

The colonists would also have a much better chance of surviving the little ice age than those on Greenland as the climate of Vinland seems to have been much milder in general and even if it did become so cold as to stunt agriculture, they could easily migrate further south along the coast. The little ice age didn't just happen over night, so it is logical that Norse settlements in Vinland would move gradually further south as the climate changed, with more northerly settlements being abandoned as they became less and less feasible to maintain, particularly if in the scenario you proposed the people of Greenland would abandon it in favour of the more prosperous settlements in Vinland.

With regards to trading with the locals, I highly doubt the colonists would ever trade with the Aztecs or other advanced central American states, but it would be very possible for them to trade with the city of Cahokia in the Midwest.





https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cahokia

Cahokia as an organized city-state appears to have existed from 600-1400 AD (perfectly within the timeline of a major Norse settlement of North America) and at it's height had an estimated population of over 40,000 people, making it the largest North American city outside modern day Mexico until at least the mid 1700's. The city was based heavily on river trade and was situated at the side of modern day St Louis and is believed to have traded throughout the Mississippi river system and as far north as the great lakes. If we take 'Vinland' to encompass an area extending as far south as the St Lawrence river (which some historians believe to be the case as that explains accounts of grapes growing in the wild) then the Norse settlers would inevitably explore the river, bringing them to the great lakes region, which they would also be very likely to explore.



Assuming the timeline you are giving them stretch over a few hundred years, I think it likely that Norse settlers (particularly if they move further south as a consequence of the little Ice age) would eventually come into contact with the Cahokia civilization. It certainly makes sense for a trading people like the Norse to want to make contact with the largest, richest and most advanced civilization in North America. Cahokia controlled a very lucrative trade network that the Norse would have to been interested in and they also had mastered copper production, with numerous engraved copper plates and tools having been found.


(engraved copper plates from the Mississippian culture.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missis..._copper_plates

It is speculated that the Cahokia civilization eventually failed due to two major flooding incidents which devastated the city, as well as very poor general hygiene. There have been very few examples found of latrines or drainage systems in place, which historians believe would have caused disease to become fairly rampant in such a densely populated city. The city's large population was also heavily dependent on a myriad number of outlying villages which supplied them with food. If nomadic tribes moving into the area began raiding these villages on a large scale, the city of Cahokia would have quickly been affected by food shortages and starvation.

Contact and trade with the Norse settlers likely wouldn't have saved Cahokias eventual demise, but it might well have prolonged it's existence. The Norse had (at least to my knowledge) a better understanding of the need for sewage disposal and latrines and could have helped the Cahokian people with regards t flood management. Steel weaponry and Viking style longships would also have given Cahokia a significant edge over encroaching nomadic tribes. Who knows, maybe Cahokia's leaders would have had their own Varangian guard to rival that of Constantinople I see no reason why not, Vikings in general seem to have had few qualms about being swords for hire.









(I thought I'd add the above pictures because they looked pretty cool, but they also highlight the fight that most of the settlers probably wouldn't be wearing or even own chainmail armor, so the advantaced of steal weaponry wouldn't be that big an advantage. A bone/stone tipped arrow/spear would kill you just as easily as a steel tipped one if you're not wearing any armor!)

Overall, this alternate history scenario requires a few major what ifs, but each 'what if' is fairly plausible. In the long term, if such a Norse society was to occur, I don't think it would have had a gigantic impact on the later colonization of the Americas.

True, if the Norse colonies of Vinland became heavily involved with trade, then diseases would spread pretty quickly which would give a large amount of natives a great deal of immunity, but this would only really effect those living in costal areas and major rivers likely to be routes of significant trade. The very spread out and coastal nature of 'Vinland's' settlements would make it pretty easy for European explorers to conquer them. Iron swords and chainmail are great and all, but they can't do much when you have cannons on ships bombing your costal town into submission. The likes of Persian and Indian cities in Asia fell pretty quickly to European anphibious assaults and they would have been significantly more technologically advanced than the Norse-Indians would have been, so that's a pretty good indicator of how they would have fared against the new wave of European colonists I think!

I'm sure in this scenario the Norse settlers would have retained a fair bit of their 'Europeanness', but they would also have gone pretty native the more time passes and they intermingle with the locals. There’s no real reason to believe that Spanish/English explorers would treat mixed race Norse-Indians who worshiped Odin and were armed with steel weapons any differently than they would regular Indians. It would depend on whether they were Christian or not I think. If they Norse-Indians were by and large Christians and willing to accept the major doctrinal changes introduced by 1500's-1600's era Christians then they would likely be enveloped into the fold pretty painlessly and become the backbone of colonial settlement, particularly as they would have extensive local geographical knowledge due to trade and exploration. If anything they could massively increase the rate at which Europeans conquer north America!

Anyway, I've rambled on for a very long time so I guess I should stop now. I've been stuck on a bus for 3 hours so I've had nothing better to do!

EDIT: As a final point before I shut up, here's a pretty good video more or less discussing this very topic and addressing some of the reasons why a successful colony never took root.

[Swamidude]

Thanks for your input, there were several things I didn't know and thanks for the many links I still have to read xD

I also thought that christianty if it would even reach the norse colonies would almost surely be mingled with either the Norse religion or as you say even the local people, since I don't believe there would really be a church and a priest from the beginning. Christianity did reach Greenland though, as there was a bishop seated in garoar (don't know how to write it xD), see the link below, so assuming people from Greenland trade, maybe relocate to Vinland or in the little ice age find refugee there, it would be interesting to see how big the influence would be and what kind of weird mixed religion it might become. I think the vikings were very adaptive in that sense so I agree with you that they wouldn't hold on to christianty firmly supposed to the Spanish in the 17th / 18th century, but it could still influence somewhat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gar%C3%B0ar,_Greenland

Now mainly based on this article on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...rse_settlement

To quote this part, which really got me interested in this idea

The settlements at their height are estimated to have had a population of between 2,000 and 10,000 people with more recent estimates^[10] tending toward the lower figure. Ruins of approximately 620 farms have been identified: 500 in the Eastern settlement, 95 in the Western settlement, and 20 in the Middle. The settlements carried on a trade in ivory from walrustusks with Europe, as well as exporting rope, sheep, seals, wool and cattle hides according to one 13th-century account. They depended on Iceland and Norway for iron tools, wood (especially for boat building, although they also may have obtained some wood from coastal Labrador), supplemental foodstuffs, and religious and social contacts. Trade ships from Iceland and Norway traveled to Greenland every year and would sometimes overwinter in Greenland. Beginning in the late 13th century, all ships from Greenland were required by law to sail directly to Norway.

Now this last sentence is very interesting for me, because what if that law wouldn't have been there and there could have been more direct trade with the British Isles, the HRE, France and Denmark to name some. Now I've allready said how I think about how maybe more trade could have made the Greenland colonies more succesfull and that I see that as maybe the main reason for them to go to Vinland, to get wood, maybe to get metals eventually, also when communities were growing there they could also supply some food to Greenland.

Greenland would eventually prosper maybe even more from that, since now they could start trading this Ivory for luxurieus items, since they have their own colonies to supply them wood and food, so they aren't as dependend on Europe for those resources, while Europe still wants their Ivory.

Still I wonder if they would have really acted like that, it seems they were small communities each doing their own thing without a real plan. I guess there would have to be a noble or at least somebody with a vision that would unite all these scattered people and give them a nation or an identity at the very least. If there would have been a William Wallace of Greenland so to say it might have happened :p

I still think that eventually they could get cut off by the little ice age, but assuming Vinland had a good aggriculture by that time, a decent population and decent leadership I think they could have survived perfectly fine there. I do assume their craftsmanship in boat building and weapons is preserved.

I don't have much time at the moment, but it's really fun to think and research this xD I'll look at your links this weekend and well I again typed more then I wanted and I have a feeling I might have repeated myself a bit, so appologies if I did.

[O'Hea]

If the Norse settlement lasted long enough to firmly introduce at least horses, wheat and steel into North America, there would be some very interesting consequences for the continent's later development. And if it survived long enough to keep up at least sporadic European contact over the next few centuries, the Americas may not have had the all-at-once population collapse brought on by the Columbian Exchange. It's an interesting concept.

[RubiconDecision]

The mini-Ice Age is the crux of the problem. It's too far to maintain a colony in hostile territory. The Vikings were magnificent warriors but how many could withstand millions of Native Americans without ready support? It's too far under extremely poor weather conditions.

I was very interested in using that what if scenario in the ERAS Total Conquest mod through scripting but the issue was restricting travel through the very migration route by which the Vikings got to America. Even if they had managed to take over the UK, the mini-Ice Age becomes the issue due to poor harvests and thus poor trade and so terrible effects on the economy.

Spanish gorged itself on New World conquest and trade instead. They were in the right geographical position.

The Northern aspect of America had furs and salmon. The Central and Southern portions of America had GOLD and easily conquered the indigenous in that region and thus utilized them as a slave population. That isn't the case in the North. You have neither of those situations. This aspect of the relative weakness of the Aztecs openly mocks the Aztecs being included in MTW Kingdoms. A handful of Spanish handled thousands .

[saxdude]

The Northern aspect of America had furs and salmon. The Central and Southern portions of America had GOLD and easily conquered the indigenous in that region and thus utilized them as a slave population. That isn't the case in the North. You have neither of those situations. This aspect of the relative weakness of the Aztecs openly mocks the Aztecs being included in MTW Kingdoms. A handful of Spanish handled thousands .

You speak with a strange authority on a matter you seemingly know nothing about, since pretty much everything after the second sentence is easily dissprovable and wrong and betrays your odd little bias.

Also Irishblood, I wouldn't take anything Skallagrim says on the subject with anything other than a grain of salt, his dependance on the ol' GGS betrays his arguments. The vikings lacked an imperial infrastructure tu support a conquest like the Spanish one, as well as incentives and local infrastructure to exploit. The Vikings never would have made a lasting cultural influence on the America's even if a colony or several had been succesfull, they rarely ever had the intention of doing so. They would have melded into the population rather quickly and developed into an interesting quirky little population group but nothing more. The spread of metal would be the most interesting thing to come out of the whole ordeal, though at what pace one wouldn't know.

Guns and steel rarely had a big influence in conflicts of the America's beyond the very very first encounters, the weaponry was never enough to make a significant difference, much less frankish swords and chainmail. Disease wouldn't have spread much beyond viking periphery as well, smallpox virality is greatly exagerated, and even in the colonialistic conditions of the 1600's it was never as bad as people have made it out to be (on it's own). Horses made more of an impact than any of the above and even then they were limited to non-mountainous terrain.
Frankly, while spanish arms were technologically objectively superior, the conquest of Mesoamerica was almost entirely made on the back of mesoamerican allies. The spaniards stumbled upon a caleidescope of kingdoms with varying political agendas and independent resource pools and masterfully (or luckily) exploited and manipulated these agendas until it was to late for the allies to realize they made a deal with the devil. The defeat of the Aztecs was more realpolitik than it was anything else.

The vikings had no such luck. They stumbled upon fluid groups that bordered the line between chiefdom and tribe, with little political infrastructure and constantly fluctuating ethnic identities. There were no armies to recruit, no economical infrastructure to support, no defined territorial delimitations. The vikings could simply not accomplish anything to the scale of the early british empire on their own.

I'd discuss the rest if it wasn't so late, really.

all-at-once population collapse brought on by the Columbian Exchange

This literally didn't happen. Hispaniola didn't even have epidemic outbreaks until 20 years after columbus had arrived! There is no evidence of epidemics in the Pueblo region until 1640! Nothing in the california coast until 1740 (don't quote me on that one), and it goes on and on.

It took a whole century for the alleged 95% population drop in the America's that people like Dobyn, Diamond and Cook like to go on about, nevermind that the figures given by them are on the incredibly high spectrum and largely discredited by more accurately moderate authors. Also nevermind that said figures are also liklier to be in the 60% or 70%. ALSO NEVERMIND that these collapse figures would be realistically limited to Mesoamerica since we have exactly 0 evidence of plagues spreading beyond the P'urepecha empire before 1540, and no evidence in the southwestern USA until 1640! well after a century of spanish interactions.

[Cyclops]

My 2 cents is the Norse might even have established themselves but if they did (unlikely I guess) they probably became assimilated to Native American cultures.

If you look at the Norse in Ireland, Britain, Russia, Sicily and Italy you see a people extremely happy to throw off their own language and culture and adopt the local one. Not sure if Norse culture was particularly weak, or if these people had a low self esteem, or if they married non-Norse women who raised the kids to the local culture, but for whatever reason the Norse typically cease to be Norse within a matter of two or three generations whenever they settle outside their homelands.

[PikeStance]

Cahokia as an organized city-state appears to have existed from 600-1400 AD (perfectly within the timeline of a major Norse settlement of North America) and at it's height had an estimated population of over 40,000 people, making it the largest North American city outside modern day Mexico until at least the mid 1700's. The city was based heavily on river trade and was situated at the side of modern day St Louis and is believed to have traded throughout the Mississippi river system and as far north as the great lakes. If we take 'Vinland' to encompass an area extending as far south as the St Lawrence river (which some historians believe to be the case as that explains accounts of grapes growing in the wild) then the Norse settlers would inevitably explore the river, bringing them to the great lakes region, which they would also be very likely to explore.

AS legend would have it, this may have happened.
This is the inspiration for the naming of the NFL team in Minnesota the "Vikings"

[IrishBlood]

The mini-Ice Age is the crux of the problem. It's too far to maintain a colony in hostile territory. The Vikings were magnificent warriors but how many could withstand millions of Native Americans without ready support? It's too far under extremely poor weather conditions.

Not really, they can keep moving further south. As I said in my post the mini Ice Age didn't happen over night, it was a gradual thing happening over years. As the weather worsened more northerly settlements would be abandoned in favor of those further south. This is what would eventually cause 'Vinland' to be cut off from Europe as the weather would eventually deteriorate to the point where sea travel via the northern Greenland-Iceland-Scandanavia route would be dangerous beyond the point of viability.

As for facing off against millions of natives, I doubt it would be that extreme. The native population was very spread out living either as nomads or tribal villages, so it would be a radically different level of population density compared to what the Spanish came across in central America. If Norse settlement patterns in the British Isles are anything to go by then they would have focused on building walled towns on islands and major rivers, making them reasonably easy to defend. I'm not saying they would have an easy time against the natives, but I doubt they would be facing tribes of any more than a few thousand at a time.

Also Irishblood, I wouldn't take anything Skallagrim says on the subject with anything other than a grain of salt, his dependance on the ol' GGS betrays his arguments. The vikings lacked an imperial infrastructure tu support a conquest like the Spanish one, as well as incentives and local infrastructure to exploit. The Vikings never would have made a lasting cultural influence on the America's even if a colony or several had been succesfull, they rarely ever had the intention of doing so. They would have melded into the population rather quickly and developed into an interesting quirky little population group but nothing more. The spread of metal would be the most interesting thing to come out of the whole ordeal, though at what pace one wouldn't know.

Guns and steel rarely had a big influence in conflicts of the America's beyond the very very first encounters, the weaponry was never enough to make a significant difference, much less frankish swords and chainmail. Disease wouldn't have spread much beyond viking periphery as well, smallpox virality is greatly exagerated, and even in the colonialistic conditions of the 1600's it was never as bad as people have made it out to be (on it's own). Horses made more of an impact than any of the above and even then they were limited to non-mountainous terrain.
Frankly, while spanish arms were technologically objectively superior, the conquest of Mesoamerica was almost entirely made on the back of mesoamerican allies. The spaniards stumbled upon a caleidescope of kingdoms with varying political agendas and independent resource pools and masterfully (or luckily) exploited and manipulated these agendas until it was to late for the allies to realize they made a deal with the devil. The defeat of the Aztecs was more realpolitik than it was anything else.

The vikings had no such luck. They stumbled upon fluid groups that bordered the line between chiefdom and tribe, with little political infrastructure and constantly fluctuating ethnic identities. There were no armies to recruit, no economical infrastructure to support, no defined territorial delimitations. The vikings could simply not accomplish anything to the scale of the early british empire on their own.

What to you mean by GGS in relation to Skallagrim? Not trying to argue, I genuinely don't know I agree with you that the Vikings wouldn't have been capable of the same level of empire building as the Spanish were. No doubt about that. But I think it was very possible for them to make a maritime Kingdom scattered along the coastal rivers and islands of the American north east.

They had superior ships, tools, weapons and technology, so they would have an edge (not nearly as much as the Spanish though). Take the isle of Man for example. Once the Norse managed to take that Island, no one ever took it from them. They joined the Kingdom of England voluntarily because they saw the way the wind was blowing. They controlled the seas around them and used the island to attack Ireland, England and Scotland with impunity. The same would easily apply if they took an Isle of Man equivalent along the North American coast. Good luck to any natives trying to drive them out of such a strong hold!

My overall point is that I don't think a Norse empire would ever have been possible, but a strong, spread out maritime trade kingdom based on naval superiority and Island bastions would have been very plausible. This would undoubtedly have effected the history of the area. How? I have no idea, we can only wildly speculate

My 2 cents is the Norse might even have established themselves but if they did (unlikely I guess) they probably became assimilated to Native American cultures.

If you look at the Norse in Ireland, Britain, Russia, Sicily and Italy you see a people extremely happy to throw off their own language and culture and adopt the local one. Not sure if Norse culture was particularly weak, or if these people had a low self esteem, or if they married non-Norse women who raised the kids to the local culture, but for whatever reason the Norse typically cease to be Norse within a matter of two or three generations whenever they settle outside their homelands.

That's partially true. The Vikings in Ireland founded Dublin in 841 and maintained their Norse culture and influence until the city was conquered by the Anglo Normans in 1171. That's 330 years. The Irish kingdoms had subjugated the Norse numerous times throughout history before the Anglo Normans did, but the Irish lords preferred to rule from their forts and dynastic seats, rather than become urban dwellers and there was no major influx of native Irish settlers to 'dilute' the Norse population.

The Norse in Dublin, Limerick, Waterford etc learned the native Irish language and picked up plenty of customs and laws, but they kept their Norse language, methods of warfare (mail, shield wall, longships)and also maintained strong trade links with Scandinavia and the rest of the world.

I suppose the lack of any further links with Scandinavia would eventually erode the culture of 'Vinland' in this scenario, but I think it would be very gradual process and would depend on how the Norse integrate the natives. If they capture women and take them as wives, then the sons would be most likely be brought up in the Norse way, though with some obvious native influence through the mothers. If however they had a broad alliance with a tribe or tribes, then integration might be more peaceful, but that would cause Norse culture to be mingled and diluted much faster.

AS legend would have it, this may have happened.
This is the inspiration for the naming of the NFL team in Minnesota the "Vikings"

Who knows, we could be on the cusp of a major historical breakthrough here!

[+Marius+]

Guns and steel rarely had a big influence in conflicts of the America's beyond the very very first encounters, the weaponry was never enough to make a significant difference, much less frankish swords and chainmail.

I don't have the will to argue the other points, but this one I will disagree with.

Weaponry and armor was of paramount and is stated as such in sources.

Early 16th century muskets were horrifyingly more effective than weaponry the natives had.

Just look at the Portugese land battles/skirmishes in India and Africa during that period, fighting more advanced enemies than Mesoamericans, without any cavalry and still destroying them at every turn.


For instance, at the battle of Baçente, 400 Portugese musketeers destroyed the Adal Sultanate army of 1500, losing only 8 men, even though it was the Portugese who were attacking and charging uphill.

[saxdude]

Weaponry and armor was of paramount and is stated as such in sources.

Early 16th century muskets were horrifyingly more effective than weaponry the natives had.

True enough, I should have made my point clearer: Guns and steel rarely had a big influence in conflicts of the America's beyond the very very first encounters, during the Spanish conquests. And even then north american natives were quite quick to adopt fire arms.

Your points are all fine in and of themselves, but they really have nothing to do with Mesoamerica or the Andes (though I know less about the latter), or the America's for that matter. Guns simply had little influence in most conflicts of the Spanish empire in the America's. They weren't useless, quite the opposite as they disrupted enemy formations effectively. But they were just too small in number to matter and mesoamerican forces were quick to adapt to guerrilla ambush tactics, at that almost exclusively out of fear of the horses, as you can see in the initial confrontation between tlaxcalan and Spanish forces, the conquest of guatemala, the entradas in the Sierra Norte, etc. Even during the battle of Otumba the harquebuses barely made an impact and canons were all but gone.
Check out the sources yourself, in most of the Spanish and Native reports there are 2 underlying themes, the decisiveness of horses above all aformented weaponry, and the use of Native auxiliaries that at bare minimum outnumbered the spaniards two to one.
Guns were terrible, but they were simply not enough, and thus made little impact.
Steel on the other hand is obviously superior to wood and glass, but again, too little to matter. Not all spaniards were dressed in plate armour and not all who did kept it. Yes, plate armour is impervious to native weapons, but it's pretty much impervious to european weapons as well. Number's were still too great.

There weren't "400 musketeers" facing the Aztecs Marius, there were 17.

What to you mean by GGS in relation to Skallagrim? Not trying to argue, I genuinely don't know I agree with you that the Vikings wouldn't have been capable of the same level of empire building as the Spanish were. No doubt about that. But I think it was very possible for them to make a maritime Kingdom scattered along the coastal rivers and islands of the American north east.

He points it out himself, it's mostly just the virgin soil argument but adding that the vikings weren't sufficiently advanced to do the same thing that the spaniards did. Admitedly that's what I remember of his video so I may be skipping out on a few details. Obviously there are a number of reasons why they didn't do it that have little to do with technology and more to do with infrastructure, colonial goals (coasting on reconquista tactics), ideological fervor, differing native presence and a lack of *horses*.
I think technology, specifically military technology I should add, is over emphasized in these specific situations. Wether a viking had a round shield and a frankish sword vs a broadsword and a rodella are largely insignificant, and since guns were just barely used in the first century of the american conquest and the vikings had none, they are a moot point.

What I'm getting at is that the establishment of one or several norse kingdoms along the coastlines of vinland is certainly plausible in a scenerio where the colonies are successful, but what's to make it any different from all other Viking colonies? Not a whole lot I think.

[+Marius+]

There weren't "400 musketeers" facing the Aztecs Marius, there were 17.

Sometimes the cannon numbers are confused with musket numbers, there were 14 cannons during the initial landing and after April 20th, up to 34 cannons.

Musketeer numbers are vague as they are joined with crossbowmen, but Pánfilo all by himself had 80 of them, Cortez probably a similar number.

I agree with your point that native allies and cavalry contributed more than the musket alone, I was merely arguing against the dismissal of firearms as important tools of Spanish victory.

For instance, at the battle of Puna, where the Spanish had 0 native allies, the musket volleys proved to be equally decisive as the cavalry.

[saxdude]

Musketeer numbers are vague as they are joined with crossbowmen, but Pánfilo all by himself had 80 of them, Cortez probably a similar number.

If I recall correctly, Cortezes initial expedition had 13 harquebuses, 32 crossbowmen, 10 bronze cannons and 4 falconets, then fortified by Panfilo de Narvaezs "reinforcements". which might have led the number to 34 cannons and 80 possible musketeers, which I don't remember. Do you have the source that states the 80 men as musketeers specifically?
Regardless, by the "noche triste", around 500 spanish soldiers were killed, few harquebuses remained and no cannons survived. So it didn't make much of a difference one way or another, and it was left to cavalrymen to save the day at Otumba, were another 200 spanish men were killed.

I can remember there were around 50 harquebuses in storage at any given moment (In ideal conditions, which were rare) in Guadalajara of the Nueva Galicia province, Nuño de Guzmans expedition probably would have had around that number among his 500 men, not to mention his 8,000 michuacano warriors and another 10,000 Nahua warriors.
Pedro de Alvarado had no more than 4 canons, and 130 crossbowmen(musketeers could have numbered around 80, but there are no specific numbers as far as I know, and a wopping 170 Cavalry men besides the obvious thousands of Nahua troops.

For instance, at the battle of Puna, where the Spanish had 0 native allies, the musket volleys proved to be equally decisive as the cavalry.

I did say: "Guns and steel rarely had a big influence in conflicts of the America's beyond the very very first encounters. And that was a first encounter, guerrilla warfare proved to be fairly successful in posterior battles before Hernando de Soto's reinforcements.
Please reread my post, I'm not dismissing the weapons, I'm just saying they weren't the game changers everyone seems to set them out to be (at least not that early in time). They were just not as influential as other factors during the conquest, but instead of varying supportive usefulness in different fronts.
Or perhaps a more accurate statement would be that guns had a decisive role in the initial contact but fell into a more supportive role as the initial shock subsided.

[+Marius+]

Do you have the source that states the 80 men as musketeers specifically?

The first one that came up;

"...more than 800 soldiers, 20 cannons, 80 horsemen, 120 crossbowmen and 80 harquebusiers, under the command of Panfilo de Narvaez, which he dispatched to Mexico with orders to capture Cortes." - The Oxford History of Mexico, Michael C. Meyer, William H. Beezley


I agree that the advanced weaponry argument is overblown, but I still deem that their weaponry, and more importantly their plate armor, played a crucial role in their successes.

There is a reason such large swaps of native warriors decided to join up with such a small band of soldiers.

If those couple hundred Spaniards came there in rags armed with spears, I doubt any tribe would have sided with them.

[PikeStance]

I always thought the real advantage was more psychological than anything else. If another it is lack and aggression. I thought I read that the Inca's were going to attack the Spaniards, but the Spaniard beat them to the punch.

[Cyclops]

The psychological effect of a gun discharge on someone who has never heard one can be profound, and seeing someone blown apart by a cannon shot would make anyone think twice about fighting on. The Spaniards brought several new weapon systems (gunpowder small arms, cannon, steel weapons and armour and horses) to the new world, any of which would stun the locals. The combined effect would be catastrophic, I;'m thinking "Tank Fright" x5, and in one sense its a tribute to Native American courage that they fought at all.

The Leahy brothers flew up to the new Guinea Highlands and the Wahgi valley in the 1930's over impassable forest and cannibal tribes to make contact with the highlanders (they were prospectors looking for gold) who had never met Europeans or indeed any non-New Guineans ever (as I say they were isolated by steep slopes, heavy jungle and serious cannibals). The locals were as friendly as could be, which is to say they did not intend to murder and loot anyone until the second visit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XodJlPBidg

(warning animal cruelty and some National Geographic grade nudity.)

At 20:20 one of the Leahy's shoots a pig to demonstrate the power of firearms and the effect on the onlookers is profound. Some of the locals pluck up their courage and attack later on but they are driven off by far inferior numbers.

[saxdude]

The first one that came up;

"...more than 800 soldiers, 20 cannons, 80 horsemen, 120 crossbowmen and 80 harquebusiers, under the command of Panfilo de Narvaez, which he dispatched to Mexico with orders to capture Cortes." - The Oxford History of Mexico, Michael C. Meyer, William H. Beezley

Can't find the primary source, but regardless, they were mostly lost, either dead or the weapons literally lost, by the Noche Triste, so there impact was negligable.

I agree that the advanced weaponry argument is overblown, but I still deem that their weaponry, and more importantly their plate armor, played a crucial role in their successes.

There is a reason such large swaps of native warriors decided to join up with such a small band of soldiers.

Large bands of warriors didn't "decide" to join up with the spaniards, mesoamerican heads of state did. And at that, they were always fairly divided on the issue.

Their effectiveness in combat because of these technological advances was certainly one of the bigger reasons why the Tlaxcaltecs decided not to defeat Cortez and instead ally with him, but they were never some kind of trump card on which they put all their faith unto. Allying with the Spaniards had always been a little risk, high reward situation. The moment things turned south, they could have and would have abandoned or turned on Cortez, with little to no political losses.

The totonacs (first spanish allies) didn't really have much more troops than the spaniards at their disposal, nor had much to lose with allying with the spaniards so early on. Confrontation with the Aztecs was neither apparent nor unavoidable to them, and the initial confrontation with tlaxcaltec forces (either succesfull or unsuccesfull) could be justified to the triple alliance as an individual endeavor by part of the Totonacs. They literally had nothing to lose with joining the spaniards. Win? you get tlaxcaltec allies. Lose? You switch from being an Aztec tributary state, to a tlaxcaltec tributary state, while playing the victim card to the Aztecs.
The Tlaxcaltecs probably did think of the spaniards as a potential upperhand in their whole political tribute game, but as stated before, it was not an uncontroversial issue. In their case the stakes where only slightly higher; in the short run they could survive any large scale Aztec incursion as they had beforehand, in the long run, the empire was constantly and inevitably chipping away at their borders. Anything but a completely onesided horrifying loss would leave the Tlaxcaltecs exactly where they were before the spanish arrival, and as one can infer from Cortez and Bernal Diaz del Castillo, the Tlaxcaltecs were never fully committed to the ordeal until after Otumba.

The "flock" of allies coming to Cortez's aid was only after Otumba (and those few that came before had a whole host of political agendas not too dissimilar from the above, and could easily exploit both a spanish victory, and defeat. Gonzalo Mazatzin Moctezuma come immediatly to mind.). And even then it had less to do with rumors of superior weaponry, and more to do with the particularities of hegemonic empire building (as opposed to territorial) and mesoamerican warfare. Catastrophic losses had happened before and the result was always a slew of uprisings at a percieved weakened state.

If those couple hundred Spaniards came there in rags armed with spears, I doubt any tribe would have sided with them.

Mayhaps, but the reaction was less "wow, those guns and armor are unbeatable! we gotta ally with them and we will take the Aztecs out in no time!" and more "these guys could be pretty useful to my political endeavor."
But anyways, at the end of the day I think we can both agree that the advance weaponry argument is overblown, since the discussion basically boils down to jus how overblown it was.






Also State. Not tribe. Kingdom if you want, lordship, whatever, but not tribe. A tribe is a very specific term, with a very specific definition. Mesoamericans did not think themselves as tribes, the spaniards did not deem them to be tribal, they were not made to live in tribes, nor do modern mesoamerican people live in tribes.
Tribe isn't some catch all term for all native american societies.