Faeelin
Banned
I don't understand your point; are you disputing that things like the Icelandic smallpox epidemics of the 18th century happened?
Net of disease, as it probably knocked a half to a point off annual growth...
large families being the norm afterall.
Ah! Les brave gens... sniffle
To be fair, neither side feared the other or openly coveted the others' land claims for the first half of that period, British North America and French North America populations were rather closer in size for much of the first half of that period, and in the end France traded Quebec for a single Caribbean sugar island.
Why didn't such a settlement occur in the OTL then?
And why didn't that occur in the OTL too?
Those, however, are not worthwhile. Supposedly Vinland is growing into something that is. And California is a long way away, as is Texas to a lesser extent - so it's less "resisted English conquest" and more "English conquest didn't reach there".
And remember New Sweden or the Dutch presence in what became New York? That's what we need to compare Vinland to, not Quebec - which has France's might behind it.
Hundreds of thousands of Norse (and even more Iroquois)? Good luck.
I'm not disputing anything, but since we are not at the 18thC yet It doesn't really matter does it. I think we are only at the 14th. By the 16th, that 38000 btw would be just under 2 Million. But hey cut that in half for the effects of plague should it be likely to have survived the transatlantic trip from Iceland.I don't understand your point; are you disputing that things like the Icelandic smallpox epidemics of the 18th century happened?
all those conquests were made from bases already established in the new World. A transatlantic conquest is out of the question with 15th C naval technology. Cogs and Caravels could simply not carry the men and supplies necessary over such a distance without a counter reponse from the native Vinlanders.
I agree that founding settler colonies can be hard. That's why I said "if a viable population can get established in the first place".
Newfoundland, New England, the St Lawrence and the Atlantic maritimes are about the easiest places to found them, though.
As OTL showed, quite a few settler colonies which were attempted to be established in North America failed. Once established, though, the population growth in North American settler colonies was very high.
Gotcha. I made the mistake of thinking you were comparing it to the potential locations (coming from the Atlantic) in general.I could have been clearer, but I was referring to the climate of the maritimes as a whole (as was mentioned in the previous post you quoted). Newfoundland is harsher than the rest of the maritimes, but not so cold to be unlivable.
On the other hand, colder areas support life in general less well - although hot isn't too good either.The advantage of the cold is that most diseases don't thrive there. Partly due to the effects on the disease organisms themselves, and also the cold makes up for some of the lack of modern sanitation. Which is why on the whole diseases didn't hit Scandinavia as hard as they hit further south.
In OTL North American settler colonies, the further south in which people went, the worse diseases were in terms of getting established. Virginia was much worse than New York, and South Carolina was worse than Virginia.
It's not enough to have a sizable advantage, however, unless there's a lot of iron-wearing and wielding Norse. As in, a lot of the Norse are doing so.Iron technology plus domesticated animals, at a level which is sustainable in North America. While ironworking isn't a magic solution which immediately gives the Norse victory over the local inhabitants, it is a force multiplier. And ironworking was easily conducted using available local sources of iron; the OTL settlement at L'Anse aux Meadows used iron created from locally available bog iron.
Will read those and get back to you, but it should do for now.If memory serves. Meaning that I didn't have exact figures in front of me, but I've tracked some down sources (see below).
Essentially, before Louis XIV reformed colonial administration in New France, starting about 1662-1663, there were only a handful of permanent settlers. The population trebled within a decade after that, although not all of those were permanent settlers (some came home). The effective founding population was somewhere between 2500-5000. (One of the genetic studies I reference below suggests 2500+ founders).
And my apologies, it looks like the increase was mostly over a decade or so, not five years.
I was working from memory of previous discussions in soc.history.what-if. A bit of digging tracked down the original thread here).
The original post there is by Doug Muir, who in my experience knows his stuff. His main points are readily confirmed elsewhere, though. Here and here are a couple of pages about Louis XIV's reorganisation of New France and the growth in population.
Other sources confirm the main descent of the francophone population of Quebec. Here and here are a couple of genetic studies which refer to the founder effect of the seventeenth-century population of francophone Quebec. Here, too, is a reference to Louis XIV's efforts to increase the population of Quebec. It lists further written sources, which are however in French.
I can track down more sources if you need.
Iron and timber and some source of cloth (for sails even if clothes can and probably would be mostly fur).For the level of technology involved, yes, it would be self-sufficient. Iron and timber are the main requirements. Iron ore is locally available (bog iron), and there's timber aplenty, at least for the first few generations. If the population expands enough that deforestation becomes an issue, there is plenty more trees - and land - available on the mainland.
And that gets us into founding new settlements, which may thrive, fail, compete with Vinland itself . . .Likewise, I'm not sure if there's enough farmland on Newfoundland itself for a couple of hundred thousand people, though fishing would also be a major source of food. But provided that the colony gets established over the first few generations - and there's enough farmland for that - then it could expand from there as needed.
This is something that if your sources above don't list it I'd like to see - how much of that increase has occurred in the last century and a half ( since modern medicine and other life-increasing factors)?Of course, I'm not positing as high a population growth rate as Quebec either, but as I mentioned, even a touch over 1% a year would lead to 200,000+ people within 450 years. OTL settler colonies in such latitudes as Newfoundland/Quebec/Atlantic Maritimes had higher population growth rates than that via natural increase alone.
Yes. Which is why Vinlanders would not make their initial settlement in New England.Vinland facing the equivalent of King Philip's War is in a much dicier position than New England was - the tech gap is narrower (especially if iron working is spread) and support from home is even lower.
The most vital advantage of the Norse would not be iron.On the other hand, colder areas support life in general less well - although hot isn't too good either.
So if I had to pick an ideal location, Pennsylvania and New York are ones I'd prefer - overall - to South Carolina or Massachusetts.
It's not enough to have a sizable advantage, however, unless there's a lot of iron-wearing and wielding Norse. As in, a lot of the Norse are doing so.
Also the Norse would sell cloth to Indians, as much as they would find trade items in return.Iron and timber and some source of cloth (for sails even if clothes can and probably would be mostly fur).
Yes. Which is why Vinlanders would not make their initial settlement in New England.
The most vital advantage of the Norse would not be iron.
It would be cool summer plants - barley, rye, oats, turnips...
Where the Norse first settle, they would be farmers settling on the lands of pure hunter-gatherers, because it would be lands where summers are too cool for maize. And this means that, area for area, they by far outnumber the locals. Yes, over extended area the hunter-gatherer bands outnumber them; but the farmers can delimit and defend a small area of limited value for the far-away hunter-gatherers, and besides fighting the hunter-gatherers they can afford to pay off/compensate the locals. So one major trade would be the Norse selling grain (and beer) to the locals in return for wild game meat the locals have hunted.
This greatest force multiplier is also one which is not applicable where summers are warm enough for at least marginal cultivation of maize. So anything south of New England is out, such as New York or Pennsylvania.
Also the Norse would sell cloth to Indians, as much as they would find trade items in return.
Yes, and contrast the bloody conflicts the Quebec French had with their southern, agricultural neighbours the Iroquois with the lack of conflict with the hunter-gatherer Montagnais to their north.The problem still stands though. King Philip's War was picked as an example of a bloody conflict with the natives we can actually examine (as opposed to how our knowledge of the "Skraelings" is fairly scanty).
Greenland had to import their seeds, but we have archeological evidence that they sometimes produced crops. If Newfoundland has enough of a summer to reproduce seeds and leave a crop for consumption, you can expect that some of the grain would be traded to Indians. (Grain is a useful, easily stored carbohydrate food to diversify meat and fish diet of hunter-gatherers, or herders. Which the Norse would also be eating if they end up with shortfall of grain, as in Greenland and Iceland.)Do they have an ample supply of seeds? Is the farmland up to supporting enough to provide a surplus of these crops? Etc.
No, it is very important. Since the Norse do not have guns to supplement iron, and they have much fewer diseases than 17th century English (and are more vulnerable to them themselves), they cannot win an extermination style war against numerous maize growing Indians like 17th century Virginia, New England or Upper Great Lakes. Which is why they know they cannot settle in regions where such maize growers live. They will limit themselves to settling in regions of pure hunter-gatherers, where the natives are few enough to fight or buy off with iron alone (and monopoly of farming).Plus, I see you're trying to draw away from the issue of how much the Norse have an advantage from having iron by saying "Oh, well, that's not important."
Again, are they going to be able to produce a sufficient surplus for trade?
Yes, and contrast the bloody conflicts the Quebec French had with their southern, agricultural neighbours the Iroquois with the lack of conflict with the hunter-gatherer Montagnais to their north.
I can expect that we haven't even established that they're going to have a reliable food supply from grains for their own needs (key word being reliable - having a few good harvests doesn't mean they can expect to have enough and then some), let alone enough left over to trade for other things.Greenland had to import their seeds, but we have archeological evidence that they sometimes produced crops. If Newfoundland has enough of a summer to reproduce seeds and leave a crop for consumption, you can expect that some of the grain would be traded to Indians. (Grain is a useful, easily stored carbohydrate food to diversify meat and fish diet of hunter-gatherers, or herders. Which the Norse would also be eating if they end up with shortfall of grain, as in Greenland and Iceland.)
And of course the Norse will know this as well as we do, will not have any issues of overconfidence in themselves or their tech advantage, and will in general act like they know what they're doing in regards to how to treat the natives and offshoot colonies.No, it is very important. Since the Norse do not have guns to supplement iron, and they have much fewer diseases than 17th century English (and are more vulnerable to them themselves), they cannot win an extermination style war against numerous maize growing Indians like 17th century Virginia, New England or Upper Great Lakes. Which is why they know they cannot settle in regions where such maize growers live. They will limit themselves to settling in regions of pure hunter-gatherers, where the natives are few enough to fight or buy off with iron alone (and monopoly of farming).
Newfoundland is not Iceland or Greenland, though. And if cloth is scarce in Vinland, having enough left after meeting their needs to trade is an issue.The export goods of 13th century Greenland were listed as including, besides seals and ivory, rope sheep and cattle hides. Which Europe had and which therefore were cheap in Europe.
In Iceland, standard woolen cloth, vadhmal, was defined by law as medium of exchange and standard of value.
Since Eastern North America had no woven textiles - nearest weavers were Pueblo cotton growers, the Eastern North America was limited to furs and bark cloth - even if cloth was scarce in Vinland, the Norse would trade away some of their woollen textiles they´d be producing, in return for furs.
chornedsnorkack;7124725This greatest force multiplier is also one which is not applicable where summers are warm enough for at least marginal cultivation of maize. So anything south of New England is out said:Hrm. While I agree with you to an extent, I would not overlook the fact that if you look at human history in general, ironworkers tend to displace less advanced peoples.
By 1200 the Norse wouldn't be a band of 3,000 people along the coatss of Newfoundland; they'd be a major ethnic group in Norhteastern NOrth America.
Do they have an ample supply of seeds? Is the farmland up to supporting enough to provide a surplus of these crops? Etc.
An interesting question; what's your research on grain yields for Newfoundland told you thus far?
they cannot win an extermination style war against numerous maize growing Indians like 17th century Virginia, New England or Upper Great Lakes. Which is why they know they cannot settle in regions where such maize growers live.
In the short term, I agree. But agian, by 1300 I could see population pressure on other areas as well.
Since Eastern North America had no woven textiles - nearest weavers were Pueblo cotton growers, the Eastern North America was limited to furs and bark cloth - even if cloth was scarce in Vinland, the Norse would trade away some of their woollen textiles they´d be producing, in return for furs.
It's noteworthy that the Sagas show two things being traded with the Skraelings; milk and cloth.
An interesting question; what's your research on grain yields for Newfoundland told you thus far?
It's noteworthy that the Sagas show two things being traded with the Skraelings; milk and cloth.
You guys seem to be assuming that the Vinlanders wouldn't get very far. History, however, shows that agriculture+free land (=natives to weak to defend it) leads to a population explosion. Isolated from disease and with as much land as he can work the typical Vinlander would have half a dozen kids growing up at least, and they would all go off to found/conuqer their own farms when they come of age restarting the cycle. This is what happened historically in Quebec, North America, South Africa, Australia etc. There is no reason this wouldn't happen a few hundred years earlier, especially not in a culture were second sons have for centuries been expected to go forth and conquer.
Assume a founding population of 500 people and an average population growth of 3 percent per year: that gives a 1.3 billion Norse by the time Columbus comes around. 500*1.03^500. Try it yourself
Obviously I'm not saying there will be a billion Norse by 1492, growth would run into constraints before that, but assuming a Norse society that manages to transplant their complete tech kit I wouldn't be suprised if they are worshipping Odin Skyfather in Oregon by then. After all the Anglo-Saxons got that far with pretty much the same agricultural tech in just 200 years. Exponential growth baby.
"(N)atives too weak to defend it" is not something they can rely on. Not even close.
And isolated from disease? Not going to happen in any environment.
Quebec, North America, etc. were with a higher tech level on the part of the conqueror-settlers and still encountered difficulties.
Pretty much actually.Pretty much not the same agricultural tech as 1000 AD.
Pretty much actually.
Not significantly. The Indian Wars seems laughable from a European perspective. While the puritans were playing Pocahontas, The Disney Version the descendants of the Vikings were putting half of Germany to death.
No, not pretty much. The crops may be the same, but not the tech level or other factors. And that does matter.Pretty much actually.
That I'm sure Vinlanders wouldn't mind a battle, and were quite good at it.
Yes, tech improved, but compared to the natives they are still so very far ahead. Its like the 1950s vs the 1850s instead of the 2000s vs the 1850s.