How far could Vinland grow?

[Peter]

Besides the Vinlanders would most likely reform their agricultural techniques somewhat in response to new conditions. The Scandinavian tradition of having your land divided into a dozens of small plots for fairness sake doesn't make any sense when you leave the old, over-populated village communities of the Olde Land behind. So that would be one improvement.

 

[Faeelin]

And compared to the natives, we're looking at a much narrower tech gap - especially in war making - ironworking doesn't mean all that much when armor and swords are beyond the reach of the average freeman.

Are they beyond the reach of the average freeman? What sort of armor and weaponry would your typical Norseman have in the 10th and 11th centuries?

 

[Peter]

The Vikings weren't their peasants descendants of later centuries. They were trained since childhood in the use of arms. A free man were required to own weapons. That's what separates him from a slave.

From wiki:

These arms were also indicative of a Viking's social status. As war was the most prestigious activity in Viking Age Scandinavia, beautifully finished weapons were an important way for a warrior to display his wealth and status.[2] A wealthy Viking would likely have a complete ensemble of a spear, one or two javelins, a wooden shield, leather armor, and either a battle axe or a sword. The very richest might have a helmet, other armour is thought to have been limited to the nobility and their professional warriors. The average farmer was likely limited to a spear, shield, and perhaps a common axe or a large knife. Some would bring their hunting bows to use in the opening stages of battle, as well.[3]

 

[Faeelin]

So a bunch of people with axes against the Iroquois.

 

[Peter]

And shields and spears and swords, with horses and shield walls and other formations.

 

[chornedsnorkack]

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.

What spreads, though? Ironworking people, or ironworking?

Ironworking people will of course spread some way (they have a nonzero initial advantage), but how far?

The band of 3000 people on the southern tip of Greenland managed to regularly sail over 1000 km north - the written accounts speak of hunting expeditions to "Northseter", and Upernavik Runestone shows the minimum distance they reached. The few thousands of Norse along the coasts of Newfoundland, in 11th century, will likewise sail south along Atlantic coast and St. Lawrence for 1000+ km, meet with Indians and sell some iron - and sail back home. When the second sons do want to get their own farms, why sail 1000 km if they can sail just 100? And the presence of unfamiliar (too warm) climate and numerous Indians are counts against creating distant farms.

So when the Norse do run out of free land in Newfoundland in 13th or 14th century, the lands further south will have been influenced by Norse traders for two or three centuries.

With what effects? I have my guesses....

 

[Dave Howery]

So a bunch of people with axes against the Iroquois.

I'd doubt that the Norse would go so far as to try to take on large native farming populations to the south of Newfoundland. Especially when you consider that Vinland would be a shoestring operation with a bare minimum number of settlers. Which brings up the question of just what lands they would find suitable. Considering that they did farm and live in Scandinavia, Iceland, and Greenland, they should find Newfoundland to be perfectly fine for their agriculture. Not sure about the Labrador coastline, but it can't be worse than Iceland. Grim as it sounds, I'd think that the Norse could clear Newfoundland island of the natives completely, and have it as a secure base to establish other colonies. But there would never be enough of them to take on the big farming tribes further south...

 

[Jared]

Not without a healthy flow of immigration as well, however. And most of them had more backing them up than Vinland does.

The population growth rates were sky-high by natural increase alone. The usual estimate was that the population of British North America (in the colonial period) was doubling by natural increase every 25-30 years, even without immigration.

This applies pretty much anywhere that settler colonies were established in areas with lots of open land. What happened was that people married early (since land was cheap) and had very large families. From a pre-mechanical agricultural perspective, more hands on a farm is a very good thing. Five or six surviving adult children was commonplace, seven or eight was not unknown, and nine or ten was not unheard of.

Similar things happened in the British North American colonies, the French ones, and settler colonies as far away as New Zealand.

Immigration boosted the population of some settler colonies in some periods, but not all, by any means. Quebec, for instance, had its massive population increase largely by natural increase alone. Permanent immigration was minimal after the end of the seventeenth century until Irish Catholics started arriving much later (mid-nineteenth century, if I recall correctly), and even then the large majority of the population growth continued to be by natural increase.

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.

In the early days of establishment in Newfoundland, this is ironworking, horse-riding farmers facing a handful of hunter-gatherers. Even if they do fight the hunter-gatherers - by no means a given - then that still gives the Norse a distinct advantage.

Later on, as the Norse expand into some areas, perhaps this may be more of an issue, but to be honest, by then I'd expect the Norse to have considerable numbers. "Support from home" will actually mean in the form of calling on extra hands from Newfoundland itself (or nearby), with the usual attraction of land-hungry younger sons.

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.

Pennsylvania and New York still copped malaria and yellow fever during the colonial period (and later). Malaria even ranged into Massachusetts occasionally, though it wasn't anywhere near as common there as it was further south. Malaria was even endemic in New Jersey into the late nineteenth century (see here).

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.

You need (stating the obvious I think, but trying to explain why I'm not convinced it's a huge thing) a surplus of iron over that needed for tools and other nonmartial uses to have any sizable number of armor wearing, sword wielding (or even war axe wielding) Norse. That may be more of a problem.

Even back home, having a sword or a coat of mail is for the rich.

As others have pointed out downthread, having (iron) weapons was pretty much the definition of a Norse freeman. Iron armour, not so much, but iron weapons + leather armour (from cattle, which are easily established) and wooden shields (from plentiful timber) gives a massive advantage over the native hunter-gatherers.

If and when horses get established, that's an even more massive advantage. Not necessarily for fighting on horseback, but riding to combat and then fighting dismounted, in the typical Norse style.

Iron and timber and some source of cloth (for sails even if clothes can and probably would be mostly fur).

The Norse used wooden sails (here has some interesting details), so sheep would be the source. Clothes would be mostly woollen or fur, depending on availability. Probably more fur initially, but as fur grounds get hunted out, wool would be more important. (I'm not sure offhand whether flax would grow in that climate, so linen may or may not be available.)

And that gets us into founding new settlements, which may thrive, fail, compete with Vinland itself . . .

So they might. Nothing says that Vinland has to be politically united. Failed settlements would reduce some of the natural increase, which is why I haven't suggested a population growth rate as sky-high as that of Quebec. But new settlements were typically started by younger sons (plus miscellaneous outlaws and adventurers) in pursuit of land, so if they fail, the original population would continue to thrive, along with most of the population growth.

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)?

In percentage terms, the population increase slowed down slightly in the last century or so, and plummeted after 1960 or thereabouts. Yes, nowadays we have modern medicine, but people also have much smaller families, which is more of a net drag on population growth.

In rough figures, there were somewhere between 5000-7000 inhabitants of New France in 1673 (some of whom would return home after that). By 1760 that figure was around 60,000, due almost entirely to natural increase. That turns into a (rough) percentage increase of 2.7% a year, which is very high.

 

[smjb]

The whole "exiles being forced to move to Newfoundland" thing seems to be the most on-the-face-of-it plausible schenario for the establishment of a colony suggested thusfar (by dint of being the only serious suggestion thusfar), but what are the logistics?

1) Is it possible to move 2-3000 people from somewhere in Scandinavia to Newfoundland with 1050s tech?

2) Is it feasible to do so? Would they have believed the move was anything other than a death sentence? (Especially considering that the king probably means it as one?)

3) What crops and livestock survive the journey?

 

[Elfwine]

The Vikings weren't their peasants descendants of later centuries. They were trained since childhood in the use of arms. A free man were required to own weapons. That's what separates him from a slave.

From wiki:

These arms were also indicative of a Viking's social status. As war was the most prestigious activity in Viking Age Scandinavia, beautifully finished weapons were an important way for a warrior to display his wealth and status.[2] A wealthy Viking would likely have a complete ensemble of a spear, one or two javelins, a wooden shield, leather armor, and either a battle axe or a sword. The very richest might have a helmet, other armour is thought to have been limited to the nobility and their professional warriors. The average farmer was likely limited to a spear, shield, and perhaps a common axe or a large knife. Some would bring their hunting bows to use in the opening stages of battle, as well.[3]

Note the bolded part. None of those put him meaningfully ahead of the average Indian warrior.

The population growth rates were sky-high by natural increase alone. The usual estimate was that the population of British North America (in the colonial period) was doubling by natural increase every 25-30 years, even without immigration.

This applies pretty much anywhere that settler colonies were established in areas with lots of open land. What happened was that people married early (since land was cheap) and had very large families. From a pre-mechanical agricultural perspective, more hands on a farm is a very good thing. Five or six surviving adult children was commonplace, seven or eight was not unknown, and nine or ten was not unheard of.

Similar things happened in the British North American colonies, the French ones, and settler colonies as far away as New Zealand.

Immigration boosted the population of some settler colonies in some periods, but not all, by any means. Quebec, for instance, had its massive population increase largely by natural increase alone. Permanent immigration was minimal after the end of the seventeenth century until Irish Catholics started arriving much later (mid-nineteenth century, if I recall correctly), and even then the large majority of the population growth continued to be by natural increase.

I can't speak for Quebec, but British North America most certainly did see a healthy flow of immigration. I'm not saying that was the majority of growth directly, but it being there means that if you have say a thousand already-theres and say a hundred immigrants, you have 1100 breeding for the next generation.

In the early days of establishment in Newfoundland, this is ironworking, horse-riding farmers facing a handful of hunter-gatherers. Even if they do fight the hunter-gatherers - by no means a given - then that still gives the Norse a distinct advantage.

Which leaves us left explaining why they failed OTL.

Later on, as the Norse expand into some areas, perhaps this may be more of an issue, but to be honest, by then I'd expect the Norse to have considerable numbers. "Support from home" will actually mean in the form of calling on extra hands from Newfoundland itself (or nearby), with the usual attraction of land-hungry younger sons.

Not equivalent to being able to rely on actual professional fighters and such aid, however.

Pennsylvania and New York still copped malaria and yellow fever during the colonial period (and later). Malaria even ranged into Massachusetts occasionally, though it wasn't anywhere near as common there as it was further south. Malaria was even endemic in New Jersey into the late nineteenth century (see here).

And a little malaria is worth a lot better land.

As others have pointed out downthread, having (iron) weapons was pretty much the definition of a Norse freeman. Iron armour, not so much, but iron weapons + leather armour (from cattle, which are easily established) and wooden shields (from plentiful timber) gives a massive advantage over the native hunter-gatherers.

Who we are assuming are armed with nothing other than their fingernails and teeth why again?

If and when horses get established, that's an even more massive advantage. Not necessarily for fighting on horseback, but riding to combat and then fighting dismounted, in the typical Norse style.

That's not a very large advantage in a fight, that at best means somewhat more mobility for those who can afford horses - by no means the majority or even necessarily a substantial minority.

The Norse used wooden sails (here has some interesting details), so sheep would be the source. Clothes would be mostly woollen or fur, depending on availability. Probably more fur initially, but as fur grounds get hunted out, wool would be more important. (I'm not sure offhand whether flax would grow in that climate, so linen may or may not be available.)

Adding that pdf to my read list, will comment later.

So they might. Nothing says that Vinland has to be politically united. Failed settlements would reduce some of the natural increase, which is why I haven't suggested a population growth rate as sky-high as that of Quebec. But new settlements were typically started by younger sons (plus miscellaneous outlaws and adventurers) in pursuit of land, so if they fail, the original population would continue to thrive, along with most of the population growth.

That leaves us with the other problems. Nothing like Norse colonies fighting amongst themselves to weaken their ability to expand (expand as in take more land and more territory).

In percentage terms, the population increase slowed down slightly in the last century or so, and plummeted after 1960 or thereabouts. Yes, nowadays we have modern medicine, but people also have much smaller families, which is more of a net drag on population growth.

In rough figures, there were somewhere between 5000-7000 inhabitants of New France in 1673 (some of whom would return home after that). By 1760 that figure was around 60,000, due almost entirely to natural increase. That turns into a (rough) percentage increase of 2.7% a year, which is very high.

Is this shown in the links you posted previously? Or is it from something else?

 

[Faeelin]

I can't speak for Quebec, but British North America most certainly did see a healthy flow of immigration.

That's why he pointed out that even excluding immigration, population growth was rapid?

 

[Elfwine]

That's why he pointed out that even excluding immigration, population growth was rapid?

Did you read the rest of my post?

 

[Peter]

Iceland was founded by people escaping Christianity. Around the same time that the Vinland settlement was attempted the Icelandic pagans, under Norwegian pressure, finally accepted White Christ, as he was called, but only grudgingly.

Have them fight instead, defeating their Christian compatriots temporarily, until the wrath of the Norwegian kings comes down upon them. Then have them flee, honouring the traditions of their forefathers, and - voilá - you have an insta-settlement of Vinland by a significant number of angry pagans in around year 1000.

 

[Peter]

Btw there was never more then 10 000-15 000 Iroquois. So speaking of densely populated is hardly correct.

 

[M79]

Populations in Virginia showed such growth once the colony was established that it led to Malthus writing bis works about potential population collapse. So I think once you get people over to the Vinland colony there is the potential for rapid expansion.

First there must be a reason for them to go. Tobacco is good but will not be produced in quantity, it will remain a novel trade item. Religious persecution is another good one, but it might be fear of internacine warfare or simply a means of exploiting new lands that feeds the colony.

Second, defense is a major concern. I could see Viking villages establishing themselves on islands like Martha's Vineyard, Nantuckett, or maybe even Long Island given sufficient time and energy. If they can get to the Delmarva peninsula the can isolate the top of it and try to create farmland there, though the natives are likely to give them trouble at the latter two locations.

Third, there must be some form of trade other than looting dead corpses between the two groups. I am not sure how the Vikings will react to different tribes once they go south, especially as they approach fair weather and the potential for year-round farming.

Fourth, there is probably going to be separation of settlements with the possibility of internacine warfare which will arise as time passes

Fifth, as a previous poster mentioned, if the Vikings go far enough South they may encounter the Mesoamerican trade network and kick-start food exchanges to Europe half a millenium ahead of time.

Lots of butterflies if it can be made to work.

 

[Elfwine]

Iceland was founded by people escaping Christianity. Around the same time that the Vinland settlement was attempted the Icelandic pagans, under Norwegian pressure, finally accepted White Christ, as he was called, but only grudgingly.

Have them fight instead, defeating their Christian compatriots temporarily, until the wrath of the Norwegian kings comes down upon them. Then have them flee, honouring the traditions of their forefathers, and - voilá - you have an insta-settlement of Vinland by a significant number of angry pagans in around year 1000.

Which has insta-problems with famine and disease and other issues.

And what's your source for the number of Iroquois?

Populations in Virginia showed such growth once the colony was established that it led to Malthus writing bis works about potential population collapse. So I think once you get people over to the Vinland colony there is the potential for rapid expansion.

Virginia is much more conducive to rapid population growth than Vinland. Even Quebec started with a high (compared to any possible Vinland) population.

Second, defense is a major concern. I could see Viking villages establishing themselves on islands like Martha's Vineyard, Nantuckett, or maybe even Long Island given sufficient time and energy. If they can get to the Delmarva peninsula the can isolate the top of it and try to create farmland there, though the natives are likely to give them trouble at the latter two locations.

Why would the Vikings put more emphasis on this than OTL's colonizers?

 

[Jared]

Note the bolded part. None of those put him meaningfully ahead of the average Indian warrior.

An iron-headed spear and wooden shield puts them rather ahead of the average Indian warrior, actually. Particularly hunter-gatherer, stone-tool using inhabitants of eleventh-century Newfoundland.

I can't speak for Quebec, but British North America most certainly did see a healthy flow of immigration. I'm not saying that was the majority of growth directly, but it being there means that if you have say a thousand already-theres and say a hundred immigrants, you have 1100 breeding for the next generation.

Check the immigration numbers and patterns for colonial British North America, then, and let me know what you think the percentage of immigrants were compared to natural increase.

Which leaves us left explaining why they failed OTL.

This is getting circular. The Norse who briefly settled in Newfoundland in OTL did not bring a couple of thousand people. Which brings us right back to where we started: how to get that number of Norse to Newfoundland.

Who we are assuming are armed with nothing other than their fingernails and teeth why again?

Since I've suggested nothing of the sort, I have no idea why you are saying this. I've pointed out the tech advantage which applied.

That's not a very large advantage in a fight, that at best means somewhat more mobility for those who can afford horses - by no means the majority or even necessarily a substantial minority.

You're kidding, right? Even a couple of horses is a massive advantage, as it allows more rapid communications. Need to respond to a raid? Get someone on a horse and send them off for help. The history of cavalry in the OTL Americas makes this clear enough.

A few dozen horses is an even more monumental advantage, as it allows a rapid response. Given the size of typical groups of hunter-gatherers, having a few dozen people on horses - and these will be the more well-armed people, at that - is an excellent response.

Is this shown in the links you posted previously? Or is it from something else?

The population figures are in the links I cited. The calculation from there is straightforward.

The drop in population growth rate after 1960 (or thereabouts) is easily searchable through even the most cursory google search of the demographics of Quebec.

 

[Elfwine]

An iron-headed spear and wooden shield puts them rather ahead of the average Indian warrior, actually. Particularly hunter-gatherer, stone-tool using inhabitants of eleventh-century Newfoundland.

Stone tools are lethal at the same distance as iron headed spears (barring said spears being thrown), and hunter-gatherers are quite capable of killing agriculturalists.

Check the immigration numbers and patterns for colonial British North America, then, and let me know what you think the percentage of immigrants were compared to natural increase.

I think the problem is that the immigrants entering increased the numbers that would produce the next 25-30 year's "natural increase" - as I tried to illustrate.

This is getting circular. The Norse who briefly settled in Newfoundland in OTL did not bring a couple of thousand people. Which brings us right back to where we started: how to get that number of Norse to Newfoundland.

This is getting into "there is no reason why the Norse are going to win on the basis of force multipliers like iron weapons". Now if your point is that a couple thousand Norse can win simply because there's more of them or something like that, that's a different matter, but that's about numbers rather than a tech edge in battle.

A couple thousand Norse vs. a couple hundred divided groups of hunter-gatherers is no test of the advantages of iron weapons.

Since I've suggested nothing of the sort, I have no idea why you are saying this. I've pointed out the tech advantage which applied.

Since your point seems to be that somehow the hunter-gatherers will have inferior weapons by such a margin as to matter, I'm exaggerating the difference to make a point.

http://www.heritage.nf.ca/aboriginal/beo_hunting.html

http://www.cmhg.gc.ca/cmh/page-13-eng.asp

That suggests rather more than a handful of warriors, as well.

You're kidding, right? Even a couple of horses is a massive advantage, as it allows more rapid communications. Need to respond to a raid? Get someone on a horse and send them off for help. The history of cavalry in the OTL Americas makes this clear enough.

Sending them off for help when the fastest the response can come is still dependent on the pace of men on foot is useful, but not "massive". The history of cavalry in the OTL Americas is with not merely a couple horses for messengers (either practically ponies or bred for use with plows or both, which is not good for speed) fetching footmen in time to respond.

A few dozen horses is an even more monumental advantage, as it allows a rapid response. Given the size of typical groups of hunter-gatherers, having a few dozen people on horses - and these will be the more well-armed people, at that - is an excellent response.

Given the fact any sizable Norse America is going to be running into far more challenging things than "a few hunter-gatherers" (possibly even on Vinland itself - see above), I think we need to look at the fact the Norse expanding past Newfoundland means running into those obstacles.

And given the lack of Norse horsemanship in battle, I don't think a few dozen people on horses is going to mean much once they arrive at the site - if anything, the need to have some way of keeping the horses from running away is a decrease in raw manpower most likely (cavalry regiments of later eras had one in four men as horse holders, how much better are the Norse really going to be?).

It's possible in the New World they'd do differently, but given that there's no more reason to do so than back home, I think expecting heavy Norse cavalry is far fetched at best.

I'm not saying this is utterly irrelevant, but nor is it some kind of "ten Norsemen with horses and iron spearheads are able to take on hundreds of natives" scenario.

 

[Jared]

Stone tools are lethal at the same distance as iron headed spears (barring said spears being thrown), and hunter-gatherers are quite capable of killing agriculturalists.

Hunter-gatherers are obviously capable of killing agriculturalists, as was shown in OTL when the Norse tried to settle in Newfoundland. (At least if the sagas can be trusted that far.)

My point, though, is that in a stand-up fight, an equal number of Norse iron-using farmers will usually have a considerable advantage over an equal number of stone-tool using hunter-gatherers.

Yes, a stone-headed spear can still kill someone. Iron still gives a number of advantages, though. To pick only a couple of the most obvious examples, iron is harder and a blow struck by an iron weapon, even a glancing blow, is more likely to injure or kill than a stone weapon. Using iron lets iron-workers cut down a lot more timber and more readily shape that into wooden shields which give a very useful defensive advantage. (Someone using a good shield is not unkillable, obviously, but it's still an advantage.)

I think the problem is that the immigrants entering increased the numbers that would produce the next 25-30 year's "natural increase" - as I tried to illustrate.

A point which I haven't disagreed with. Immigration will obviously make any population increase higher. My point is simply that even if there's no immigration, the rate of natural increase in the population is still going to be very, very high.

This is getting into "there is no reason why the Norse are going to win on the basis of force multipliers like iron weapons". Now if your point is that a couple thousand Norse can win simply because there's more of them or something like that, that's a different matter, but that's about numbers rather than a tech edge in battle.

Iron and farming does give significant advantages in terms of population, too, because it allows for higher farmer and higher population, but that's not my point. My point is that, as per above, an equal number of iron tool users have an advantage over an equal number of hunter-gatherers

Yes, not every Norse warrior will be armed with iron axe, bow, helmet and leather armour. The wealthier ones are, though, and yes, those ones are real force multipliers. Even a commonplace farmer with iron-headed spear and wooden shield is at an advantage in a stand-up fight over a hunter-gatherer with only stone tools.

A couple thousand Norse vs. a couple hundred divided groups of hunter-gatherers is no test of the advantages of iron weapons.

In terms of the OTL failed settlement of Vinland, I think the more appropriate comparison would be a couple of hundred Norse versus a couple of thousand hunter-gatherers (although obviously those proportions aren't exact). Hunter-gatherers are capable of rallying large numbers for short periods, although holding such groups together for a while is a much harder task.

Sending them off for help when the fastest the response can come is still dependent on the pace of men on foot is useful, but not "massive". The history of cavalry in the OTL Americas is with not merely a couple horses for messengers (either practically ponies or bred for use with plows or both, which is not good for speed) fetching footmen in time to respond.

The history of horse-using Europeans with non-horse-using Native Americans shows that horses offered a massive advantage in communication, scouting, etc, even when horses were not ridden into battle. Yes, horses which were ridden into battle gave another huge advantage, but that does not remove the other key advantages of horses.

Communication on the battlefield, or in bringing people quickly to a battlefield, were both very useful functions of horses.

Given the fact any sizable Norse America is going to be running into far more challenging things than "a few hunter-gatherers" (possibly even on Vinland itself - see above), I think we need to look at the fact the Norse expanding past Newfoundland means running into those obstacles.

It's a valid question in terms of what may happen for Norse expansion past Newfoundland, but should not distract from the question of whether a large Norse colony can become viable on Newfoundland. A once a large viable colony is established on Newfoundland, then it gives the "support from home" for Norse who want to expand further.

And given the lack of Norse horsemanship in battle, I don't think a few dozen people on horses is going to mean much once they arrive at the site - if anything, the need to have some way of keeping the horses from running away is a decrease in raw manpower most likely (cavalry regiments of later eras had one in four men as horse holders, how much better are the Norse really going to be?).

It's possible in the New World they'd do differently, but given that there's no more reason to do so than back home, I think expecting heavy Norse cavalry is far fetched at best.

Again I'm at a loss what you think you're refuting. I've pointed out that the typical Norse style was to get to combat on horseback, which gets you there both faster and less fatigued, and then fight on foot. Maybe some Norse will start fighting on horseback too - it's hardly impossible, though obviously not guaranteed - but even mounted infantry will be force multipliers.

I'm not saying this is utterly irrelevant, but nor is it some kind of "ten Norsemen with horses and iron spearheads are able to take on hundreds of natives" scenario.

Ten Norsemen with horses and iron spearheads, perhaps not. Fifty wealthy Norsemen with horses to get them there, and whose same wealth gives them helmets, leather armour, shields, swords and axes against a couple of hundred natives... not a guaranteed win for the Norse, but they'd be in with a very good chance.

 

[Flubber]

Leaving aside growth rates and warfare for the moment, let's just say we get 500 families ashore within a reasonable amount of time and that gives us a settlement which lasts long enough, perhaps a few generations, which can be considered "permanent". Given those two "ifs" (and I'll be the first to admit they're big "ifs")...

... what I'm interested in is the effect of a Vinland settlement on Iceland's looming deforestation problem.

Sending timber back to Scandinavia is like sending coals to Newcastle, but sending timber back to Greenland (?) and Iceland is something else entirely. No one is going to get rich doing shipping timber back to Iceland, just like Faeelin's excellent bon mot about Vinland being a good place to be poor, but should have some positive effect on both populations.

For our more knowledgeable Iceland experts here, what would the effect of Iceland having a small, but steady, timber supply? I read someone write something about deforestation meaning Norway sailed to Iceland but Iceland could never sail to Norway. Was what intermittent contact existed primarily initiated by Scandinavia? Was it because local Iceland vessels were too precious and/or two small to risk the crossing back to Northern Europe?

If Vinland timber could keep more vessels in Iceland capable of crossing the North Atlantic, might the OTL "lost" colonies in Greenland and even the ATL Vinland colony of itself be more known to Europe as a whole? If the colonies were even somewhat on Europe's radar starting ~1000 CE, might we see more small groups "leaking" across the Atlantic earlier on?