Faeelin
Banned
You should pick another example; the Romans thought that. The Byzantines had been making silk since the 6th century.
Vinland-Mesoamerican Trade
- Thread starter Hawkeye
- Start date
You should pick another example; the Romans thought that. The Byzantines had been making silk since the 6th century.
You should pick another example; the Romans thought that. The Byzantines had been making silk since the 6th century.
Plus, I suspect these hypothetical Vinland merchants would say (at least in general terms) where they are getting these exotic trade goods.
You should pick another example; the Romans thought that. The Byzantines had been making silk since the 6th century.
Oh, I didn't know that. I am just surprised by how in some ways the middle ages were highly interconnected (Nestorian Christians as far as Mongolia in the 1200s) yet at the same time highly ignorant (thinking India might have been in Arabia or Africa, etc) which leads me to believe that until sailing technology and techniques were improved, the Vikings would essentially monopolize the new world by then.
The Vikings would not because they are on a diddly little island on one corner. At the opposite corner is the Mexican civilisation with more people in one city than all of Vinland, Greenland and Iceland and all the two will known about the other will be travellers' tales.
What the Vikings does have is a port a la the later French for trading furs and place for processing fish a la the later English. Their problem is that their shipping route is up to Greenland, across to Iceland/Norway and only then to European markets. That is very slow compared with the later Europeans who sailed a more direct route.
Just as walrus ivory was outpriced by elephant ivory coming across the Med so at least during the Middle Ages Vinland fish and furs are going to be out competed with nearer production. Norh American products only really came into their own on OTL the sources in Europe became heavily depleted.
Faeelin
Banned
Vinland would be a great place to be poor, but a poor place to be rich. Lots of land and fish, but nothign worth exploiting to the new world. Ironworking spreads, with a limited trade in furs, but these aren't worth exporting to Europe en masse. No gold, no silver.
Why would you mvoe there instad of the Baltic?
For the same reason people came in OTL, with the variety of food offered by the Americas combined with Eurasian crops and foodstalk as well as other factors meant that people were less likely to starve from famine then back in Europe. The main reason people immigrated to the Americas wasn't gold, religious freedom, or whatever else your teachers told you, the main reason people came here was to eat.
Maur
Banned
Yes, they did (and many more misconceptions), but thats because silk production was guarded secret.
And Viking guns, germ, and steel could lead to them being a regional power. Of course, it would take over a hundred years for them to even explore much of the coastline of the New World. However, once they get a toe hold, what is to stop population growth and regional dominance, and further colonization?
Maur
Banned
Vinland is much to far away to matter in the Mesoamerican politics more than the Vikings mattered in the Byzantine. Although i admit some sort of Varengian guard for the triple alliance would be cool
The natives are going to stop Vinland expansion eventually.
Faeelin
Banned
And of course the Byzantines stole the secret, and then the Arabs diffused it.
Engalnd knew about Ameriac from teh 1490s. Why did it take until the 1600s for the first English settlemenst to appear? And why were they founded by middle class Englishmen and would be gold-minders (in Virginia?)
No gold and silver are found in Precolombian sites in Northeastern North America. So how does gold get there in the ATL?
See, this is interesting. First, there were no guns. Second, as Iceland's experience with smallpox shows, the Norse would basically be hit by a virgin field epidemic as well. These guys are not 17th century Englishmen, heirs to an agricultural revolution and wearing plate while using guns.
Bavarian Raven
Banned
Oh there are small gold deposits (not sure about silver) throughout eastern canada and up into the Canadian shield, as well as copper deposits (some which were used by natives, others which weren't). Plus bog iron - which they found and smelted at their way-station on the northern tip of New Found land. What it would take for these other metals to be found is luck and time and exploration.
Maybe yes, maybe no.
It depends. If "Vinland" can hold Newfoundland (aka part of Markland, but that's beside the point), P.E.I., a few other islands in the Gulf, and really "Norse-ize" them, they'll be well set. Population will explode (with the fisheries supplementing their agriculture/herds) and trade with flourish with the old world moreso then OTL. And with increased trade comes an increase in disease exchange with the old world.
Basically, what it comes down too is having Vinland reach a critical population mass where trade flourishes, and second, what diseases come and when. That Vinland will eventually be stopped is likely, but the difference is where it is stopped? In the Gulf, or in OTL Ontario, or the west coast.
Last edited:
Agreed, but they had steel and they would have guns by the 1400s, so they would have an advantage.
Faeelin
Banned
No, becuase whether the Norse reach the Yucatan depends on how large and successful Vinland is.
And I stated that Vinland will be large and successful in previous posts. If you want to dispute that then go to some other thread. I'm sure there are at least a couple dozen on the subject.
Faeelin
Banned
Okay. Then no major impact, because the Missippi culture has nothing of value to trade, and there is no reason, absent any sign of stunning civilizations with gold and jade around the riverbend, for the Vikings to travel thousands of miles along the Atlantic Coast.
Edit: I guess you could see horses reach the plains, and then a Comanche empire that sacks the mesoamerican cities, ushering in a dark age.
I said there will be large scale settlement on Norse on the northeast coast. Threat this as fact because that's the baseline I'm working around for this discussion. Whether you agree with that or not is irrelevant because otherwise we're just going to be walking around in circles and this discussion is going to be over very shortly.
Assuming that the Vikings import any then let them loose on the mainland.
It was natural for the Spanish take horses with them; they had larger ships than the Vikings as well as used cavalry in warfare. In contrast Vikings have less maritime lift and given the option of taking a horse along or taking another cow, the latter would win hands down.
In addition the eastern seaboard is less suitable for horses than the south west which is where the Spanish lost their horses. Not sure what cattle would make of the country either but they are more lightly to be escapees than any horse.