A sucessful Norse colonization of "Vinland"?

Quoting myself to put these forward (big snp)


Exellent! My two cents on each...

POD 1 - Laki type eruption in Iceland forcing the population to flee.

I'd add "definite worldwide effects" and "possible loss of Iceland as a stepping stone/supplier" to the list of Cons.

As for "worldwide effects", during the Iceland ash problems earlier this year, I read a BBC article about the Laki eruptions of 1783. Researchers looking into UK parish records had come to the realization that a large spike in the rural death rate occurred in step with the eruptions. They estimated thousands, and maybe tens of thousands, of deaths could linked to atmospheric pollutants released by Laki.

As for "loss of Iceland", the Norse aren't going to sale directly between Scandinavia and Vinland or receive needed supplies directly from Scandinavia either. Iceland is going to be definitely needed, especially during the initial settlement's early years.

POD 2 - charismatic leader step forward.

Too much of a "coin flip" for my liking. And BEHOLD Shemp the Magnificent was born and, unlike anyone else is history, he led everyone to Vinland for reasons that he, unlike anyone else in history, could alone comprehend..." Might as just make a single person ISOT and get it over with.

POD 3 - Olaf the Holy survives Svolder but is defeated.

This is the one I'd vote for if we were voting. First, the POD is "large" enough to accomplish what we want while staying "small" enough to avoid consequences which would completely overshadow what we want. Second, it's a known historical person with a known behavior and a known agenda so his post-POD actions remain plausible.

Putting it another way, Olaf's survival won't have immediate or short term consequences in Europe or elsewhere, but his survival could very well spark a slow exodus from Iceland to an already known Vinland.

POD 4 - discovery of Grand Banks of Norwegian fishermen sometime after discovery of Vinland.

This one deserves some attention because salted fish could become a trade item. That trade would require better ships for the Norse and a large enough market in Europe. The Basque were able to sail directly between Iberia and the Grand Banks, something the Norse wouldn't be able to do. The Basque were also supplying a market which was rich enough to pay for fish, a market whose fish stocks were already showing signs of depletion, and a market create by an almost continent-spanning religious requirement.

We know the Norse didn't have the ships and, in ~1000-1100 CE, I'd say no for the three "market" requirements too.

So, is it Olaf?
 
So our change is a coin flip? Care to guess how that would be received?
And that is what makes it so plausible. The size of effort to make a successful critical mass initial settlement is just feasible enough for the 2000 people of Greenland or 20 000 of Iceland to pull off, yet sufficiently difficult that a coin flip failure of one attempt could discourage subsequent attempts for good.

Which means we can have a PoD in the coin flip success of a settlement attempt, and have a look at the downstream effects of a world with no climatic or political changes except those eventually caused by the settlement.

Yes, it took until 1620 for the next subsistence farming settlement to take root in North America. But they were coming from England. Crossing from England to Massachusetts for purpose of subsistence settlement was much bigger transport expense for a relatively high volume, low value goods like settlers with families, herds and seed, compared to crossing from Greenland to Newfoundland.

Also England had much warmer climate than Newfoundland. The farming experience of English settlers was not applicable there, so the few attempts in 17th century to settle in Newfoundland failed. Whereas the Greenland Norse could deal with even colder climate, yet some of them had experience with comparable climate of Norway.
 
Exellent! My two cents on each...



I'd add "definite worldwide effects" and "possible loss of Iceland as a stepping stone/supplier" to the list of Cons.

As for "worldwide effects", during the Iceland ash problems earlier this year, I read a BBC article about the Laki eruptions of 1783. Researchers looking into UK parish records had come to the realization that a large spike in the rural death rate occurred in step with the eruptions. They estimated thousands, and maybe tens of thousands, of deaths could linked to atmospheric pollutants released by Laki.

As for "loss of Iceland", the Norse aren't going to sale directly between Scandinavia and Vinland or receive needed supplies directly from Scandinavia either. Iceland is going to be definitely needed, especially during the initial settlement's early years.

Agreed - that would be one way only and if westwards then perishing from history untill somebody when ship tech become available sail to the new world to discover the Norse Freemans Republic in the Maritimes/New England (for want of easily reconizable names!!!)


Too much of a "coin flip" for my liking. And BEHOLD Shemp the Magnificent was born and, unlike anyone else is history, he led everyone to Vinland for reasons that he, unlike anyone else in history, could alone comprehend..." Might as just make a single person ISOT and get it over with.

Hence my reservations!


This is the one I'd vote for if we were voting. First, the POD is "large" enough to accomplish what we want while staying "small" enough to avoid consequences which would completely overshadow what we want. Second, it's a known historical person with a known behavior and a known agenda so his post-POD actions remain plausible.

Putting it another way, Olaf's survival won't have immediate or short term consequences in Europe or elsewhere, but his survival could very well spark a slow exodus from Iceland to an already known Vinland.

At the moment arguably.


This one deserves some attention because salted fish could become a trade item. That trade would require better ships for the Norse and a large enough market in Europe. The Basque were able to sail directly between Iberia and the Grand Banks, something the Norse wouldn't be able to do. The Basque were also supplying a market which was rich enough to pay for fish, a market whose fish stocks were already showing signs of depletion, and a market create by an almost continent-spanning religious requirement.

We know the Norse didn't have the ships and, in ~1000-1100 CE, I'd say no for the three "market" requirements too.

Possible but unprobable.


So, is it Olaf?

Indeed; who's gonna carry the torch? :D
 

Stephen

Banned
Howabout Leif waists no time in sailing back to Norway to recruit settlers and while their convices Saint Olaf II to exhile all the stuborn pagans to Vinland. Which acording to this website is probably somwhere in New Brunswick with Laenx Aux Meadows just a way station.

If fact about a year ago I decided to write a timeline with this POD but I am lazy.
 
Howabout Leif waists no time in sailing back to Norway to recruit settlers and while their convices Saint Olaf II to exhile all the stuborn pagans to Vinland. Which acording to this website is probably somwhere in New Brunswick with Laenx Aux Meadows just a way station.

If fact about a year ago I decided to write a timeline with this POD but I am lazy.

Possible but Olaf II isn't king until 1015 and Leif was no Eric.
Leif would have to wait till then or somewhat later to make Olaf II rule be felt; then he would have been able to recruit followers.
But then the Norwegians decided to get rid of Olaf II and killed him at Stiklestad July 29, 1030 so perhaps your POD should be Olaf II winning at Stiklestad (as already proposed... :D)

What are you waiting for???? ;)
 
I expect there to be much intermarriage between the Norse and the local Algonquians, after all, that is what happened everywhere else the Norse settled.
It did not happen everywhere, and would not happen in Newfoundland. The reason being population density mismatch. 500 Norse settlers of l´Anse aux Meadows vicinity may be far outnumbered by 5000 Beothuk hunter-gatherers of whole Newfoundland, but the band immediately neighbouring the small area of the settlement might be just 50. There would be some intermarriage, but these would be considerably outnumbered by pureblooded Norse.

The Norse of Northern Norway did intermarry with Sami, too, but stayed racially distinct.
 
Here is a POD (a little tenuous, but hey!) - perhaps we could somehow link the Norman Invasion of England into providing more settlers

So it might go something like this - the invasion happens as OTL, but the POD is that an organised group of refugees from England (say from the North -given both the Harrowing and the potential closer relationship with the Scandavian zones) flees to either Scotland or further north - to Norway. Then not finding things to their liking, or by being further pushed about by their hosts, they end up getting talked into trying their luck further West - either as part of the wider effort or on their own.
 
Top