Alternate North American colonizers?

[sansahansan]

Another problem is that a large part of the Scandinavian population is made up of free-holding farmers. These are not the kind of people that emigrates to the colonies.

..on the contrary, circa 750-850 AD they were making very significant colonization attempts into Iceland and Greenland. Changing climates combined with European diseases nearly emptied Greenland ~1050.

Bjarni, son of Eirik the Red, took 2500 colonists to Greenland to further the settlement there, iirc ~800.


Free Hold farmers don't want to move - absolutely. Free Hold farmers with 10 sons? You only need 4-5 sons to pass the farm down to, and teh more you do that, the smaller the farms get. Free hold farmer sons, with no prospects, are *much* more willing to go exploring... or vikingr as the case may be


Anyone know of a united Scandinavia TL I can read through? I'm running my own TL, but Scandinavia isn't my focus, so more details/thoughts would be good.



As for countries colonizing N. America... it might be easier just to list those that wouldn't or couldn't or shouldn't.

Come to think of it, I can't think of any right off hand that couldn't if you were willing to shift a few points.

The earliest civilization would likely be the Phoenicians. Give a slight mutation to change their birthrate and deathrate, and they could literally explode across the N. Atlantic.

If you're not worried about civilization, lots of theories in OTL about the Solutrean tool culture giving rise to the Clovis culture in N. America.

 

[Ahura Mazda]

Another problem is that a large part of the Scandinavian population is made up of free-holding farmers. These are not the kind of people that emigrates to the colonies.

Eh... Perhaps you should first consider who did emigrate in OTL?

Poor, but independent, farmers were the majority of immigrants 1600-1850. The richer had all they needed in Europe, serfs weren't allowed to emigrate...

 

[Tobit]

Hardly. I specifically mentioned California in my post above precisely because the Spanish hadn't gone that far north yet. They had explored the area, but they didn't start founding settlements there until the 18th century. In the opening decades of the 17th century, California (and Oregon and Washington and British Columbia) were still up for grabs. With help from qualified Europeans like William Adams (whom I also mentioned above), a determined shogun could have snatched it up for Japan.

I think that if the Spanish did find out that there were Japanese colonies being set up in California, they would move quickly to set up their own forts in California. Already the Spanish were very keen on the competition for land in the New World. The Spanish were already trying to block off the East Coast from english if they suspected the Japanese of attempting to land on their continent they could very easily eject them.

Competition did drive alot of Spanish settlement. And the potential of an early "yellow menace" would drive settlement forward.

 

[Tocomocho]

The only realistic alternative to England that I can imagine is a France that strucks on Virginia rather than wasting her time in Canada and Brazil. Keep the religious divisions at bay and they would drive everyone else out of the eastern coast like the English did.

Eveyrone else is either too thinly populated, or already overstretched, or doesn't have the incentive and/or technology to do so.

 

[Cuāuhtemōc]

How about Courland keeping Tobago and perhaps expanding onto minor possessions?

 

[Tobit]

..on the contrary, circa 750-850 AD they were making very significant colonization attempts into Iceland and Greenland. Changing climates combined with European diseases nearly emptied Greenland ~1050.

Bjarni, son of Eirik the Red, took 2500 colonists to Greenland to further the settlement there, iirc ~800.

This has always made me think, why is Iceland and Greenland considered colonizations, but Normandy, and the settlement of Russia not.

The Vikings were much more successful with their European colonization efforts than their American adventures. But it also points to the fact that in the Middle Ages and for quite a bit of time afterwords, Europe was still largely uncolonized. That is to say, Towns were still being built and the cities were just now developing.

But this applies to the Phoenicians as well, they colonized an immense amount of land, but it was all in Europe. There is little reason for them to make a major effort colonizing the Americas when they still could settle Britain or France.

 

[sansahansan]

This has always made me think, why is Iceland and Greenland considered colonizations, but Normandy, and the settlement of Russia not.

The Vikings were much more successful with their European colonization efforts than their American adventures. But it also points to the fact that in the Middle Ages and for quite a bit of time afterwords, Europe was still largely uncolonized. That is to say, Towns were still being built and the cities were just now developing.

But this applies to the Phoenicians as well, they colonized an immense amount of land, but it was all in Europe. There is little reason for them to make a major effort colonizing the Americas when they still could settle Britain or France.

Very true. Distance is the colony killer, due to time involved to have interactions with back home. Compare Kiev Rus to Iceland to the l'aix Meadows. Also, witness Bjarni choosing colder land with family over the green land in front of him.

OTOH there is one succesful method for colonizing at long range - exportation of criminals. Drop them as far away as possible. Witness Britain and Austrailia?

Phoenicians wanted trade and set in trade posts - but trading outposts are not colonies - witness the American West. Traders are trail blazers, but not colonists.

So explorers find the land, then there must be a motivation for colonists to go there.

But what if, similar to older scandinavia (~5-800, just before viking era), it's a culture built on exploration and finding 'new' lands to live in, period? The drive for the vikings were free hold farmers sons with the choice of 'work for elder brother or go find new land'.

Logical they went for the closest first, but equally logical they ended up in Iceland, Greenland and l'aix Meadows.

So, if you change that to a religious-like imperative, comparable in strength to the so called 'white mans burden'... wouldn't you have a culture that would madly colonize everywhere they could reach??

 

[Valdemar II]

How about Courland keeping Tobago and perhaps expanding onto minor possessions?

Courland do have potential to get a little bit bigger colonial "empire" if they play their cards right. The way Denmark received St. Croix was that the French gave it for Denmark allowing the French navy access to the Baltic under the War of Polish Succesion. It's not impossible that if Courland had kept Tobago, they could later expand their holding, through rewards for taking one of the sides in European Wars (they didn't even need to take the winning side). But they need to make Tobago a economical succes first. Of course if they succed at that they likely keep their African colonies too, to secure a source of slaves to their Caribbian colonies.

Of course Courland would need a lot of luck. But a small prosperous Courlandish colonial empire would be interesting, and could ensure Courlands survival.

 

[von Adler]

..on the contrary, circa 750-850 AD they were making very significant colonization attempts into Iceland and Greenland. Changing climates combined with European diseases nearly emptied Greenland ~1050.

Bjarni, son of Eirik the Red, took 2500 colonists to Greenland to further the settlement there, iirc ~800.


Free Hold farmers don't want to move - absolutely. Free Hold farmers with 10 sons? You only need 4-5 sons to pass the farm down to, and teh more you do that, the smaller the farms get. Free hold farmer sons, with no prospects, are *much* more willing to go exploring... or vikingr as the case may be


Anyone know of a united Scandinavia TL I can read through? I'm running my own TL, but Scandinavia isn't my focus, so more details/thoughts would be good.

The medieval warm period made Iceland and Greenland more attractive and allowed good harvests that created a population surplus that the Scandinavian countries exported in raids, colonisation, settlements etc. The 1600s were actually a cold period and there was much less of a populations surplus.

The Swedish system, contrary to the British, allowed land to be parted in inheritance. Before the "laga skifte"s from ~1780-1860, it was very common to own 1/32 or 1/64 of a small part of farmland, a single plot. Agriculture happened communaly and was not very effective.

A free-holding farmed who had 4 sons would probably let 2 split the land and let 2 others become "torpare" (a kind of tenant), which meant they went into the woods, cleared some lands, had to do labour on the farm and got a small part in the production. Successful topare cleared more land, saved up and bought themselves free from the labour and became their own free-holding farmers.

After the Black Death and onwards, the population was so low and so much land and arable land covered by forest that there really was no shortage of land and thus no class of argarian proletariat, which is the best candidate for emigration, arose until the late 1700s.

On the other hand, I understand that Spain's population halved from medieval times to 1700 or so.

 

[George Carty]

On the other hand, I understand that Spain's population halved from medieval times to 1700 or so.

Is there any connection between this population decline, and the shift from the irrigated agriculture of al-Andalus to the pastoral ranching of Christian Spain?

 

[Tobit]

But what if, similar to older scandinavia (~5-800, just before viking era), it's a culture built on exploration and finding 'new' lands to live in, period? The drive for the vikings were free hold farmers sons with the choice of 'work for elder brother or go find new land'.

Logical they went for the closest first, but equally logical they ended up in Iceland, Greenland and l'aix Meadows.

So, if you change that to a religious-like imperative, comparable in strength to the so called 'white mans burden'... wouldn't you have a culture that would madly colonize everywhere they could reach??

But to the vikings of 500-800 the whole of Europe was New Land. They were out to explore and colonize and their target was Europe. There were no maps of Britain or France or Russia when the Vikings were around. The Vikings had no idea where they were for the most part.

Iceland, Greenland, and l'aix Meadows are fine until climate changes and Iceland and Greenland get a lot less pleasant to live in.

 

[Tobit]

What about the Kingdom of Aragon as a colonizer of North America. Now they may be too focused on the Mediterranean, but they certainly had the capacity to do it.

The religion orders of Latin america were extremely independent in OTL but they all were considered subject to the Spanish King. What if they funded and explored their own part of north america totally separate than Spain or Portugal.

Or maybe an independent Duke of Brittany?

 

[sansahansan]

But to the vikings of 500-800 the whole of Europe was New Land. They were out to explore and colonize and their target was Europe. There were no maps of Britain or France or Russia when the Vikings were around. The Vikings had no idea where they were for the most part.

Iceland, Greenland, and l'aix Meadows are fine until climate changes and Iceland and Greenland get a lot less pleasant to live in.

Actually, from 5-600, the motivation was wealth.

Roman loot flowed northward, dispersing amongst the Germanic tribes, until it reached Scandinavia. The nordics, long since accustomed to raiding each other, followed the gold, so to speak. The warm period, plus rising social pressures in Scandvia began to push the more troublesome out to the west instead of east and south precisely because of that. Hence 'vikings' like Eirik the Red raiding over to England and Ireland.

Their first forays down the river systems of e. europe and w. russia were prior to 500AD, from a little to a lot depending on what you classify as them. One could even argue they came from the battle axe culture in the copper age, and were merely flowing back into it That's stretching a lot though, but what I'm saying is, even before 400AD, the Scandvians know the river systems of Europe and weren't at all lost or 'not knowing where they were'.

Saying 500AD to 700AD is the pretty much the germanic iron age (400-800), but it was preceded by the roman iron age, which ended with, amongst other thigns, the sacking of roman empire by germanic tribes and a lot of gold, silver and roman loot went north to scandinavia.

The pre-roman iron age also saw the final stages of the migrations and upheavals across eastern europe and the north western modern russia.

Prior to that is the nordic bronze age, but we might be getting a tad bit far afield there, but that was still the same 'cultures' in E. Europe that had influence with Scandinavians.

Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that between 500-700, the Vikings weren't out to explore and colonize anywhere - they were looking for loot to bring home. 700-800, the start of the viking era, they began to shift from 'raid and take home' to 'stay a while, then take loot home', which probably had to do with social pressures at home pushing freehold farmers sons to travel instead of just the violent folks like Eirik the Red and other troublemakers.



All of that aside however -- can anyone justify a theocratic mode of exploration and colonization? I cannot square the natural conservatism of theocracy with the liberalism needed to 'boldy go where no man has gone before', but if you could, in any culture in history, you'd have a culture that would have colonized every harbor and bay on every continent as quickly as possible.

 

[Workable Goblin]

What about the Kingdom of Aragon as a colonizer of North America. Now they may be too focused on the Mediterranean, but they certainly had the capacity to do it.

The religion orders of Latin america were extremely independent in OTL but they all were considered subject to the Spanish King. What if they funded and explored their own part of north america totally separate than Spain or Portugal.

Or maybe an independent Duke of Brittany?

Well, Aragon is constrained by the Strait of Gibralter. Assuming Castille controls it as per OTL, then Castille probably isn't going to let them have a go at it--it would be muscling in on their turf. If Aragon controls it, then there's no problem. If some independent non-colonial state controls it, then things get interesting.

Spain would probably come down hard on any religious orders that went off colonizing on their own. Again, the muscling in on their turf problem. Plus, they wouldn't have enough military or population support to really do anything.

The Duchy of Brittany is interesting. Probably it would be more in a Dutch/Portugal-type role, focusing more on trade than settlement, as it doesn't have the population (even today Brittany only has around 4 million people) for much else. They certainly have the location and the ports to do well, though.

 

[farwalker]

...

Iceland, Greenland, and l'aix Meadows are fine until climate changes and Iceland and Greenland get a lot less pleasant to live in.

Do you mean L'Anse aux Meadows, Newfoudland?
If so, it probably remained quite habitable after the Medieval Warm Period, if the Scandinavians had managed peacefull contact with the Beothuk they could have survived, but probably assimilated due to lack of European contact.

 

[Cicero the Younger]

All of that aside however -- can anyone justify a theocratic mode of exploration and colonization? I cannot square the natural conservatism of theocracy with the liberalism needed to 'boldy go where no man has gone before', but if you could, in any culture in history, you'd have a culture that would have colonized every harbor and bay on every continent as quickly as possible.

Are you kidding? Have you never heard of the religious zeal to bring the word of God to the heathens at the point of a sword? History is full of holy wars. Monotheisms in particular are prone to this sort of thing. It wasn't until Islam appeared that the Arabs burst out of their desert peninsula and conquered an empire that stretched from Spain to the Persian Gulf, all in the name of spreading Islam.

And do you really think the 16th century Spanish were exploring the globe in the name of liberalism?

You can argue, if you wish, that the drive for plunder is the key and religion is only supplying a pretext. But what a handy pretext it makes. You can justify doing absolutely anything you wish as long as you can convince yourself that you're doing it because God wants you to. And if you have a large number of warriors who have that religious zeal, they'll have a lot more cohesion and focus than if it's just each individual warrior hoping to grab as much loot as he can.

We even had an entire thread here once about what would have happened if some Norseman believed he had the same divine revelation that Muhammad claimed to have and managed to convert Scandinavia to a sort of "Viking Islam". As I recall, the results for Europe and North America were not pretty.

 

[modelcitizen]

This has always made me think, why is Iceland and Greenland considered colonizations, but Normandy, and the settlement of Russia not.

The Vikings were much more successful with their European colonization efforts than their American adventures. But it also points to the fact that in the Middle Ages and for quite a bit of time afterwords, Europe was still largely uncolonized. That is to say, Towns were still being built and the cities were just now developing.

But this applies to the Phoenicians as well, they colonized an immense amount of land, but it was all in Europe. There is little reason for them to make a major effort colonizing the Americas when they still could settle Britain or France.

I dig that about what's called "colonies" versus not, that's very funny, I never considered that! It reminds me of the "none dare call it treason" line.

 

[Tobit]

Well, Aragon is constrained by the Strait of Gibralter. Assuming Castille controls it as per OTL, then Castille probably isn't going to let them have a go at it--it would be muscling in on their turf. If Aragon controls it, then there's no problem. If some independent non-colonial state controls it, then things get interesting.

Or Aragon if they rule over the Basques or maybe even the Aquitanians they could have their own ports. Or maybe if the Pope is brought to see the Aragonian perspective, when creating the Treaty of Tordisillas he could simply write Aragon in as Colonizer of North America or something.

 

[sansahansan]

Are you kidding? Have you never heard of the religious zeal to bring the word of God to the heathens at the point of a sword? History is full of holy wars. Monotheisms in particular are prone to this sort of thing. It wasn't until Islam appeared that the Arabs burst out of their desert peninsula and conquered an empire that stretched from Spain to the Persian Gulf, all in the name of spreading Islam.
QUOTE]

Yes yes, religion is the cause of the greatest # of deaths in the world, and also the greatest excuse for plundering (see Conquistadore and 'White mans Burden')

Yet, every example you've cited merely proves my point. They all knew there were 'people' that didn't believe as they did *before* they used religion to 'go get'em'.

I'm looking for a way to justify Marco Polo, Columbus, Leif Ericcson, the Irish monk that found Iceland types from a *religious* point of view.

Explorers found the land looking for money. Religious people followed and plundered.

Where did Religion cause a migration? Okay, maybe, just maybe, Moses, but he was essentially leading hsi people to freedom, not really exploring -- ie he knew where he was going.

Where is an example of a religiously discovery of new lands, previously unknown??

I can get it if I create a religion based on purchasing power and production power - but, seriously, a religion based on capitalism seems... odd?

How else can you get from the known to the unknown (explorer like) with religion ??

 

[Tocomocho]

Is there any connection between this population decline, and the shift from the irrigated agriculture of al-Andalus to the pastoral ranching of Christian Spain?

Actually a combination of plagues, migration to America, constant warfare on all fronts and the expulsion of the Moriscos (which deeply affected agriculture in some areas and thus incremented famines and plagues again).