Help with Surviving Vinland Ideas

[Dan1988]

Yes, but I asked specifically about their trade networks.

Okay, then. I'll see what I can find.

The Varyags got across the rapids of Volkhov, the long water divide between Lovat and Dnepr, and the rapids of Drepr. All the while confronted by locals who could use all the same cultivated plants, domestic animals and metals.

But that was Slavic territory already familiar to the Norsemen. That area (from Rusь northwards) had long been a part of the history of that area, and hence why they went through that area with ease. Umbral is right on this one - the North Atlantic is on the other end of a supply chain into an area unfamiliar to them, hence fewer settlers (and why I keep insisting on the population factor as being key to Vinland). This is even more so since I don't think Mississippian culture trade networks extended to the area of modern-day Atlantic Canada.

Yes, probably.

For a surplus inhabitant of Iceland or Greenland, Newfoundland would be the closest and most practical place to go and farm. The island is slightly bigger than Iceland, but with better climate - just slightly warmer summer, flatter and lower landscape, tall-growing forests...

Few Norse would go past Newfoundland compared to those who settle down there.

There you go.

Iceland, with 20 000...30 000 souls from 11th century on, sent out 1000 settlers to Greenland in 986, and more in later years. It would be easy for Iceland to send 100 emigrants each year to Newfoundland through 11th century, so 10 000 souls in total, plus their natural increase - by 1100, there would be more Norse in Newfoundland than in Iceland.

OK, that's one bit.

Iceland got a bishop in 1056. In 1106, northern Iceland got a separate Bishop of Holar. And in 1126, Greenland got a separate bishop.

In late 11th century, founding a bishopric in Newfoundland would be likely, for a Christian Vinland. And the size and population would quickly warrant extra bishops - plus bishops in the far away Norse trading settlements in Cape Breton, Montreal, Massachusetts...

That could work.

It is not so important whether the men are "immigrants". What is more important is what they do once they have arrived.

Actually, I would argue the opposite - it is a pattern that is consistent with a particular style of language development. Whether the men are "immigrants" or not is actually pretty important, particularly when dealing with pidgins, creoles, and the like. If we accept Celtic influence on Icelandic (a notion that is controversial unto itself), for example, then it could be argued that Icelandic itself is a Norse-Celtic hybrid language with heavy Norse influence on phonology and grammar. In the case of Michif, an unusual mixed language which became more complex instead of simplifying due to the interaction of French and Cree elements, "bound" elements (i.e. verbal morphology) is of Cree origin and is thus polysynthetic in nature, whilst "free" elements (i.e. nominal morphology) are divided between words of Cree origin and words of French origin (i.e. lom "man" < French l'homme "the man"). A similar development in Michif could also occur hear, though possibly with a few differences.

If the Norse in Vinland become full-time traders, wandering around rivers and forests then, yes, they have little opportunity to teach their children.

If, however, they stake out small and demarcated plots of land (like isles of Boularderie, Orleans, Montreal, Wolfe, Aquidneck...), and engage in intensive agriculture there (fields and haymaking) while the more extensive roaming occupations like providing fish and game meat are left to their Skraeling trade partners and in-laws, they stay around home somewhat longer at agricultural work.

True - and sociological context is almost always taken account into describing the development of a language, especially in historical linguistics.

Did the people of Normandy end up speaking standard French like the French of Picardy and Ile de France never conquered by Norse, or a Norse-French creole language?

Both: their main language - and its offshoots Jèrriais, Dgèrnésais , et autres langues - is essentially a Norse-Old French creole language (one which has left a mark in several European languages, including non-Indo-European ones like Maltese), whilst nowadays most Normans are also fluent in le français standard.

What about Orkneys and Shetlands, which must have had Celtic settlers since Neolithic?

Scots-speaking, though with a noticable Norse influence.

I'm surprised you didn't mention some Scottish Gaelic-speaking island which had the only variety of Scottish Gaelic with tones, not to mention that Scottish Gaelic in general has an aspiration contrast instead of Irish's voicing contrast (i.e. /ph/-/p/ in Scottish Gaelic vs. /p/-/b/ in Irish for the labial stops <p> and <b>).

 

[terence]

Settlers in North America were always misfits.
Why not populate Markland with Vikings expelled from Scotland by Harald Fairhair (they couldn't go back to Norway) or have the Irish rally round and boot out the Vikings. Maybe the French get rid of Rollo. ( no Norman conquest of England?)

 

[chornedsnorkack]

But that was Slavic territory already familiar to the Norsemen. That area (from Rusь northwards) had long been a part of the history of that area, and hence why they went through that area with ease. Umbral is right on this one - the North Atlantic is on the other end of a supply chain into an area unfamiliar to them, hence fewer settlers (and why I keep insisting on the population factor as being key to Vinland). This is even more so since I don't think Mississippian culture trade networks extended to the area of modern-day Atlantic Canada.

Fewer settlers but, at least in the Saint Lawrence river, fewer locals opposing them.

In Russia, the Varyags brought no new technologies - just social organization that was slightly more efficient in trading and fighting.

In Vinland, for one thing the Norse will have an initial monopoly of iron. If the Mississippi culture trade networks could distribute the small production of native copper from south shore of Lake Superior, to the north of Mississipi Culture maizegrowers, far and wide as ornaments of their chieftains and perhaps specialist tools of artisans making prestige items, then a small colony of Norse blacksmiths on Montreal Island can have their iron tools likewise traded to Mississippi culture as low-volume, high-value trade goods - and earn monopoly profits for something which for themselves is high-volume, low-value product.

The Norse, with their squaws, their Metis children and perhaps their Skraeling slaves and freedmen servants, as well as more independent allies would, as soon as they get more geographical information and military strength, follow the trade routes they find in place as well as waterways that they alone have the technology to exploit, to seek the source of Mississippi Culture. Across the Niagara Portage and Chicago Portage... and they would check if any Mississippi Culture tribes might be willing allies to conquer Cahokia.

So long as iron tools are high value, low volume goods, there would be little incentive for Indians to learn the complex technology of iron smelting and compete against Norse. The tools are easily portable overland.

A technology which CAN be transmitted is Norse corn - barley, oats, maybe rye and wheat. For Indians who already grow summer maize (which frows poorly in the marginal, short and chilly climate), learning to plant summer barley is simple. And corn is inherently high volume, low value produce - anyone who is not near the source will either make do with maize or learn to grow their own barley. Once the in-laws of Norse on, say, Niagara Peninsula learn to supplement maize with barley and oats, they will spread this activity to areas far from waterways, interior Ontario Peninsula and New York State etc., where Norse cannot and do not like to follow them, instead preferring Chicago Portage.

 

[Umbral]

Iceland around OTL 1000 CE was on the brink of civil war over the adoption of Christianity, and lawspeaker Þorgeir Þorkelsson Ljósvetningagoði was appointed to mediate the dispute. After he meditating a fur blanket for a day and a night, he determined that Iceland would become officially Christian but paganism would continue to be tolerated.

An interesting POD would be if he had decided that Iceland become Christian, but points west would be be reserved as pagan. On this OTL, you'd have a good impetus for pagan Icelanders moving west to Greenland and Vinland, and distancing themselves politically from Christian Scandinavia. Just a thought.

That would work in a quite interesting manner. We'd get a regular supply of immigrants from an aggressive warrior-culture. A non-proslyzing one. I've long thought that a few more travellers reports from Vinland would have opened the eyes of people in Scandinavia to the climate and size of the place.

How many do we really need??

Depends on two factors I think: How "Norse" do we want the resulting culture to be, and how friendly/hostile relations with the natives are we proposing, especially at the start?

If a single family of shipbuilders land in Vinland and have good chemistry with the locals, we can transfer shiptech to the Natives, which would be quite revolutionary. But the result would be seafaring Indians, with very little Norse in them.

Hostile relations with the natives from the start wil also make it very difficult for the immigrants to establish themselves. And we'll need a much bigger population to make anything happen.

But they also had the example of northern Norway. Where the native Sami hunter-gatherers did have low population density. And the Norse could settle down, trade and get along with Norse in long term.

This area is not a good analogue for Vinland. The actual area that is useful for Norse agriculture is not large, and violent conflict with the Saami have not been a factor. The populations instead seem to have flowed and ebbed with the climate, warmer climate favoring Norse agriculture, colder periods giving the advantage to Saami herders.

And my point is that on Atlantic coast there are no chokepoints. The Indians have small boats and canoes, but they probably cannot do much to challenge a Norse ship in open water.

True. Whether relations are peaceful or violent, the Norse will own the seas.

But what has occured to me is that the talk of chokepoints is sort of looking at a temporal snapshot for something that will be an ongoing process for centuries.

First, fighting over static pieces of strategic land would seem to favor Norse fighting techniques and teknology. They will take such places easier and hold them harder.

Second, trade creates wealth for everyone. A tribe that has bad chemstry, legitimate grievances or religous objections to the Norse, and block them at a chokepoint may be wiped out by tribes on the other side of it, who wants access to Norse trade items and the opportunity to impress blonde Norsewomen.

Third, the natives were just as bright as the Norsemen. The reasonable thing to do with a chokepoint you hold is to tax it, generating wealth for yourself in that fashion.

But what would be logical stopping point on Atlantic coast as well is the belt where maize growers have only just arrived.

So long as they are exploring an area where only hunter-gatherers live, the native population is small. They can stake out lands for farming settlements - land is cheap to conquer or buy - and they can trade, but because of sparse population, the volumes of trade will be modest.

The displacement of hunter-gatherers by means of greater agricultural population density is likly to be a process taking centuries. Yes, with a good initial population, and barring a large confederation of natives uniting against you it is going to be pretty inexorable, but slow.

Thing is, though, I don't see the encounter with Maize-growing peoples as a "stopping point". I'll be harder to settle, but the Norse are unlikly to have settled much of the hunter-gatherer territories surrounding them when their traders encounter the maize peoples.

Norse from Norway and Sweden traded with Byzantium and the Arabs. The Vinlanders will probably range equally far away from their home territories when trading. They will have less problems with pirates due to their naval tech dominance, and no other traders with their speed and range competing. So their rewards are bigger and risks smaller, in relative terms.

When they reach far south, with long established and dense population of maize growers, they can trade at large scale. But settling down will be hard: the numerous natives will not readily part with their lands.

I'm suspecting we would see a lot of individual interactions. I think most of the Norse will be independent-minded folk, and the Maize peoples did not have a common foreign policy either. Some places interations will be violents, some places they may both settle the same area.

Mississippi Culture did have large trade networks.

I think the Norse will outcompete them on sea and rivers, while the Mississippis will dominate land trade. Untill the Norse population bulids up and horses come into their own.

On the subject of male-female immigrants, the Norse who come by way of Iceland and Greenland are coming from several steps of successful settlemnts in harsher conditions, and are likly to bring women.

 

[chornedsnorkack]

This area is not a good analogue for Vinland. The actual area that is useful for Norse agriculture is not large, and violent conflict with the Saami have not been a factor.

A good analogue to Markland/Labrador then. There is a small amount of land useful for Norse agriculture.

But the initial small band of settlers of Newfoundland would realize that although there are large forests potentially useful for Norse agriculture, they only need a small area. Therefore they can apply a policy of carrot and stick to resolve and avoid violent conflict with Skraelings, and that Skraelings are useful as trade partners and good neighbours.

But what has occured to me is that the talk of chokepoints is sort of looking at a temporal snapshot for something that will be an ongoing process for centuries.

First, fighting over static pieces of strategic land would seem to favor Norse fighting techniques and teknology. They will take such places easier and hold them harder.

Second, trade creates wealth for everyone. A tribe that has bad chemstry, legitimate grievances or religous objections to the Norse, and block them at a chokepoint may be wiped out by tribes on the other side of it, who wants access to Norse trade items and the opportunity to impress blonde Norsewomen.

The Iroquois successfully fought back the French above Montreal for centuries.

Third, the natives were just as bright as the Norsemen. The reasonable thing to do with a chokepoint you hold is to tax it, generating wealth for yourself in that fashion.

Yes. But the most profitable way for, say, Iroquois of Niagara Peninsula to benefit from Norse trade is to deny the Norse passage, buy all their iron cheaply and then distribute it to Mississippi culture at high prices, by foot and canoe.

If the Norse can fight or negotiate permission to build their ships on upper Niagara, though, then they will own the middle lakes and will sail to Chicago Portage, far cheaper than an Iroquois canoe could do overland and by Ohio river.

The displacement of hunter-gatherers by means of greater agricultural population density is likly to be a process taking centuries. Yes, with a good initial population, and barring a large confederation of natives uniting against you it is going to be pretty inexorable, but slow.

What is very important is whether you are talking about pure hunter-gatherers (for whom adopting Norse agriculture is a big change of lifestyle), or about the hunter-gatherers who already were supplementing hunting with some marginal agriculture (who can easily adopt the more reliable and profitable cultivated plants - and once they have, they can start their own population explosion, from greater initial total numbers).

Thing is, though, I don't see the encounter with Maize-growing peoples as a "stopping point". I'll be harder to settle, but the Norse are unlikly to have settled much of the hunter-gatherer territories surrounding them when their traders encounter the maize peoples.

Norse from Norway and Sweden traded with Byzantium and the Arabs. The Vinlanders will probably range equally far away from their home territories when trading. They will have less problems with pirates due to their naval tech dominance, and no other traders with their speed and range competing. So their rewards are bigger and risks smaller, in relative terms.



I'm suspecting we would see a lot of individual interactions. I think most of the Norse will be independent-minded folk, and the Maize peoples did not have a common foreign policy either. Some places interations will be violents, some places they may both settle the same area.

They do not have common foreign policy, but they do have common technology and common economic incentives.

Individual Norse ships will sail to Chesapeake Bay. The Jamestown colonists had the orders to settle where Indians do not already live - to avoid getting massacred right away. They picked Jamestown, which had infertile land, swamps, poor drinking water - in short, a place where the Indians did not live because it was not a good place to live. And they moved to an area where the summers were much hotter than England - their agriculture worked poorly.

No wonder they starved.

The Norse will be coming with cultivated plants adapted to even chillier summers than England. They do not have such a huge pool of colonists, nor a large pool of rich consumers back home paying for exotic tobacco. They will not settle in Virginia - they will trade and sail back home to Newfoundland. Or somewhere else.

Economically speaking, next to Newfoundland (the closest place for a land-hungry Iceland farmer to settle), the second logical settlement would be some area which is close enough to the maize growers for trade, not wanted by the maize growers - yet unwanted for some reason that does not also make it unwanted by Norse. Such as climate just barely too chilly for maize.

I think the Norse will outcompete them on sea and rivers, while the Mississippis will dominate land trade. Untill the Norse population bulids up and horses come into their own.

On the subject of male-female immigrants, the Norse who come by way of Iceland and Greenland are coming from several steps of successful settlemnts in harsher conditions, and are likly to bring women.

Yes. As far as Newfoundland.

But my suspicion is that the people who want to supplement their farming with trade with Indians and move beyond Newfoundland will tend to be men who also do not mind getting Indian in-laws.