Hilmir Sjot: The Norse Colonization of North America

Yes, but the hunter-gatherers can buffer against demand fluctuation either by borrowing from the farmers in bad years, or storing up stockpiles of low volume high value durable goods in good years (like furs to sell to farmers or silver received from farmers).#

Short of farmer produce (cheese, domestic animal meat). If it does not happen to be a simultaneous lean year for hunter-gatherers, then the hunter-gatherers can get high prices for their produce like wild animal meat or fish dried or smoked.
On the borrowing, the chances of the Norse lending to native Americans is close to zero. They were xenophobic to the point of killing some to find out what colour blood they had. As for the conception of credit you need a more sophisticated conception of market economics than barter with people who can say "Thank you very much" then disappear into the hinterland and never repay.

As for buying food from hunter gatherers, yes the later Europeans did that in bad times until they had sufficient numbers that they could run the natives out. I would expect the Norse to do the same only much quicker.

Yes, but that was done at a number of spots. The settlers of Iceland tried it locally, too, but soon ran short of firewood, like Greenland.

Vinland, with good local firewood supply, will smelt iron, and not only for local consumption but to sell to the bigger markets of Greenland and Iceland and yet bigger markets of North America.
Yes, the large amount of firewood would help. However, the increase in production could easily be absorbed by Norse consumption. There is evidence that Greenlanders were so iron poor that they were forced to squeeze out every last ounce from what they did have. Increase the amount of iron available to them and they and the Vinlanders could start to use it more prolifically.

The OTL exports of 13th century Greenland were listed as walrus ivory, seals - as well as rope, sheep and cattle hides. Europe had a plenty of these locally - yet they covered the cost of transport to Europe.

The Greenland Norse kept sailing from their settlements to north, areas of Disko Island and as far as Upernavik Runestone. Only for hunting (no Eskimos to trade with yet).
I admit I had forgotten about the hides trade, but it was still a case of quality goods in small numbers. You are looking at two boat loads in a good year and none in a bad one.

Vinland Norse can quite reasonably afford trade trips to Hochelaga and to New England. There was, OTL, a trade network of Mississippi Culture, and trade goods reached Mississippi Valley from Atlantic coast (seashells) and Lake Superior (native copper). Something was paid in return. The iron tools sold by Norse at Hochelaga would feed into Mississippi Culture trade network.
This assumes that the Norse have sufficient spare iron for serious trade, especially as the Greenlanders will compete for it. On purchases, sea shells have a limited market whilst copper will require tin or zinc to have much utility. In addition you must swap it at a ratio where you in effect end up with more metal goods than you would if you retained the iron traded. If you don't then why trade to lose?

There is still the shipping issue in the long turn round time between North America and Europe and without that Vinland's trade will remain marginal. Greenland and Iceland are just too poor to compensate. Building more ships won't help this. To make it non-marginal you need the sort of profits that the later Europeans made on the spice trade. There is nothing in the region that will give you that.
 
On the borrowing, the chances of the Norse lending to native Americans is close to zero. They were xenophobic to the point of killing some to find out what colour blood they had. As for the conception of credit you need a more sophisticated conception of market economics than barter with people who can say "Thank you very much" then disappear into the hinterland and never repay.
As for buying food from hunter gatherers, yes the later Europeans did that in bad times until they had sufficient numbers that they could run the natives out. I would expect the Norse to do the same only much quicker.
The Norse did not run out the Sami, in a millennium.
There is still the shipping issue in the long turn round time between North America and Europe and without that Vinland's trade will remain marginal. Greenland and Iceland are just too poor to compensate. Building more ships won't help this.

No, but developing bigger and more efficient ships might.

In OTL, Germans developed bigger, more efficient cogs in 12th, 13th century. If Vinland trade increases, they could not just take over the cog - it is a solution for a different task - but developing a bigger ship adapted to crossing empty North Atlantic may make sense.

Wild furs (which are not produced in Europe) may not be as expensive as in 17th century, and the closer Novgorod may be supplying most of Europe - but wild furs would still offer higher value per weight than cattle hides or rope, which did repay transport for OTL Greenland. Vinland would still be smaller than Novgorod. So trade with Indians both for exports to Europe and for consumption locally in Newfoundland as the settlement grows would drive exploration.
 
What kind of technology, numbers, and social development did the Sami have?

If the Skraelings/Beothuk were weaker than the Sami, the Norse might be more tempted to mess with them.

OTL saw the Norse cutting open the Skraelings to make sure they were really human, so there's going to be bad blood there that might not be the case with the Sami.
 
In OTL, Germans developed bigger, more efficient cogs in 12th, 13th century. If Vinland trade increases, they could not just take over the cog - it is a solution for a different task - but developing a bigger ship adapted to crossing empty North Atlantic may make sense.
An improved knarr would do the job if the conventional colony hopping route around the top is continued. What the Norse really need though is an improvement in navigation techniques so assuming they sail from Norway, they could skim round the top of Scotland then head south westish until they reach North America. It is shorter and avoids Arctic sea ice. In fact the Norse (both Norwegian and Vinland) would probably looking at being able to get there and back now in a single year. This changes the viability of the colony to nearer that of the 15th century French.
 
An improved knarr would do the job if the conventional colony hopping route around the top is continued. What the Norse really need though is an improvement in navigation techniques so assuming they sail from Norway, they could skim round the top of Scotland then head south westish until they reach North America. It is shorter and avoids Arctic sea ice.
Yes, but it is directly against the prevailing westerlies.

A better logic could be to avoid the prevailing westerlies by picking the northern sectors of cyclones - sailing by prevailing westerlies straight east from Newfoundland to Ireland, then north to Iceland and then southwest past Greenland to Newfoundland.

If ice expands, it is because the cyclones travel further south, which means that the easterly winds of northern sectors are also further south.
 
Okay, I finally fixed the last update, the next update should be comming soon.
Improved Norse navigational techniques? Hrm... I'll look into it.
 
What changed?

Well, I removed a large section involving a bishop being sent from Norway, which didn't make a lot of sense as Norway didn't even have a proper bishop at that stage. I also restructured it somewhat to portray a more realistic tribal society instead of having it suddenly become a feudalistic one.
 
Well, I removed a large section involving a bishop being sent from Norway, which didn't make a lot of sense as Norway didn't even have a proper bishop at that stage. I also restructured it somewhat to portray a more realistic tribal society instead of having it suddenly become a feudalistic one.

My suggestion is that Bishop of Vinland should be consecrated in 1107.

In OTL, Norway was a kingdom since 9th century Harald Fairhair, but the 11th and 12th century kingdom was not simply feudalistic the way France was. Even in 13th century, Norway had just 2 private castles.

11th to 13th century Iceland was not quite feudalistic, either. Power was concentratto storgodis the way that had not been the case in 10th century, but Iceland never got a local king.

Vinland will be an offshoot of Iceland society at the start of 11th century. But it will then develop on a divergent path.

My suggestion is that better climate and more concentrated wealth from trade causes faster development of chiefly power in Vinland, compared to Iceland in the same period. But in early 11th century, the first chieftains will not be "Kings", the way Ingolfur Arnarson was not.
 
Top