Implications of a Successful Vinland/Norse in North America?

Flint arrowheads don't do jack against even the poorest quality of mail, and I would think Iron spears, axes, and swords would do someone much better in melee combat then wooden clubs or stone edged weapons. There's also Naval, Agricultural, and other technologies that while not going to give any immediate advantage will stack in the Norse's favor.

I'm not necessarily just talking about pure weaponry here. Mainly I'm referring to their superior transportation and administration capabilities, which are going to be much less pronounced this far back in the past. If we're really having the "no going back" opening of the Americas take place around the year 1000, the gap is much easier to close. You'll notice I did say they would probably displace most of the natives in the area they actually lived in; I'm mostly talking about how they'd interact with larger, better organized tribes to south, such as the Mississippians or the Algonquians. And considering the Norse liked money as much as raiding, they'd probably start trading with them fairly soon, meaning the natives are going to pick up ironworking in fairly short order.

At any rate, many native tribes used stone weapons against the Spanish when they invaded to a reasonable measure of effectiveness. The primary advantage of the Europeans in the OTL conquest was mostly logistical rather than technological.

Eh, thats such a cliche at this point that I almost cringe whenever someone brings that up seriously. It is possible but very unlikely to happen and unlikely to completely hold off the Christianization.

You don't really need to "completely hold off" Christianization for some measure of Norse heathenry to survive through the centuries. Even if the Vinlanders stay completely pagan, heavy Christian influence is unavoidable, and so far from the bureaucrats in Rome the long arm of the Church, long as it is, is going to be really stretched even if they all become Christian. There were highly distinct variants of Christianity even at this time period (cf. Ethiopia, Armenia), and I don't see it at all past the point of plausibility that Vinlandic Christianity will keep many of the Norse deities and myths as-are, simply maintaining that they are subordinate to the "All-Father" and the "White Christ" and not calling them "deities" anymore. The fact that they will almost certainly be interacting primarily with other Norsemen is going to help this a lot.

Depends, after a point it becomes less of Norse conquering North America and the Mixed native descendants of Norse conquering North America.

This really depends on how long it takes for the Norse to "go native," as it were. I have to wonder how long the Norse will keep up the conquering, honestly, since their modus operandi in Europe seemed to mostly be "seize a few sparsely populated areas, do some smash and grabs, and then do our actual job of being merchants."
 
which are going to be much less pronounced this far back in the past.

Well maybe in Administration but Transportation is still hundreds of miles above what the Natives can do. As for administration the more primitive system used by the Greenlanders and Icelanders would have actually been highly beneficial as it would allow far easier absorption and assimilation of native tribes.

By founding a settlement, you get to be the owner/lord of said settlement; it would then make sense for any natives that start to use Norse grain and livestock to come together and form a village with a chief that could easily be integrated into the Allthing without too much change in the people's everyday life.

I'm mostly talking about how they'd interact with larger, better organized tribes to south,

Fair enough.

such as the Mississippians or the Algonquians.

The Mississippians were disunited as well as archaeological evidence pointing to a very poor diet resulting in them having poor health and immune systems presumably resulting in them being shorter and not as strong as other Natives.

Besides the first part of the 'conquest' will probably be not through warriors but through missionaries. With a significant Christian minority in place assimilation is much easier or if the local leaders oppress any Converts or if any missionaries get killed those can be seen as decent casus belli. They probably would only take key Portage points or locations along the river at first and then probably expand from their.

As for the Algonquians they didn't really start their huge growth until the late 16th century with better agricultural practices. Even then their villages were semi-nomadic (similar to the early grain harvesters in the Fertile crescent funnily enough) and slashed and burned areas to grow their crops in for a year or two then moved on to a different location. In OTL this actually attracted settlers as there was already clear land around here and there.

Either way, while the Algonquians could feasibly keep their independence far inland the Coasts and major river systems would most likely result in Norse settlement and when technology improves you could see an Ivan The Terrible Russia like situation with a large push inland to link the Mississippian settlements to the Atlantic coast settlements.

And considering the Norse liked money as much as raiding

Eh, the whole Raiding craze was dying out around the time Vinland was settled, Believe it or not by the time of Harald Hardrada the Viking age had been over for the most part for a few decades. Though when tempted by riches like the Spanish to the wealth of the Aztec and Inca even a culture that doesn't raid often will be tempted and if nothing else every country has the occasional pirate.

And a small exploratory ship probably wouldn't be able to do too much raiding but neither could it do too much trade either.

meaning the natives are going to pick up ironworking in fairly short order.

Okay it seems reasonable that Iron objects would be valued in Native economies yes? Then why on Earth would the Norse help the Native start their own Iron working industries and loose one of their most lucrative advantages in a native economy? Yes it could be unintentional but given most people the Norse would trade with would be quite a bit away from their settlements and they could only get there on Ships then how would they learn Iron working from that?

A Native tribe could learn it if they're close to Norse settlements(their near imminent assimilation and conquest aside); but then when they know it why would they teach it to another tribe/clan? It's similar to the Chinese with Silk, sure the Koreans, Japanese, and Indians managed to get in on it but did they went out of their way to teach the ways of doing so to others? Not the perfect analogy but the basic idea is the same, and you can't stuff an anvil in a hollowed out walking stick :p.

Sure you could say an escaped slave or something came into contact with a Native tribe and taught them Iron working but the likelihood of that is small (not too small but still small) and After a while there would be an 'inflation' of Iron goods after the Norse have been around for a while so they won't be as expensive as they would be later and thus less of a desire to do so.

Honestly they would probably be more interested in a Loom than anything.

At any rate, many native tribes used stone weapons against the Spanish when they invaded to a reasonable measure of effectiveness.

They used Obsidian weapons, the Aztecs used a deadly variant called the Macquahitl which looked like a cricket bat with slits in the side where flat elongated obsidian blades were stuck with pitch and wedges. It was said to be able to decapitate a Horse cleanly, interesting stuff.

But it's effectiveness was due to the Spanish not utilizing metal body protection as much as they used to given in European wars it wasn't as effective as it once was. Obsidian is far too brittle and would crack (it is literally a natural volcanic glass) leaving obsidian weapons edge-less. So whats interesting is this might mean that the Vinlandish could end up using chainmail or Lamellar as well as shields far into the 18th century or least some troops would.

This really depends on how long it takes for the Norse to "go native," as it were.

A mix of Norse "going native" and Natives "going norse".

I have to wonder how long the Norse will keep up the conquering

Depends on what the butterflies do. There's a chance if you want to be optimistic that they take all of the Americas Pole to Freezing Pole, though what I think would be likely is they take North America, the Caribbean, and good chunk of the Northern pat of South America. Everything south of that could be other European powers trying to gain territory. If you want to be pessimistic but still reasonable I suppose the regions of Canada and USA will be Norse, maybe not united but they would be Norse at some point.

honestly, since their modus operandi in Europe seemed to mostly be "seize a few sparsely populated areas, do some smash and grabs, and then do our actual job of being merchants."

Well it would be a bit different in North America due to them having such an advantage over the Natives (at first at least) as well as the land being so ripe for the taking and population pressure from Iceland.
 
The Population of the Greenland colony alone nearly matched the population of the Natives on Newfoundland at the time. Get the Norse to settle Newfoundland and populate it with a much larger settler limit then move out to Islands such as Anticosti, St. Pierre and Miquelon, the Magdalene Islands(an especially good spot for a Norse colony), and many others before moving on to Prince Edward Island and then the Mainland.
I´d advise Cape Breton Island.
At first? Half and Half. Later on? Most definitely.



Eh, thats such a cliche at this point that I almost cringe whenever someone brings that up seriously. It is possible but very unlikely to happen and unlikely to completely hold off the Christianization. The fact of the matter is the Norse Pagans and Norse Christians weren't separate classes or anything like that, Erik the Red was a Pagan yet his wife was a Christian and their children were at first Pagan but as seen with Lief Ericsson their mother's influence probably helped with the conversion.

It's hard to have a 'Pagan exodus" when many would have to leave their wives, husbands, parents, and children behind in order to do so.
And Freydis was a heathen... and led an expedition OTL.
Eh, Easier to go from Lake Erie to the Ohio river in the Pennsylvania triangle. The Portage might take a few days longer but it would still take a shorter distance than going all the way to Lake Superior or Michigan.
That´s what Indians would do, because they don´t have sailing technology.
Whereas the Norse can sail from Grass Island Pool to Chicago. Detroit and St. Clair rivers are deep enough for Norse ships. Superior takes another portage at St. Mary´s. With sailing ships it makes sense to accept longer sailing voyage to have a shorter portage.
 
I´d advise Cape Breton Island.

That list was really an example, the actual list of settlement would probably be different.

And Freydis was a heathen... and led an expedition OTL.

Huh, well most of their children.

Detroit and St. Clair rivers are deep enough for Norse ships.

I don't know the Ohio can be pretty deep as well.

With sailing ships it makes sense to accept longer sailing voyage to have a shorter portage.

Eh given Knarrs and other longship variants were designed for portage a portage of twenty miles could be far quicker than a voyage of four hundred miles. From what I know, with all the rowers using their combined weight to lift the boat it would only end up each man bearing 30 pounds of weight each with gear and supplies added of course. Maybe during wintertime they could slide it across the snow.
 
Eh, thats such a cliche at this point that I almost cringe whenever someone brings that up seriously. It is possible but very unlikely to happen and unlikely to completely hold off the Christianization. The fact of the matter is the Norse Pagans and Norse Christians weren't separate classes or anything like that, Erik the Red was a Pagan yet his wife was a Christian and their children were at first Pagan but as seen with Lief Ericsson their mother's influence probably helped with the conversion.

Actually, Leif converted while visiting the Court of Olaf Tryggvason. His mother was converted after his return in an act of supporting his son. So obviously this interpretation of events is not accurate.

In fact Greenland Saga seems to indicate an almost wholly Pagan society, which makes sense because Iceland was a wholly pagan society up until the 980's and vastly majority pagan until 999 (It had had some Christians from the British Isles in the initially, mostly wives of Norsemen, but the faith had died after the first generation because there were no Christian priests and the fact that if you married a Norse Pagan you probably weren't the most devout Christian). A good example of this comes from Greenland Saga, where they are doing a Seithe ritual. Gudrid Thorbjarnardottr, raised pagan but a Christian is noted as practically the only Christian in the community. However, she has useful knowledge for the seidr ritual from her pagan upbringing and has to be persuaded participate, which she does. But she is effectively called out as "that oddball Christian".

Iceland as late as 999, Christian missionaries were formally outlaws, and had to hide on their way to the Althing. The reason they succeeded was because Iceland was being blackmailed by Olaf Tryggvason who had cut off trade. The Christians had made some progress, probably around 10% of the population concentrated in "Christian-friendly" communities. However, they could legally bring their dispute to the Althing.

Thorgeir Ljosvetningagodi was possibly bribed (I truthfully don't think so), was more interested in keeping the peace and avoiding a civil war with a militant minority who had powerful friends on the Continent. Iceland was bluntly in danger of foreign conquest. Yet what he did was laid out (basically in shamanistic terms sought advice from the divine) for a night before coming up with his decision. The fact that he used Norse Shamanism to sanctify the conversion, meant that the act was legitimized in the eyes of the general public. So Iceland went from 90-10 to (on paper) 100% Christian happened because the law and customs had been honored and was probably the only way the conversion could have happened without bloodshed and without the ruling class being displaced.

Norway was probably a little closer to a mixed society, but still an overwhelmingly Pagan up until in 995, as evidenced by the one the country uniting to beat back a Danish attempt at forced conversion at the Battle of Hjorungavagr in 986. Yes, there had been some Christian kings but they all were raised abroad had had to bow to the will of the majority. Olaf Tryggvason here was the key, because he was able to use force against an initially disperate Pagan opposition. But the damage he does in killing Seideman, Seidiwives, and Godi (Norse Priests) means Norse Paganism does not recover after his death (completely) and Christianity becomes entrenched in enough of the country that latter Kings, notably Olaf the II can cement Christianity as majority faith.

All of this easily butterflied by an early death of one man, Olaf Tryggvason. Because of him Christianity went from something foreign and practiced by captives to the majority faith in about 15 years. The Norse Sea Norse were not mixed as you imply, but rather a group of societies that converted under force or threat of force in a very short time, 995 to around 1010. So no, they are not leaving their "wives and sons" as you put it because the collective society is usually all taking this step at once.

If that doesn't happen all theseNorway, Iceland Greenland could easily stay Pagan for 100 years or so. "Conversion" probably involves something like the Northern Crusades, just the thing create stalwart Pagans willing to flee/retreat to whatever a Vinland is called in atl. Once in Vinland, they may be out of the reach (for a time) of the Catholic Church and have all the resources they need (Iron, Wood, Farmland) to grow. If they grow large enough and even some small plagues to thin the natives they become very hard to destroy because they always have somewhere to retreat to. Crusaders reach the east coast in overwhelming numbers or with a tech advantage, retreat down the river or over the mountains. The Pagans have "defense in depth" so to speak and can't be cornered easily.

It is also reasonable to say it doesn't happen this way.

But to cringe (and I "get" cringing, I'm avoiding Civil War threads right now for that very reason) at the idea of a Norse Pagan Vinland for the reasons you describe involves a misunderstanding of what happened historically.
 
I don't know the Ohio can be pretty deep as well.
Yes, a long way from Erie.
Eh given Knarrs and other longship variants were designed for portage a portage of twenty miles could be far quicker than a voyage of four hundred miles. From what I know, with all the rowers using their combined weight to lift the boat it would only end up each man bearing 30 pounds of weight each with gear and supplies added of course.
No, not really.
The Norse had sundry ships. Look at Skuldelev fleet - sunk in 1060s. About the time Vinland Norse would be expanding beyond Newfoundland and looking past the coasts.
5 ships. All very different from each other:
Skuldelev 6, 2,5 m wide, 11,2 m long
Skuldelev 5, 2,5 m wide, 17,3 m long
Skuldelev 2, 3,8 m wide, 29 m long
Skuldelev 3, 3,3 m wide, 14 m long
Skuldelev 1, 4,8 m wide, 16 m long
Of the 5, Skuldelev 2, 5 and 6 are designed for shallow draught and large crew (but do have masts). While Skuldelev 3 and 1 are deep draught, small crew trade ships.
Yet Skuldelev 6 and 2 certainly did cross seas to Skuldelev (6 from Sognefjord, 2 from Dublin).

Were the 25 ships of Eric the Red and the 3 ships of Thorfinn Karlsefni as unlike each other as the 5 ships of Skuldelev?
It is the deep draught, small crew trade ships like Skuldelev 1 that are commonly called "knarr". And those are not well suited for portaging.
I suggest that 11th century Norse would sail to Montreal in Skuldelev 1, then portage Skuldelev 6 past the rapids of St. Lawrence, then once they are at Thousand Islands, build a replica of Skuldelev 3 to sail Ontario.
 
As for the whole Pagan versus Christian, I think people overestimate the importance, as example Harald Bluetooth converted to Christianity, later there was a "pagan" rebellion under his son Sweyn Forkbeard, who won and his father was killed. But Sweyn was Christian and Denmark stayed a Christian country and the pagans didn't complain. It was because state conversion was not really about religion, but about power. The Church represented a centralising influence which took power from the nobility. As such when the nobility's privilges was respected, they had little problem with a Christian king. We saw no new Pagan revolts and we know that pagan human sacrifices was still practiced in public a century after Harald converted. Of course the pagans slowly disappeared, but in most European states which voluntary converted, remnant pagan population was left alone for a significant time.
 
Actually, Leif converted while visiting the Court of Olaf Tryggvason. His mother was converted after his return in an act of supporting his son. So obviously this interpretation of events is not accurate.

Huh, guess I need to re-readup on the greenland saga's.

But the overall point remains, Christians and Pagans were still part of the same community and sometimes the same family.

Also well done, you did quite a bit of research.

raised pagan but a Christian is noted as practically the only Christian in the community.

Hmm, you may be correct but perhaps this was because the overall number of Greenlanders were small?

In modern times Jews are far and few between and if you randomly picked from a group of a hundred or so people your unlikely to come up with one but that's not to say its impossible for Jews to exist in the hundreds in a country.

In short I think it might have been a little bit of Greenland being so small in population and a Backwater of a Backwater.

Iceland as late as 999, Christian missionaries were formally outlaws

It's hard to know 100% because of dubious records (there is a chance the glorification of martyrdom in Christian records could have something to do with it).

And I have trouble seeing how those laws could be enforced (then again you did say formally)

but the faith had died after the first generation because there were no Christian priests

Are you sure? I mean Christianity survived in Japan without any priests for more than two hundred years (even if it did go pretty heretical) but those were whole families.

Thorgeir Ljosvetningagodi was possibly bribed (I truthfully don't think so), was more interested in keeping the peace and avoiding a civil war with a militant minority who had powerful friends on the Continent. Iceland was bluntly in danger of foreign conquest. Yet what he did was laid out (basically in shamanistic terms sought advice from the divine) for a night before coming up with his decision.

Not saying you're wrong but that does kind of support my earlier point in that the Norse Pagans didn't care that much if some people around them were Christian.

All of this easily butterflied by an early death of one man, Olaf Tryggvason. Because of him Christianity went from something foreign and practiced by captives to the majority faith in about 15 years. The Norse Sea Norse were not mixed as you imply, but rather a group of societies that converted under force or threat of force in a very short time, 995 to around 1010. So no, they are not leaving their "wives and sons" as you put it because the collective society is usually all taking this step at once.

If that doesn't happen all theseNorway, Iceland Greenland could easily stay Pagan for 100 years or so. "Conversion" probably involves something like the Northern Crusades, just the thing create stalwart Pagans willing to flee/retreat to whatever a Vinland is called in atl. Once in Vinland, they may be out of the reach (for a time) of the Catholic Church and have all the resources they need (Iron, Wood, Farmland) to grow. If they grow large enough and even some small plagues to thin the natives they become very hard to destroy because they always have somewhere to retreat to. Crusaders reach the east coast in overwhelming numbers or with a tech advantage, retreat down the river or over the mountains. The Pagans have "defense in depth" so to speak and can't be cornered easily.

Nice, finally a Pagan Vinland scenario that doesn't cringe me to the core. You wouldn't mind if someone made a TL based around this would you?

Yes, a long way from Erie.

The Norse wen't over longer portages in Russia. That and with a portage town in place they could possibly have extra men help pull the ship.

The Norse had sundry ships. Look at Skuldelev fleet - sunk in 1060s. About the time Vinland Norse would be expanding beyond Newfoundland and looking past the coasts.
5 ships. All very different from each other:
Skuldelev 6, 2,5 m wide, 11,2 m long
Skuldelev 5, 2,5 m wide, 17,3 m long
Skuldelev 2, 3,8 m wide, 29 m long
Skuldelev 3, 3,3 m wide, 14 m long
Skuldelev 1, 4,8 m wide, 16 m long
Of the 5, Skuldelev 2, 5 and 6 are designed for shallow draught and large crew (but do have masts). While Skuldelev 3 and 1 are deep draught, small crew trade ships.
Yet Skuldelev 6 and 2 certainly did cross seas to Skuldelev (6 from Sognefjord, 2 from Dublin).

Were the 25 ships of Eric the Red and the 3 ships of Thorfinn Karlsefni as unlike each other as the 5 ships of Skuldelev?
It is the deep draught, small crew trade ships like Skuldelev 1 that are commonly called "knarr". And those are not well suited for portaging.
I suggest that 11th century Norse would sail to Montreal in Skuldelev 1, then portage Skuldelev 6 past the rapids of St. Lawrence, then once they are at Thousand Islands, build a replica of Skuldelev 3 to sail Ontario.

Ah, sorry. I mixed up Knarrs with Snekkja and the like. Knarrs were more spacious and for carrying more cargo. Though I suppose they could feasibly be dragged with rope should the ground be smooth enough.
 
The Norse wen't over longer portages in Russia. That and with a portage town in place they could possibly have extra men help pull the ship.
Ah, sorry. I mixed up Knarrs with Snekkja and the like. Knarrs were more spacious and for carrying more cargo. Though I suppose they could feasibly be dragged with rope should the ground be smooth enough.
The Norse would do better to use smaller, shallower boats in initial exploration, and with a portage town in place build bigger ships on the other side.
In Russia, there were several potential routes Baltic Sea to Dnieper.
One was Gulf of Finland-Neva-Ladoga-Volhov past the rapids-Ilmen-Lovat-Dnieper.
Another was Gulf of Riga-Dvina past the rapids-Dnieper.
Polotsk was a Russian city... but why was Novgorod, in the end, the route preferred over Polotsk?
 
Top