Viking and Native American North America

What if in an Alternate Timeline, the Vikings migrated to Americas in much larger numbers and settled there, eventually mixing with Native Americans, along with mixing Culturally, Linguistically, etc by the time the Columbus and other European Seafarers reach the Americas?

You could have different empires across North America, with more Viking ones with little Native mixture, towards the Northwest America and Sparsely populated regions and more and more Native, towards the Southeast, becoming full almost majority to fully Native American, after to the East of Central USA, wherever there were large Native Populations.

Let's say they are mostly immune to the Old World diseases by this time.

So how do you think this would end up?
 
Number one problem--why should they? What does Vinland offer which the Vikings can't get elsewhere? This is a common topic here, but any real PoD involves much more complex American Indian societies for them to trade with. Yes, it's about the height of the Mississippian period, but they'd need to go as far south as the Carolinas to actually find natives worth trading with.

But successful Vinland isn't hard. The Beothuk natives were no more than a thousand people. Norse on the Avalon Peninsula (the best part of Newfoundland) could drive out the locals entirely from the area and secure the peninsula with some forts. They'd find the Grand Banks to help feed them in addition to other means. Whatever disease they'd bring over (distance made transferring epidemics to even Iceland challenging) would do the rest, assuming the Norse didn't destroy the Beothuk first.

Their main influence would be their trade with natives, where they'd give them farm animals, European crops, and all sorts of iron tools in exchange for furs and whatever else. Newfoundland in the Medieval Warm Period can sustain quite a bit of people comfortably, and settlers from Iceland and Greenland won't be picky. The best trade goods would come from far south--yaupon tea was a major American Indian trade good, traded from its native range along the coast to as far north as Cahokia. This caffeine-containing tea, favoured by American Indians for religious rituals, would find favour with the Norse. Norse products will be a major trade good for all coastal American Indians, so it's likely Norse expansion takes place as part of small trading posts along the coast.

Let's say they are mostly immune to the Old World diseases by this time.

This will not occur, since even OTL, Old World diseases decimated the Plains Indians and PNW Indians all throughout the mid and late 19th century. What you'd ideally get is disease wrecking the Mississippians in, say, the 12th century when the Norse make their trading posts there, and instead of the increasing decline they had in the 13th century onward, they rebuild in a stronger fashion at that point. This means a lot of OTL Indians are much stronger, and anyone visiting OTL Kentucky or Tennessee would find a thriving civilisation (unlike OTL where the locals abandoned the place and it was used as a hunting ground by various outsiders). The animals brought by the Norse combined with their tools would likely prevent the decline of the Mississippians, and perhaps stimulate them to new heights, especially when they start mining the gold in the Carolinas and Georgia.

At this point, Vinland is likely to be relatively independent, and perhaps can raise up its own king in opposition to any Norwegian or Danish king who would want to control its revenues.
 
This will not occur, since even OTL, Old World diseases decimated the Plains Indians and PNW Indians all throughout the mid and late 19th century. What you'd ideally get is disease wrecking the Mississippians in, say, the 12th century when the Norse make their trading posts there, and instead of the increasing decline they had in the 13th century onward, they rebuild in a stronger fashion at that point. This means a lot of OTL Indians are much stronger, and anyone visiting OTL Kentucky or Tennessee would find a thriving civilisation (unlike OTL where the locals abandoned the place and it was used as a hunting ground by various outsiders). The animals brought by the Norse combined with their tools would likely prevent the decline of the Mississippians, and perhaps stimulate them to new heights, especially when they start mining the gold in the Carolinas and Georgia.
This, on its own, would be a very fascinating TL. I wonder what the minimum number of Norse settlers would be in order to get a plague going, but small enough to allow the indigenous population to recover by the time of the Age of Exploration.
 
Number one problem--why should they? What does Vinland offer which the Vikings can't get elsewhere?
Maybe a group could be exiled for some reasons. The exile does not need to be forced. Historically it is not uncommon that a group chooses to exile themselfes inorder to practice certain traditions.
Whatever disease they'd bring over (distance made transferring epidemics to even Iceland challenging) would do the rest, assuming the Norse didn't destroy the Beothuk first.
Is a outbreak of disease neccesary for Norse colonisation prior to core-Europe beginning with exploration of the Americas?
Newfoundland in the Medieval Warm Period can sustain quite a bit of people comfortably,
The end of the Medieval Warm Period could also serve as a impetus for larger scale colonisation.
 
This, on its own, would be a very fascinating TL. I wonder what the minimum number of Norse settlers would be in order to get a plague going, but small enough to allow the indigenous population to recover by the time of the Age of Exploration.
Apparantly the Norse did not bring plague to the Americas on any of their trips, and if they the epidemic/s had a small localised footprint.
 
It would be interesting to see how a Pagan European+Native dominated North America develops and affects the World History, anyway.

Leif Ericson was a Christian, and Greenlanders were quickly converted and would later be staunch Christians.

This, on its own, would be a very fascinating TL. I wonder what the minimum number of Norse settlers would be in order to get a plague going, but small enough to allow the indigenous population to recover by the time of the Age of Exploration.

Realistically, a plague occurs and burns itself off. The population recovers, yet has little new immunity to later plagues.

Maybe a group could be exiled for some reasons. The exile does not need to be forced. Historically it is not uncommon that a group chooses to exile themselfes inorder to practice certain traditions.
If the tradition is "paganism", they'll end up chased, I guarantee. But later groups would join these exiles. And outside of the Newfoundland Proper, it's unlikely they'd be very successful at establishing much more than a trading post.

Is a outbreak of disease neccesary for Norse colonisation prior to core-Europe beginning with exploration of the Americas?

No, but it helps.

The end of the Medieval Warm Period could also serve as a impetus for larger scale colonisation.

If Vinland is settled, they'd likely head there as much as they would Iceland, in addition to those sticking it out in Greenland. But there aren't many settlers they have to start with.
 
Number one problem--why should they? What does Vinland offer which the Vikings can't get elsewhere?
Straight timber and reliable grain crops. Vikings already in Greenland could get it elsewhere... nearest place is Norway. Which is populated, and overpopulated (or Norse would never have moved to Iceland to begin with). And Newfoundland is much closer to Greenland than Norway is.
This is a common topic here, but any real PoD involves much more complex American Indian societies for them to trade with. Yes, it's about the height of the Mississippian period, but they'd need to go as far south as the Carolinas to actually find natives worth trading with.
Or across Niagara portage.
But successful Vinland isn't hard. The Beothuk natives were no more than a thousand people. Norse on the Avalon Peninsula (the best part of Newfoundland) could drive out the locals entirely from the area and secure the peninsula with some forts.
They built no forts against Saami - let alone to "secure a peninsula". They would not do that in Vinland either.
 
Straight timber and reliable grain crops. Vikings already in Greenland could get it elsewhere... nearest place is Norway. Which is populated, and overpopulated (or Norse would never have moved to Iceland to begin with). And Newfoundland is much closer to Greenland than Norway is.

I was going to ask why they couldn't get grain or timber from the British Isles... but then I checked a map.
 
I was going to ask why they couldn't get grain or timber from the British Isles... but then I checked a map.
From, say, Shetland, Norway is not much further than Caithness. And Norway has somewhat more forest.

So... the Western Settlement of Greenland, at best, was under 1000 souls, over 500 km from Eastern Settlement, past a long coast unfit for Norse settlement and passable only by ship.
Crossing the Labrador Sea in the other direction would not be much longer.

Suppose that before 1050, there are a thousand Norse somewhere in Newfoundland. Growing grain, rearing cattle, sheep and some horses, building ships, smelting iron, exporting grain, iron, timber and timber products like ships to Greenland and Iceland.
And trading with Beothuk, like the Norse in Norway traded with Saami. A small compact settlement of farmers does not take all that much land away from hunter-gatherers. The immediate tiny band holding the spot is outnumbered by far; the wider area bands have little reason to unite. Not only can the farmers afford to fight off the hunter-gatherers - they can also afford to buy them off. Bread, beer, cheese, woollen textiles, iron tools can be traded to Beothuk.

Unlike the Western Settlement of Greenland, Vinland can explore and expand.

What next?
 
Last edited:
Number one problem--why should they? What does Vinland offer which the Vikings can't get elsewhere?
Hmm, the possibility of more land,plenty of fur bearing animals in high quality,large hardwood trees in vast quantity,the beginning of the Little Ice Age that essentially made Greenland uninhabitable for the Agricultural Norse,trade with Mississippians,Mayans and possibly Andeans? Not to mention that it would be a good place for those who don't wish to give up their pagan ways with Christianity growing more and more? There's tons of incentive. It's also good for several Native American civilizations as well,since they get access to Norse livestock and some minor immunity to Old World diseases. Still if the Black Death or Bubonic Plague visits,well we know how that devastated Europe,don't we?
Anyway,the possibility of a surviving Vinland,along with the discovery of the wealth there might bring some interest from the Maritime Republics,Al-Andalus,Holy Roman Empire,or Byzantine Empire among others with the incentive to set up trade. Also,if the Norse or hybrid/Norse expand somehow or another all the way to the Pacific,they could get contact with some far-ranging Polynesians,which could lead to yet another hybrid culture. You could very well see Medieval Native Americans.
 
Last edited:
Suppose that before 1050, there are a thousand Norse somewhere in Newfoundland. Growing grain, rearing cattle, sheep and some horses, building ships, smelting iron, exporting grain, iron, timber and timber products like ships to Greenland and Iceland.
And trading with Beothuk, like the Norse in Norway traded with Saami. A small compact settlement of farmers does not take all that much land away from hunter-gatherers. The immediate tiny band holding the spot is outnumbered by far; the wider area bands have little reason to unite. Not only can the farmers afford to fight off the hunter-gatherers - they can also afford to buy them off. Bread, beer, cheese, woollen textiles, iron tools can be traded to Beothuk.
Is it a good idea to trade cheese with the Beothuk when they lactose intolerant?

Other than that, this is probably the most serious and realistic Norse colonisation scenarios that I have ever seen. You have still got to get say 500 colonists there in the first place. No mean feat. Also, it would be necessary to avoid conflict until the colony is well established,. One on OTL left rather than face hostile natives. There is no reason though why vagaries of chance could not lead to better behaviour by both sides.

Also, it is worth noting that later European colonies were often hit by famine. One early on and a otherwise viable Norse Vinland colony could go to the wall.
 
Is it a good idea to trade cheese with the Beothuk when they lactose intolerant?
Making cheese includes, inter alia, fermenting the lactose away.
Other than that, this is probably the most serious and realistic Norse colonisation scenarios that I have ever seen. You have still got to get say 500 colonists there in the first place. No mean feat. Also, it would be necessary to avoid conflict until the colony is well established,. One on OTL left rather than face hostile natives. There is no reason though why vagaries of chance could not lead to better behaviour by both sides.

Also, it is worth noting that later European colonies were often hit by famine. One early on and a otherwise viable Norse Vinland colony could go to the wall.
Later Europeans came from much warmer parts of Europe. A Frenchman would find Canada an arpent of snow. An Icelander or Greenlander would find Newfoundland nicer and more similar to Norway than Greenland had been.
 
Is it a good idea to trade cheese with the Beothuk when they lactose intolerant?

Other than that, this is probably the most serious and realistic Norse colonisation scenarios that I have ever seen. You have still got to get say 500 colonists there in the first place. No mean feat. Also, it would be necessary to avoid conflict until the colony is well established,. One on OTL left rather than face hostile natives. There is no reason though why vagaries of chance could not lead to better behaviour by both sides.

Also, it is worth noting that later European colonies were often hit by famine. One early on and a otherwise viable Norse Vinland colony could go to the wall.

The numbers could be achieved with, say, Erik' settling voyage not losing half their numbers. With 40-50 people per Knarr (if i'm not mistaken), that's 400-500 people, which would probably grow to maybe 2 or 3 times by the time of Vinland's settling, that could get Greenland a small over population and a greater incentive to move further, especially to a place with a much better climate.

Though that brings the question of when and where will the Norse expand and explore? Though they'd probably already explore the Gulf of St. Lawrence early on, and probably settle the islands quickly too. Considering the size of Newfoundland, is 1100 to long for them to settle it entirely?
 
Apparantly the Norse did not bring plague to the Americas on any of their trips, and if they the epidemic/s had a small localised footprint.

I wonder if that was just luck? I believe smallpox spread to the Americas initially from a relatively tiny amount of European explorers and settlers.

I believe just a handful of Spanish explorers helped decimate much of the original American southwest native populations in the 16th century by carrying the disease with them.
 
A colony next door to the Grand Banks would probably be remarkably resistant to famine.

Spanish explorers originated from large European port cities, which were probably about the most diseased places in the world, and crossed the ocean in the fastest ships of the time. Norsemen took much slower trips and made stops in small and isolated communities.

I'm not sure that larger initial population in Greenland would help. As I understand, Iceland was overpopulated from about the settling of Greenland to the smallpox epidemic in the 13th century, and Icelandic settlers filled Greenland to capacity rather quickly after it was established.
 
Though that brings the question of when and where will the Norse expand and explore? Though they'd probably already explore the Gulf of St. Lawrence early on, and probably settle the islands quickly too. Considering the size of Newfoundland, is 1100 to long for them to settle it entirely?
Newfoundland is bigger than Iceland - and much more habitable.
And much further from Norway than Iceland was.
I suspect that the Norse would settle a few sweet spots far ahead of their other settlements, and only later fill in the mediocre coastlines in between and inland.

One of the early sweet spots I suspect might be Hochelaga.
Can you see why?
 

Lusitania

Donor
While I really think a TL is really interesting I want to make sure people understand About old world diseases.

Note I am ignoring all political and exploration implications since that would be dealt with by TL. This is discord on disease transmission and lack of or ability to resist old word diseases.

scenario 1 - lost contact

Here we have a group of Norse arrive in Newfoundland and survive first contact and eventually grow and expand. Influence native North American natives and so forth. Contact with rest of Norse and rest of Europe is lost and Columbus is first contact again. (Assume no other butterflies cause changes in Europe that affects Columbus trip).

In this scenario there would of been some old world disease spread at time of Norse settlement but as others have stated nothing earth shattering. When Europeans arrive same affects as per iotl in terms of lack of imune to all the diseases the Europeans bring over. This means both Norse and native Americans.

Scenario 2 - continued contact

Here we have continued trade and movement of people between Norse world including Iceland, Greenland and even Norway and rest of Scandinavia to North America. So here is where eventually knowledge spreads to other Northern Europe even Irish and Scottish which by the 14-15th century means rest of Europe also knows about it. No Columbus since we now know there is land to west and not indies. There would of been other countries trade and sailing west to explore way before Columbus.

How much Europeans contact there is will depend on how far the spread of the diseases have reached. We could have the Black Plague visit North America within a generation of its appearance in Europe and a more extensive trade network means it can expand rapidly within the native trade network. Same with other diseases such as small pox, measles. Remember some disease spores such as small pox could survive years in clothing. So say it gets into blanket that is traded it could affect a remote tribe many years later.

So in closing nothing about Norse settlers and settlements will provide Americans with imune ability to resist old world diseases. What you will have is different colonization, exploration and wars that could affect the Americans just as bad or even worse. You might not even have Aztec or Inca empires exist in the 16th century.
 
Last edited:
I wonder if that was just luck? I believe smallpox spread to the Americas initially from a relatively tiny amount of European explorers and settlers.

I believe just a handful of Spanish explorers helped decimate much of the original American southwest native populations in the 16th century by carrying the disease with them.
Or the plagues just burned out in small norse populations before reaching the Americas.
 
Top