Vikings of America

[Lysandros Aikiedes]

2000 to 3000 as i keep saying. About 5% the population of mediaval iceland, i believe.

And there weren't any more subsequent migrations from France or elsewhere to Quebec Province in the next four hundred years that bolstered this initial settler population to its present figures?

As for Iceland's population in the early 11th century, I read that it was between 15-25,000. I won't argue that an initial settler-base of about a thousand, provided its located in a fixed, condensed area such as Avalon, Bonavista or the Great Northern peninsulas, wouldn't be enough to fend-off raids by the nearest native pre-Boethuk or Innu tribe in Newfoundland, but most Godhar wouldn't want their region deprived of its Landsmenn, unless there was a sustained rate of migration from Scandinavia or elsewhere in Europe every few years to make for their loss to the Norse Gothord in North America.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

And there weren't any more subsequent migrations from France or elsewhere to Quebec Province in the next four hundred years that bolstered this initial settler population to its present figures?

As for Iceland's population in the early 11th century, I read that it was between 15-25,000. I won't argue that an initial settler-base of about a thousand, provided its located in a fixed, condensed area such as Avalon, Bonavista or the Great Northern peninsulas, wouldn't be enough to fend-off raids by the nearest native pre-Boethuk or Innu tribe in Newfoundland, but most Godhar wouldn't want their region deprived of its Landsmenn, unless there was a sustained rate of migration from Scandinavia or elsewhere in Europe every few years to make for their loss to the Norse Gothord in North America.

Sure there was a bit of immigration, but nothing compared to the rate of natural increase. Thats even true of the us, from a higher starting figure, until about 1840 or so, but it was far more true of quebec.

I know that iceland was ,,fully settled,, by then. Ive seen figures of 75k, probably later. If iceland was only 25 k then, im not sure where there was room to triple the population. 10% WOULD be a lot to move, ill admit.

Still, younger sons wanting their own land, and often better land than what older brother inherits, would provide a fair impetus.

 

[twovultures]

Maize demands warm summers. There are large areas of Northeast North America where maize is marginal and often fails in poor summers... and where barley, rye and oats, and even wheat when eventually introduced, would be rather more reliable (not to mention diversifying the food base). IMO it is these marginal maize growers who are most likely to adopt new crops... they are likely to be tribes recently moved into new areas and open to changes.

Would wheat be introduced? As I recall, barley and rye were grown in Iceland but not wheat, and going all the way to Scandinavia or the British isles to introduce it would have been quite a schlep in those days.

The new crops could be adopted as principle crops, but it's not an easy thing to switch from milpa to Western agriculture, even in fringe environments. First, these people will have to adopt animal husbandry, to get access to the fertilizer and labor necessary to grow these crops. Then, in order to really grow these cereals efficiently enough to get food security, they will have to adopt the practice of plowing where previously they hoed. Thirdly, they will have to accept harvests which produce much less food relative to work (even if they are more reliable). A switch could happen, but going from a staple of maize to a staple of rye is really tough (and outside of years with bad weather, it's a really shitty dietary change).

 

[altwere]

Why would they switch. I think that they would continue to grow maize and just add the european crops. I can see why they might drop giant ragweed as a crop. but I think that they would continue to grow the three sisters.

 

[Lysandros Aikiedes]

Sure there was a bit of immigration, but nothing compared to the rate of natural increase. Thats even true of the us, from a higher starting figure, until about 1840 or so, but it was far more true of quebec.

I know that iceland was ,,fully settled,, by then. Ive seen figures of 75k, probably later. If iceland was only 25 k then, im not sure where there was room to triple the population. 10% WOULD be a lot to move, ill admit.

Still, younger sons wanting their own land, and often better land than what older brother inherits, would provide a fair impetus.

Would infant mortality rates, and occasional epidemics and crop-failures in the New World not hold back the internal population growth?

Lets not forget here that crop-types in 11th century northern Europe were more limited than what they would be by the 15th century. And unless the American Norse can get to the point of long-distance trade with pre-Colombian central America, maybe even contact with South America and bring back Potatoes, their overall population figures won't be reaching the one million mark by the 15-16th century.

As far as animal-breeding goes, getting enough horses, sheep, cattle, goats and pigs across in the first years of settlement would be crucial to their prosperity.

Continuous trade with Europe via Iceland, which may lead to Iceland becoming more than just a backwater in the estimation of other European states provided the Markland-Vinland Norse can bring back something of interest early on, would be especially vital during the first couple of centuries. A certain cultural homogeneity must be established for the right skill-sets to be fostered in the Norse colony. Developing in complete isolation from Europe may not be to their interests.

 

[Gimple]

Figure Vinland was "discovered" around 1000 ad. The little ice age was in full swing in the 1300s. With only land and lumber and religious freedom (no gold) as incentives, how far south would the Norse settle?

 

[Lysandros Aikiedes]

Figure Vinland was "discovered" around 1000 ad. The little ice age was in full swing in the 1300s. With only land and lumber and religious freedom (no gold) as incentives, how far south would the Norse settle?

Apparently, there's gold and silver in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.

 

[altwere]

they would spread as far south as they could.I would guess about as far south as southern New Jersey on the coast. As for inland, maybe most of New England and southern Quebec. They would also have traveled up the St Lawrence and would be starting to spread or at least Trading throughout the great lakes. Trading would also be happening along the east coast, maybe into the caribbian.

 

[chornedsnorkack]

I know that iceland was ,,fully settled,, by then. Ive seen figures of 75k, probably later. If iceland was only 25 k then, im not sure where there was room to triple the population. 10% WOULD be a lot to move, ill admit.

Still, younger sons wanting their own land, and often better land than what older brother inherits, would provide a fair impetus.

Iceland was "fully settled" by 930, and overpopulated by 976 or so (a famine is recorded then).

When I tried to guestimate plausible population numbers, say:
Quebec French multiplied from 60 000 in 1760 to 6 millions around 1960. 10 times increase per century.

12th century Norse do not have 19th century medicine or agricultural technology. Let´s say their natural increase is merely 4 times per century - doubling in 50 years.

Now, we know that Iceland of 986 had 1000 willing emigrants of the population of perhaps 30 000. 560 settled in Greenland, some others returned, the rest perished in storm. The godis did not prevent their landmenn from moving - whether they did not want, or could not.

In the 14 years that followed, some more shiploads settled in Greenland.

Would it be out of scale for Iceland and Greenland combined to provide 60...80 emigrants to Vinland per year on a sustained basis?

Say the total Norse population of Newfoundland is 2500 by 1050. And then each half century natural increase doubling of the existing population PLUS extra 5000 for the 3000...4000 new immigrants and their natural increase.
That would be:
10 000 by 1100 (2500 natural increase, 5000 new immigrants)
25 000 by 1150 (10 000 natural increase, 5000 new immigrants)
55 000 by 1200 (25 000 natural increase, 5000 new immigrants)
115 000 by 1250 (55 000 natural increase, 5000 new immigrants)

Beyond 1250... What might be the High Medieval population of fully settled Newfoundland? Much warmer and more fertile than Iceland... but High Medieval Norway is bigger, and had about 350 000.

I guess that after 1250, Newfoundland would get fully settled and start to be affected by overpopulation and famines. Population growth would continue in the (already explored and settled by pioneers) Quebec and Maritimes, and emigration from Newfoundland would grow, but since it involves distant trips and adaptation to somewhat different conditions, the growth of Norse population in Vinland would slow down.

But continue in long term throughout High Middle Ages.

 

[altwere]

Keep in mind that things may move somewhat slower as the locals adopt some of the farming and tool package. Another thing to think about is a hop and skip migration. Say when the vikings make it to the great lakes, they have gone beyond the area where their native neighbors are busy adopting Norse farming. Found a trading post which will quickly become the center for a new colony. Keep doning that and the Norse will spread very quickly.

 

[Lysandros Aikiedes]

Given that the mainstay of the emigrants during the first century of settlement would be from Iceland, the Norse would only establish colonies as trading emporiums, far more often than to secure conquests (if it ever gets to that). Plants such as Squash, Pumpkins and Tobacco would be traded for wool, leather and later domesticated animals.

Most inland colonies would likely develop into "Metis" states, while the lands around the St Lawrence Gulf would be more overtly Scandinavian.

 

[chornedsnorkack]

Would wheat be introduced? As I recall, barley and rye were grown in Iceland but not wheat, and going all the way to Scandinavia or the British isles to introduce it would have been quite a schlep in those days.

Which is why I said eventually. At first, the Vinland Norse would be growing barley and rye because this is what they know - even in their southern colonies where maize would do better. But there were many Irish slaves in Iceland, and the first Vinland expedition already included a German who recognized grapes... assuming the Vinlanders keep trading with Greenland and Iceland with occasional (and not so rare - it is Vinlanders who have plenty of ship timber and will be building and owning ships, also to handle some of the transit trade between Iceland, Norway and Ireland) trips all the way to Norway, Ireland and Scotland, it would be quite soon that some Vinland ship to Ireland picks up Irish or Irish-Norse immigrants (slave or fare-paying free) who has experience with wheat and seeds.

The new crops could be adopted as principle crops, but it's not an easy thing to switch from milpa to Western agriculture, even in fringe environments. First, these people will have to adopt animal husbandry, to get access to the fertilizer and labor necessary to grow these crops. Then, in order to really grow these cereals efficiently enough to get food security, they will have to adopt the practice of plowing where previously they hoed.

Not sure about that. Remember, rye and barley can be successfully cultivated by slash and burn - this was routinely done in Northern Sweden, Finland etc. Yes, they had domesticated animals, but I suspect that these plots were mainly fertilized with ash, not manure.

Mind you, adopting domesticated animals might be the next thing Indians do. After the Nordic plant crops.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Why would they switch. I think that they would continue to grow maize and just add the european crops. I can see why they might drop giant ragweed as a crop. but I think that they would continue to grow the three sisters.

Maize doesnt grow that far north that early. Certainly the mound builders on the mississippi were growing maize that early, the evidence for the iroquoians, iroquois and huron, is far less clear. Isolated cobs appear earlier, but pollen doesnt show up until 1300 or so. The micmac in nova scotia werent fully agricultural even in the 1600 s, and the beothuk in newfoundland grew no crops at all.

So for the first peoples they meet, the european crops will be a real advantage.

Even the mississipian mound builders didnt use the three sisters, at least fully, as they suffered from malnutrition caused by excessive reliance on maize.

 

[chornedsnorkack]

Maize doesnt grow that far north that early. Certainly the mound builders on the mississippi were growing maize that early, the evidence for the iroquoians, iroquois and huron, is far less clear. Isolated cobs appear earlier, but pollen doesnt show up until 1300 or so. The micmac in nova scotia werent fully agricultural even in the 1600 s, and the beothuk in newfoundland grew no crops at all.

So for the first peoples they meet, the european crops will be a real advantage.

It would not be easy for pure hunter-gatherers like Beothuk and Mucmac to adopt agriculture from a blank slate. It is simply too drastic a change of lifestyle. A few Indians may move altogether to Norse settlements as slaves, free servants or in-laws, but most would keep hunting and gathering and trade with the Norse - as the Sami of Scandinavia did.

The first adopters would be people who already have agricultural, slash-and-burn lifestyle - but who in their northern lands are newcomers themselves and find their maize unreliable.

Where could the northern border of maize growers be around 1100?

 

[pa_dutch]

There isn't enough discussion of cultural synthesis. The Norse are going to intermarry with the natives, and adopt some of their customs along the way. With the smaller technological gap and less of a population base compared to the later European settlement of North America in our timeline, that's inevitable.

 

[chornedsnorkack]

Given that the mainstay of the emigrants during the first century of settlement would be from Iceland, the Norse would only establish colonies as trading emporiums, far more often than to secure conquests (if it ever gets to that).

Nobody to conquer. Hunter-gatherers are not easy to conquer simply because they have no rulers of their own and are not used to having any. Stateless villages/tribes of farmers resist conquest for the same reasons. It is only where local chiefs already exist (Mississippi culture) that conquests are possible.

The Norse would also establish colonies simply to take land and farm it themselves - as they did in uninhabited Iceland and Greenland. But the Icelanders who go to farm would just go to the immediate vicinity of existing settlements, in Newfoundland and Labrador. Any settlers who consider going beyond would have to sail a longer distance, explore unfamiliar lands, farm in increasingly unfamiliar climate without Norse neighbours for advice and deal with neighbouring Skraelings on their own.

The one reason to create separate settlements beyond the expansion of Newfoundland would be to found trading emporia. But then there needs to be a specific reason to settle down there - not just sail to spot from Newfoundland, trade and go back home.

Plants such as Squash, Pumpkins and Tobacco would be traded for wool, leather and later domesticated animals.

For the Norse, their first and most unique/monopolistic export would be iron tools.

Most inland colonies would likely develop into "Metis" states, while the lands around the St Lawrence Gulf would be more overtly Scandinavian.

Agreed - the trade emporia would be settled by small numbers of Norse traders, of whom some would take Norse women along, but many would marry local squaws from their trade partner families.

 

[Lysandros Aikiedes]

Nobody to conquer. Hunter-gatherers are not easy to conquer simply because they have no rulers of their own and are not used to having any. Stateless villages/tribes of farmers resist conquest for the same reasons. It is only where local chiefs already exist (Mississippi culture) that conquests are possible.

That's certainly true of the east coast Algonquin tribes, but the Iroquois living around the St Lawrence River would by this time be adopting agriculture and living in fixed settlements. In the immediate future, though, the population of the Norse would likely be too small to make any inland military ventures for the purpose of territorial conquest impractical. Their best bet would be to establish territories near the coast and major rivers.

I've been brainstorming with Makemakean for months for the course of events in his Adamantine Age TL. The Norse emigrants to the New World are largely Pagans fleeing from the enforced Christianization process of their homelands. A third wave of such migrants in the middle of the 11th century are mercenaries and exiled Pagan Jarls and their housecarls who, having failed to gain support to retake their domains, first take refuge in a still-Pagan Iceland before following the trend of sailing to the new world and start working together to carve new Jarldoms on the mainland, with the support of the chieftains in Newfoundland who supply them Leidangmenn, horses and cattle. The pattern of settlement, I thought, would mirror what the Vikings did when they colonised Ireland and Russia, who established fortified towns on the river-banks and estuaries.

The Norse would also establish colonies simply to take land and farm it themselves - as they did in uninhabited Iceland and Greenland. But the Icelanders who go to farm would just go to the immediate vicinity of existing settlements, in Newfoundland and Labrador. Any settlers who consider going beyond would have to sail a longer distance, explore unfamiliar lands, farm in increasingly unfamiliar climate without Norse neighbours for advice and deal with neighbouring Skraelings on their own.

The first settlers from Greenland and Iceland would have to occupy defensible areas in Newfoundland, peninsulas such the Great Northern Peninsula, Bonavista, or Avalon. They would have to live in large clusters of villages and farmsteads. The natives of Newfoundland were never very numerous and lived in scattered clans across the island. But if the Norse can for concentrate on one or two regions of the island, then the natives might fear to incur the wrath of an organized group on their heads.

The one reason to create separate settlements beyond the expansion of Newfoundland would be to found trading emporia. But then there needs to be a specific reason to settle down there - not just sail to spot from Newfoundland, trade and go back home.

When they get as far as Montreal Island, they could establish a service station near where the Lachine Rapids are located. They would first have to get on very good terms with the native of that particular place if they want to portage their ships in relative safety. The Iroquois of Montreal may be the one of the first native inland societies to practice animal herding. The same with the Niagara Peninsula.

For the Norse, their first and most unique/monopolistic export would be iron tools.

Certainly, although it would be in their own interests to keep the knowledge of the forging techniques close to their chests.

Agreed - the trade emporia would be settled by small numbers of Norse traders, of whom some would take Norse women along, but many would marry local squaws from their trade partner families.

The sites of Lachine, Niagara, Detroit, Chicago (closeness to the Mississippi River) and Sault Ste Marie (St Mary's river rapids) are the few places I can think of for trading emporia.

 

[chornedsnorkack]

That's certainly true of the east coast Algonquin tribes, but the Iroquois living around the St Lawrence River would by this time be adopting agriculture and living in fixed settlements.

Precisely. Which is why they are a big potential market, and also a potential adopter of Norse crops.

When they get as far as Montreal Island, they could establish a service station near where the Lachine Rapids are located. They would first have to get on very good terms with the native of that particular place if they want to portage their ships in relative safety. The Iroquois of Montreal may be the one of the first native inland societies to practice animal herding. The same with the Niagara Peninsula.

Indeed. Hochelaga Arcipelago is additionably a definable territory. (Not defensible. The Norse can never afford enough men to defend every point on riverbanks against a determined landing from canoes. But the Indians found on the island cannot just pretend to have got lost chasing game - they will have known they were trespassing).

Certainly, although it would be in their own interests to keep the knowledge of the forging techniques close to their chests.

Plus, setting up a smithy for iron, tools and skills, is a major investment. Indians will not easily undertake it if trade with Norse is available nearby.

The sites of Lachine, Niagara, Detroit, Chicago (closeness to the Mississippi River) and Sault Ste Marie (St Mary's river rapids) are the few places I can think of for trading emporia.

I would omit Detroit from the list (Detroit and St. Clair river are reasonably passable without portage) but add Galop Island or nearby Thousand Islands at the head of St. Lawrence rapids.

Another trade good that Norse have and Indians lack is woven cloth. Eastern North America had animal skins and bark cloth, but apparently not woven cloth. Central America and Pueblos grew cotton and wove, but these were apparently absent in East... woven woollen textiles being lighter than skins and stronger and finer than bark cloth, would have a market with Indians.

What could be a useful trade emporium on Atlantic coast? My guess was Aquidneck.

 

[Lysandros Aikiedes]

I would omit Detroit from the list (Detroit and St. Clair river are reasonably passable without portage) but add Galop Island or nearby Thousand Islands at the head of St. Lawrence rapids.

Another trade good that Norse have and Indians lack is woven cloth. Eastern North America had animal skins and bark cloth, but apparently not woven cloth. Central America and Pueblos grew cotton and wove, but these were apparently absent in East... woven woollen textiles being lighter than skins and stronger and finer than bark cloth, would have a market with Indians.

What could be a useful trade emporium on Atlantic coast? My guess was Aquidneck.

At the very least, places like Detroit would just exist to give shelter for Norse sailors and as a market for local Iroquois and Ojibwa tribes.

Makemakean suggested a Norse settlement at Northeastern Manitoulin and the Islands. Manitoulin was apparently a cultural-centre in pre-Colombian times and the Ojibwa are known to have mined copper, cultivated rice and were an all-round commercial force in the Great Lakes.

As for East Coast settlements, I think Manhattan Island would be one such place. I reckon that it would be and emporium for both the Vinland-Markland Norse and some ATL version of the Hanseatic League would later get in on the act. Rather than settling the east coast en masse, the Alt-Hansas would tap in to the maritime trade routes and map the coastline.

I would love it that the Norse could find the way to South America and bring the Potato back with them between 1200-1300's. That would give them a population boost before the European states start creating colonies.

 

[chornedsnorkack]

At the very least, places like Detroit would just exist to give shelter for Norse sailors and as a market for local Iroquois and Ojibwa tribes.

They do not need permanent settlements for it! After they have crossed the Niagara portage to Grass Island Pool and Grand Island and built sailing ships for Upper Great Lakes, they can sail all across Erie, Huron and Michigan, stop briefly for trade in each Iroquois or Ojibwa village , sheltered bay and rivermouth... and then sail back or onwards.

Makemakean suggested a Norse settlement at Northeastern Manitoulin and the Islands. Manitoulin was apparently a cultural-centre in pre-Colombian times and the Ojibwa are known to have mined copper, cultivated rice and were an all-round commercial force in the Great Lakes.

And St. Mary Rapids are relatively nearby. What the Norse need to settle is the portage - to new ships built to sail Lake Superior.

As for East Coast settlements, I think Manhattan Island would be one such place. I reckon that it would be and emporium for both the Vinland-Markland Norse and some ATL version of the Hanseatic League would later get in on the act. Rather than settling the east coast en masse, the Alt-Hansas would tap in to the maritime trade routes and map the coastline.

Why Manhattan Island of all East Coast islands?