WI Newfoundland was uninhabited when the Norse landed?

I've only started skimming it, but it looks a bit... strange? Blood groups? The intersection between the accuracy of Icelandic family sagas and genetic analysis is basically an industry. Learned about Iceland from Irish monks?

I can answer you last question. There has long been speculation about early medieval Irish voyages to the New World due to stories like 'the voayges of St. Brendan', etc. The Irish monks (including St. Brendan) liked to find small islands to live on as a hermit, isolated from the rest od humanity. It is clear feom the archealogical record that theae monks made ir at least as far as iceland (which was unihabited at the time), and so historians suggest tbat the parts of ths voyages of St..Brendan which we thjnk are about the New World are actually about Iceland.

So, yes, Irish monks were amongst the first people to visit Iceland.
 
I can answer you last question. There has long been speculation about early medieval Irish voyages to the New World due to stories like 'the voayges of St. Brendan', etc. The Irish monks (including St. Brendan) liked to find small islands to live on as a hermit, isolated from the rest od humanity. It is clear feom the archealogical record that theae monks made ir at least as far as iceland (which was unihabited at the time), and so historians suggest tbat the parts of ths voyages of St..Brendan which we thjnk are about the New World are actually about Iceland.

So, yes, Irish monks were amongst the first people to visit Iceland.

Yes, there are archaeological evidence of this. What I was a bit more sceptical of was the statement that the Norse learned of Iceland from Irish monks. We have good historical records of the discovery of Iceland which does not mention this. While I would be unsurprised if new records came to light revealing this, until then it is basically fan fiction. Given that the Norse were sailing between Norway, the Faerøys and Shetland, and in general is considered to have had a far better navigational and sailing package than the Irish, an independent discovery does not seem to require casting around for alternate explanations.
 
I also think many are overestimating Newfoundland's fertility. Much of the soil isn't too suited for agriculture, and it is mostly in the southern parts which would be a more difficult journey for the Norse.

It isn't suited for modern agriculture, but Medieval Europeans were using all sorts of suboptimal land to eke out a living, it would actually look a lot like Norway. Once they're established things are fairly straightforward.
 
I've only started skimming it, but it looks a bit... strange? Blood groups? The intersection between the accuracy of Icelandic family sagas and genetic analysis is basically an industry. Learned about Iceland from Irish monks? Again, what?



Difficult compared to what? Were ships not lost on the trip from Norway to Iceland, or from Spain to Newfoundland? This wasn't a time when things like voyages were safe. We do know that multiple trips were made and that the local experts did not consider them dangerous enough to mention the trip as unusually dangerous. And they were scouting out the areas for permanent settlements, but left because there was armed resistance. (And they had massive amounts of land in Greenland that were less good but without natives)

Except that-as I already pointed out-there were no natives around the Newfoundland settlement so there was no armed resistance there. The article also points out that the settlement at Newfoundland wasn't meant to be a permanent colony.

To be honest, all that does is shortcut straight to the "Norse Exiles" route, or any sort of exiles.

Or alternatively, Vikings aren't as successful in N.Europe. If N.Europe is somehow more successful in holding off the Norse (perhaps a stronger Northumbria TL?) then the Norse period of English history is butterflied away, and those energies may instead to go to North America, leading to vastly more settlement rather than conquest.

Alternatively, you have the whole thing push further, rather than large-scale colonisation, have any Vinland settlement be "Its alright", but little more than a port in a storm. A meadery, etc. Somewhere to stop whilst travelling further south, to where there are people to trade with, and furs, etc. It isn't a cheap route, but suddenly you have people for Vinland to trade with, and form the "Vinland Route" up and around the North Atlantic.

I.e. You need an Exploratory Leifson - someone that goes just that bit further. It is a perfect place for anyone wanting to flee any continental wars, or avoid conscription. Far enough away that any monarch wouldn't waste the money on it.

So .. after that brain dump

1) Exploratory Leifson, creates small trading post.
2) Local Trade Loop
3) Penal Colony/Exiles Colony/Runaways Colony.

None of those reasons work.The Newfoundland settlement was already meant to be a trading post that granted access to Vinland resources. It wasn't enough to justify staying. The resources of Vinland weren't enough to justify the cost of traveling there. There's also no reason for exiles to got to Vinland when Europe is far more attractive. Vinland is absolutely not the perfect place for people wanting to flee wars. Europe is-again-far more attractive and filled with opportunity while Vinland is at the farthest periphery of civilization. At least Greenland had valuable walrus products.

The central problem of Vinland is that there's just no reason to go there when Europe is far more attractive and has everything already. The "energies" of the Norse will always be oriented to Europe because that's where all the important stuff is.
 
Last edited:
I agree that Vinland is never going to be a refugee colony or anything.

However, if Scandinavian internal politics had been just a bit more volatile, and Europe/England been a bit tougher of a nut, there's the possibility of a few Jarls taking expeditions farther afield, not the least of which is to actually get out from under Monarchal rule. I mean, you might technically be a vassal of the King in Vinland....but he sure as heck isn't coming out there in force to change your mind on anything. You're effectively on your own.

I think the issue we run into is a combination of the Norse propensity for dealing with conflict rather decisively, which hurts them diplomatically with the natives. If they manage to meet a tribe that's impressed by their advances and is small enough to pose no legitimate threat, AND they manage to keep things diplomatic for at least the first century with said tribe (though maybe fighting rival tribes as an ally), then there's a reasonable chance that they get enough population on hand to make a going colony. Actually allying themselves with a native tribe, while requiring a bit of a suspension of disbelief all things considered, would be really useful for the Norse. They get some guaranteed borders at least in one area, they get trade, especially in trade goods and foodstuffs in exchange for metalworking and such. They also get access to knowledge about navigation in the local area. The Norse real advantage is Naval, something that the locals just don't do very well.

The 400 person colony size works for something like Iceland, which has for practical purposes no native population to compete with. I think that Vinland needs 1000 population to tip over that scale into being a 'sustainable colony'. I'm basing this on about 10 percent of a population being practical for military purposes, with 25 percent in time of great emergency. I think that to deal with native troubles and keep secure, the Vinland colonists would need a standing force of around 100 under the Jarl, and anticipating that another 150 or so of the colonists would be able to grab spear and shield and give a decent accounting of themselves. With the Vinlanders having a technological edge, that should be enough to protect the colony, and maybe prosecute some proxy wars and such with an allied native tribe.

What I see in 200 years, or about the time of the Little Ice Age, in this 'ideal scenario' Vinland is the following:

Alliance with one native tribe, maybe occasional proxy wars and such where the Vinlander shield wall is known as a bit of an 'elite force' in land combat and the Vinlanders and their natives really become a local Naval power using the availability of lumber to build a good number of ships in the area, and with no real competition from the canoe oriented natives.

Multiple palisaded settlements along a river or the coast, probably 1 major settlement with 3 smaller ones or so. Local focus is on forestry and fishing, with agriculture and herding a smaller concern that'll take another couple of hard centuries to build up, probably herds before farming with the Little Ice Age getting involved.

Trade with Norway through Greenland/Iceland, with some additional colonists making the journey, but we're talking a trickle of a ship every couple or three years with maybe a couple of families tops, probably more likely individuals and traders. With Norse decline, this might bump up a bit as there's room for expansion and while Europe might have everything, room and land is a problem.

There will be native troubles by this point, but with a relatively well established colony and a native ally of several generations, the Vinlanders might be able to really lock down their territory and even bring the European style of war to the hostile tribe, crushing it in decisive riverine raids using their supremacy on the water and destroying villages. Defensively the Vinlanders would have the advantage of European knowledge of defensive works, and the pre-planning of good palisades and such.

A threat moving into the 1300s IMHO to this theoretical super-colony would be that the King would want to assert control. I'd see Vinland as developing its own identity and not wanting to be considered a vassal state. And with their distance from Norway or Denmark, it's likely that they could maintain their de facto independence, as an invasion fleet to re-establish royal authority would have one heck of a long voyage.

By the time that the Spanish are looking down South, there's already an established 'country' in the new world. Small, but established, with its own structures in place. I see by the mid 1500s a nation of Vinland with a population of 5000 or so, and then with the age of Exploration and colonization coming about, and the Reformation and such causing various groups to Exodus from Europe, AND naval advancements allowing for better and safer voyages, Vinland gets a new influx of various northern european settlers and by the time of the serious English Colonies in the 1620s or so you have a nation of Vinland with around 10-15k population running along the coast from Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island to Newfoundland.
 
I agree that Vinland is never going to be a refugee colony or anything.

However, if Scandinavian internal politics had been just a bit more volatile, and Europe/England been a bit tougher of a nut, there's the possibility of a few Jarls taking expeditions farther afield, not the least of which is to actually get out from under Monarchal rule. I mean, you might technically be a vassal of the King in Vinland....but he sure as heck isn't coming out there in force to change your mind on anything. You're effectively on your own.
<snip>

There are already plenty of places in Europe where people can go to escape monarchical rule. Russia for example. As I've pointed out, Europe is already far more favorable than peripheral Vinland.

Furthermore, as I've pointed out before, there were already no natives in Newfoundland.
 
The central problem of Vinland is that there's just no reason to go there when Europe is far more attractive and has everything already. The "energies" of the Norse will always be oriented to Europe because that's where all the important stuff is.
It's also probably worth mentioning that the only viable West European settlement in North America (excluding Greenland) was after 1600 despite state support.
I suspect due to decrease in shipping costs, higher number of settlers due to religious issues, and reduced native competition.
 
A Vinland colony wouldn't have much of anything to trade with Europe. Both Iceland and Greenland still needed to trade with Europe for things like iron, gold, silver, flour, etc. Yes, they produced barley and some basic stuff on their own, but even the society of 1000-1200 aren't able to survive on the necessities. They need developed goods. Greenland was able to buy this stuff through walrus ivory, which was very valuable as Muslim North Africa cut off the supply of African elephant ivory. Some give just as much credit to Portugal reigniting this trade that Greenland lost much of its economic viability, alongside the Little Ice Age beginning. Even then, this reliance of trade with Europe for certain types of goods is partly why Norway was able to annex Iceland and Greenland once it had a king who wished to. That's how reliant they were on Europe.

Vinland would not have anything to maintain economic viability. Walnuts and grapes are available in Europe, and don't require crossing the Atlantic to receive. Without something to make it economically viable for a Vinland colony to trade with Europe for goods they couldn't produce locally, either the inhabitants return to areas where it is possible or they lower their lifestyle and society to the level they can maintain independently. That would mean they'd basically be forced to adopt the general living standard of the natives with some iron working from whatever they could find locally. Neither Greenland nor Iceland were entirely self-sufficient. Vinland wouldn't be either, unless they vastly lowered their living standard, and would have an even more difficult, if not impossible, time trading with Europe for what they lacked than Greenland.
 
They could get ivory from up north, and they have fur,s no? Iceland got by trading wool, which Europe also had...
 
I fail to see why the Norse wouldn't colonise Vinland if it was uninhabited. The Sagas never hid the fact, that hostile natives was the reason the Norse decided to not colonise Vinland. As for "hostile" climate, this was people who harvested oats on Greenland, and who decided to call Newfoundland for "Wine Land", do it seem to you people that it was a people who found the climate hostile?
 
The problem people are struggling with, @Jurgen, is that the Norse didn't settle Newfoundland even though it wasn't heavily populated in OTL. So what changes?
 
The problem people are struggling with, @Jurgen, is that the Norse didn't settle Newfoundland even though it wasn't heavily populated in OTL. So what changes?
Yeah
The things to consider when setting up a colony are the same as businesses:
  • Set up costs
  • Maintenance costs
  • Profit
  • Growth
If the latter 2 (or just the 3rd alone) don't outweigh the former 2 soon enough then investment and then viability will be low.
 
The problem people are struggling with, @Jurgen, is that the Norse didn't settle Newfoundland even though it wasn't heavily populated in OTL. So what changes?

The difference was that they never knew it wasn't more heavily settled. If they had avoiuded the conflict in OTL they had likely stayed long enough to discover how thinly populated it was. But when they found a fertile (by their standards) land with humans in it, they expected it to be as heavily settled as similar areas at home.

So when there lack people, they will simply treat it as a better version of Greenland. Yes the first settlers will be a few families, but they will likely receive a few people from Greenland and Iceland, people who lack land, people who have been banished etc. Erik the Red only settled Greenland because he killed a guy on Iceland (and his father only settled on Iceland because he murdered a guy in Norway).

Also Faeelin without the "¨" above the "u" I don't see the "@jurgen".
 
This made sense when Vinland was a one off colonization. But we've found what, three Norse sites in Newfoundland? None of these guys realized the region was underpopulated?
 
Was there a direct route TO Vinland or did it go VIA Greenland?
Might help explain why semi permanent outpost at Vinland but not permanent settlement. Everyone got off at Greenland and stayed there.
 
The difference was that they never knew it wasn't more heavily settled. If they had avoiuded the conflict in OTL they had likely stayed long enough to discover how thinly populated it was. But when they found a fertile (by their standards) land with humans in it, they expected it to be as heavily settled as similar areas at home.

So when there lack people, they will simply treat it as a better version of Greenland. Yes the first settlers will be a few families, but they will likely receive a few people from Greenland and Iceland, people who lack land, people who have been banished etc. Erik the Red only settled Greenland because he killed a guy on Iceland (and his father only settled on Iceland because he murdered a guy in Norway).

Also Faeelin without the "¨" above the "u" I don't see the "@jurgen".

It worries me that we're relying on murderers to do this stuff. Vinland might be a pleasant land, but with some... hard people.

This made sense when Vinland was a one off colonization. But we've found what, three Norse sites in Newfoundland? None of these guys realized the region was underpopulated?

Well, they settled "Good" locations, so it would make sense they'd see a number of visitors. Plus, describe how you'd understand the concept of "underpopulated", when the reality is you just want space to farm? I'm not sure collective security went much beyond "Are we alive? Good".

Was there a direct route TO Vinland or did it go VIA Greenland?
Might help explain why semi permanent outpost at Vinland but not permanent settlement. Everyone got off at Greenland and stayed there.

I'm pretty sure it had to go via Greenland. Vinland would have to be dependent on Greenland because distance.

However, that has given me a thought - Vinland is easier to farm than Iceland and Greenland yes? Could that be how it becomes viable in the long term? What inter-colony trade is there. So far the focus has been on "What can Vinland give Europe", but those three colonies are much more interdependent and important to each other.

It is a bad joke to suggest Wine? I know Iceland has some wine (surprises for days), but Wine for Greenland? Food? Bulk goods aren't ideal, but the three together could build a functional trade network I reckon, perhaps one reliant on Britain as much as Norway/Scandinavia.
 
I'm curious as to what they grew in Greenland... it's widely known that they grazed livestock there, but were they able to grow any kind of grain there in that warm spell? If not, there's something that Vinland could trade...
 
This made sense when Vinland was a one off colonization. But we've found what, three Norse sites in Newfoundland? None of these guys realized the region was underpopulated?

It's harder to find out a area have a low population if you don't establish a permanent presence and honestly the sagas about the Vinland settlements are so embarassing, that I tend to think they're true. It's pretty much; "we found this rich and fertile land, but the natives was hostile, and our men fled from them, only for our women to murder them and call us cowards and embarassments to our families, so we decided to leave with our tails between our legs". That doesn't seem to be something you write unless it mostly true.
 
Top