You would need there to be something in Labrador that the Norse couldn't get elsewhere.

Vinland failed not because of Native attacks but because it wasn't economically viable

That's why I brought up a more difficult christianization of scandinavia. What you need is the impetus to make Vinland, Iceland 2.0. A place for dissatisfied people to flee to for the promise of basically free land.
 
Possibly. However, the European populations were populations at their demographic limit, or close to it, with upward growth severely curtailed. Population growth of full countries if you will. The Vinland population would be far below their demographic limit and free to grow.

I believe the European middle ages populations had a number of severe population limiters that just would not apply to the Vinlanders. Disease, military conflict and above all, food scarcity..

(a)
Local diseases killed many Europeans. Large numbers of Europeans settlers died when they arrived in the Americas because they could not adapt to the local conditions.

Military conflict, I would imagine the Viking would be killing each other. In any case, I doubt military conflict killed much in the population even in Europe.

Food scarcity was a problem in the early American settlements and it will be until it gets going.

As for intermarrying native girls, you'd need that to happen almost instantly to have any impact. The exponentially growing Vinland population would outnumber the hunter-gatherers in short order. Only when you encounter the agriculturalist natives further inland will they have the numbers to be relevant.
.

A community of half breeds would adapt much better. see (a) above.
 

SwampTiger

Banned
That's why I brought up a more difficult christianization of scandinavia. What you need is the impetus to make Vinland, Iceland 2.0. A place for dissatisfied people to flee to for the promise of basically free land.

Read all the posts before co-opting the ideas of others. See posts #14-#19.
 
Perhaps if St. Olav is butterflied the christianization of Norway goes rougher, leading to larger possible immigrant pool.

Honestly trade with Europe seems like a nonstarter. What you need is simply to get enough norse to Vinland that they can survive on their own.
Perhaps if St. Olav is butterflied the christianization of Norway goes rougher, leading to larger possible immigrant pool.

Honestly trade with Europe seems like a nonstarter. What you need is simply to get enough norse to Vinland that they can survive on their own.

I'm sorry but I didn't see your post, this is what I was referring to.
 
(a)
Local diseases killed many Europeans. Large numbers of Europeans settlers died when they arrived in the Americas because they could not adapt to the local conditions.

In this case, Europeans =/= Norse. The Europeans in question originated from the UK, in some cases from cities with limited farming and craft skills. And managed to end up resorting to cannibalism during one of the milder winters. Also, the Spanish who arrived in a climate totally different from their usual one.

The Norse came from a nearly identical climate, one which had been more intensively exploited for thousands of years. I.e the animals had adapted to Norse hunting methods, the best land was already claimed etc.

Furthermore, the Norse were people whose parents, grandparents etc had settled Iceland, a poorer and less welcoming environment. So they had very recent colonization experience not just in their cultural memory, but in some case in the immediate family.

It is rather telling how matter-of-fact and successfully they settled on and adapted to Greenland, a far more hostile place and much further outside their climate coping toolkit than Vinland. Imagine the pilgrims etc from Britain landing in Greenland, how would that have gone? The difference between the Norse climate coping skills and the Europeans were probably similar to the difference in skiing skills between UK soldiers and Scandinavian ones that we enjoy every time there is a NATO maneuver:)

Military conflict, I would imagine the Viking would be killing each other. In any case, I doubt military conflict killed much in the population even in Europe.

Probably true, outside of certain periods. But I imagine the ability to just move away would limit intercine violence a bit.

Food scarcity was a problem in the early American settlements and it will be until it gets going.

As I said, very different skill groups there. If you come from a place climatically similar to Vinland but slightly worse, with the cultural toolkit to have no starvation issue when settling Greenland, a more similar but richer environment than your origin area should not be a problem

A community of half breeds would adapt much better. see (a) above.

Yeah, no. The reason the agriculturalists had such a massive advantage in population density is that they were better at resource extraction and production. The Inuit had a lot of skills they could have taught the Norse. The agriculturalist Three Sisters complex inland had a lot of thing to add. This is where we could potentially get hybrid societies.

The Newfoundlander natives hit their demographic limit at around 750-1500 people over an area bigger than Iceland. The Norse had bigger towns in similar climates. There is nothing unusual about this, its the normal agriculturalist vs. Hunter-Gatherer story. The twist is that the Agriculturalists have many bonus advantages here.

Also: The population of Newfoundland at the time of Erik the Red was about 750 people. At a normal population distribution, how many were females who could pair up? 1/10th maybe? So 75 women. Erik the Red probably set out with about a 1000 people. Mostly young, I expect. And that is the best point for the natives, population growth will not do them any favors from there on. Unless we are postulating some kind of severe population bottleneck, like a single wrecked ship, the natives, as hunter-gatherers don't have the numbers.

You would need there to be something in Labrador that the Norse couldn't get elsewhere.

Vinland failed not because of Native attacks but because it wasn't economically viable

Free fertile land. That is why I said that the windows were before the investment in settlement of Greenland, and probably just as Greenland were failing. Once they had an effectively infinite supply of lower-grade land in Greenalnd, that ceased to be a draw.
 

SwampTiger

Banned
First to Notsure, sorry for the snarky grump.

Second, an update on bees. Much of Newfoundland is marginal for domesticated bees. Oslofjord was the northernmost regular apiary area in Norway at the time. The issue isn't only temperature, but starvation from the time between the last honey production in the fall and the first production in spring due to low temperatures. The bees need a basic minimum of honey to survive through the winter. Norse colonists would use Nordic Brown Bees, which produce less honey than modern bees. The lower output means that mead, though mentioned often in Icelandic and Greenland sagas, is extremely rare, if not non-existent outside of Scandinavian.

Third, grain production in eastern Vinland would be poor. Southwestern Vinland has slightly warmer, sunnier summers and better soils.

Fourth, population pressure, political and religious strife, and wanderlust would provide settlers in the 900-1100 CE period. Greenland need not be depopulated. I would expect the majority of the Western Settlement area would relocate. However, the Eastern Settlement would have a source for wood, iron and grain to assist in survival.

Fifth, I really have difficulty understanding the abandonment of the Vinland colonization attempts ITTL due to native aggression. Inuit attacks in Greenland did not lead to rapid abandonment of settlements in Greenland until four centuries later.
 
Second, an update on bees. Much of Newfoundland is marginal for domesticated bees. Oslofjord was the northernmost regular apiary area in Norway at the time. The issue isn't only temperature, but starvation from the time between the last honey production in the fall and the first production in spring due to low temperatures. The bees need a basic minimum of honey to survive through the winter. Norse colonists would use Nordic Brown Bees, which produce less honey than modern bees. The lower output means that mead, though mentioned often in Icelandic and Greenland sagas, is extremely rare, if not non-existent outside of Scandinavian..

Mead is widely drunk outside of Scandinavian countries too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mead

And the Nordic Brown Bee was a very popular source of honey until modern selective breeds of bees were produced.

Third, grain production in eastern Vinland would be poor. Southwestern Vinland has slightly warmer, sunnier summers and better soils.

Everything is relative, it would be better then Greenland or Iceland.

.....
Fifth, I really have difficulty understanding the abandonment of the Vinland colonization attempts ITTL due to native aggression. Inuit attacks in Greenland did not lead to rapid abandonment of settlements in Greenland until four centuries later.

The most popular theory among historians is that it was too far away and the feeder area for the colony, Greenland was too small and marginal to provide the manpower to settle and maintain such a splinter colony so far away.
 

SwampTiger

Banned
Mead is widely drunk outside of Scandinavian countries too.

Sorry, failed to proofread. I meant the mainland, as opposed to Iceland/Greenland. Note that bee-keeping was practiced in an older cultural context. Wild hives were located and marked as personal property for harvesting. Occasionally, the entire hive with a portion of the tree trunk would be removed closer to the farmstead. Brown bees produce less honey than other honey bee sub-species. The relative paucity of honey in the homeland results in minimal honey for Iceland, and none for Greenland. Honey was a valuable commodity in Norway, Denmark and Sweden. It was a regular import for the wealthy in areas without sufficient bee hives. You try keeping a hundred hirdsmen in drink.

Mead is widely drunk outside of Scandinavian countries too.

The most popular theory among historians is that it was too far away and the feeder area for the colony, Greenland was too small and marginal to provide the manpower to settle and maintain such a splinter colony so far away.

My point is the relative ease in which the natives drove out the colonists. Thorfinn Karlsefni brought 60 men and 5 women. Surely enough to build and defend a fortified village. Freydis EiriksDotter brought about 100 men and 5 women. She and her allies in the group killed over half the party, including the women. This would be an interesting point of departure. Leif Eirikson also lost two brothers due to expeditions to Vinland. Only one died for native attack. Several of the colonists came from Iceland or further. I just don't accept simple native threats.

Greenland was not self-sufficient in wood, iron and some foodstuffs. It survived on meat, fish and seals. Ivory, exotic furs and animals were traded for the items they could not produce. Yet, it carried on with minimal contact with the mainland for centuries. Once you get several hundred settlers on Vinland, you can be self-sufficient in a way Greenland never could. In desperate times, Vinland would be able to support Greenland.
 

The relative paucity of honey in the homeland results in minimal honey for Iceland, and none for Greenland. Honey was a valuable commodity in Norway, Denmark and Sweden.

So the bees are going to come from quite a distance away.


Leif Eirikson also lost two brothers due to expeditions to Vinland. ... Once you get several hundred settlers on Vinland,

In other words, you need a leader more powerful then Erikson.


you can be self-sufficient in a way Greenland never could. In desperate times, Vinland would be able to support Greenland.

Greenland is not be much of a market!
 

SwampTiger

Banned
So the bees are going to come from quite a distance away.

In other words, you need a leader more powerful then Erikson.

Greenland is not be much of a market!

Agreed on these issues. The value of Vinland is in keeping a supply line for Greenland, allowing its survival. The primary markets for Vinland would be the surrounding natives and Europe. The development of better, larger capacity ships for Atlantic conditions would allow direct sailing to Ireland, England and France.

Note that should Vinland develop a better trade route to Europe, it bypasses Norway and the later Hanseatic monopoly. Greenland ivory, falcons and furs, and possibly whale oil, would be useful trade items.
 
Last edited:
On the issue of Norse versus natives, I think the problem was that the Norse had no idea how few the natives were, but knew well how few they themselves were. In other words, they were estimating native power based on agricultural populations like their own, or at best pastoralists like the Saami.

So their estimation of the situation was that given their own numbers, it was not survivable.

Add on the fact that there was basically infinite free land in Greenland, and Vinland did not look like an attractive option.
 

SwampTiger

Banned
The Norse knew the limits of Greenland early in colonization. Leif Ericson's attempted colonization of Vinland is proof of the need for arable agricultural lands. Settlers arriving in Iceland or Greenland after 1050 CE needed to buy land from the previous settlers or accept marginal lands. Grain production was extremely limited in Iceland. Thus, the premise of a Vinland or more southern colony would be a large force emigrating from the Norse homeland. It would be forced to seek land south of Greenland.
 
In other words, you need a leader more powerful then Erikson.

I've postulated before that Harald Hardrada was interested in a route to the eastern markets before. If his death can be butterflied, a Norwegian attempt at a northwest passage could be in the cards post 1066.
 

SwampTiger

Banned
Unless Harald is willing to personally lead the expedition, I can't see an 11th century Northwestern passage to China succeeding. You are looking at generally westerly winds. Moderate to heavy ice floes during much of your trip. Frozen sea during around 1/4 to 1/3 of the year. Your one way voyage would take several years if leaving from Greenland.

Going northeastward, your passage may be faster. However, no one has gone before you. You have no idea how long it will take. You cannot carry enough supplies for the trip. The expedition must rely on fish and sea mammals to survive. Once completed, you now will try to retrace your steps against the wind.

Positively, once you discover a circumpolar route, you can complete it in three or four years, at great hardship and cost each time.

Leif Erikson was a large minnow in a puddle. Many disgruntled nobles/rich landholders were displaced/exiled/killed during the unification and Christianization of Norway. A constant flow of Norse passed into the Isles, Ireland, Scotland and England during the period. Many settled in Iceland. There are many bigger fish out there. Hardrada was interested in lands closer to home.
 
I'm thinking all you'd need was one determined push. Once they realize how few the natives are, and there is an established presence, the kin of those people will find immigrating much more attractive.

It may not be as attractive as Ireland, the Kingdom of the Isles etc, but free good land is a draw, and you'd only need to siphon off a fraction of the population streams.

Another possibility is something that makes Vinlands remoteness a draw in itself. I started a TL once where Ogedei Khan lived longer and the Mongol invasion of Europe was a bloody affair leading to a bit of a millennial frenzy in Scandinavia.

Norways history around the year 1000 is full of chieftains, Jarls and Kings having to flee. You'd need on the to have made himself exceptionally unpopular, with both Russia and the more southerly climes filled with enemies, but some of them were very talented at being unpopular.

Another solution is for Erik the Red to miss Greenland altogether, or be driven off course when leaving Greenland and hitting Vinland.

Thing is, Vinland was far away at the end of a dangerous journey, with hostile natives and no kin there. Some reason for not going south, east, or to Greenland is needed. But I think you'd only need one determined push to start it snowballing.
 
Another possibility is something that makes Vinlands remoteness a draw in itself.

Thing is, Vinland was far away at the end of a dangerous journey, with hostile natives and no kin there. Some reason for not going south, east, or to Greenland is needed. But I think you'd only need one determined push to start it snowballing.


The most obvious and the most easily possible is to make Christianization more contentious and somewhat delayed. The most obvious way to do this is to butterfly Olaf Tryggvason and perhaps Lief Ericsson with him. You could delay Christianization anywhere from 20 to 100 years.

An Iceland that is getting timber from pagan Vinland can't be blackmailed by a Norwegian King and Vinland makes it possible for a large percent of the Icelandic population to get on a boat and head west once an army is enroute. By that I mean 40-50 percent. Add some Norwegian and Islander refugees who can't go home again and you have some motivated colonists.
 
I'm thinking all you'd need was one determined push. Once they realize how few the natives are, and there is an established presence, the kin of those people will find immigrating much more attractive.

It may not be as attractive as Ireland, the Kingdom of the Isles etc, but free good land is a draw, and you'd only need to siphon off a fraction of the population streams.

Another possibility is something that makes Vinlands remoteness a draw in itself. I started a TL once where Ogedei Khan lived longer and the Mongol invasion of Europe was a bloody affair leading to a bit of a millennial frenzy in Scandinavia.

Norways history around the year 1000 is full of chieftains, Jarls and Kings having to flee. You'd need on the to have made himself exceptionally unpopular, with both Russia and the more southerly climes filled with enemies, but some of them were very talented at being unpopular.

Another solution is for Erik the Red to miss Greenland altogether, or be driven off course when leaving Greenland and hitting Vinland.

Thing is, Vinland was far away at the end of a dangerous journey, with hostile natives and no kin there. Some reason for not going south, east, or to Greenland is needed. But I think you'd only need one determined push to start it snowballing.

Snorri tell a myth about a planned Danish invasion of Iceland under king Harald Bluetooth, while this likely have little connection to reality, let’s say that he did invade Iceland, the results would likely be many Icelanders seeking new land away from Danish rule.
 
Top