Expansion of various aspescts of successful Vinland

If a Vinland settlement was successfully established, how long would it take for various cultural elements to disperse?
a) domestication of animals- pigs cows , chickens. sheep, goats, horses.
b) cereal farming- barley, wheat
c) ironworking/metalworking
d) literacy
e) shipbuilding
f) architecture/other
Assumptions- Vinland only has contact with Scandinavia for a couple of hundred years; contact/trading with Basque and other fishermen c. 1250- 1350 on; no direct contact with other Europeans until at least 1400.
 
On the American side, I'm assuming a Vinland that doesn't expand much beyond the Atlantic coast and doesn't go past Florida or Cuba:

a)I imagine more than 2 centuries to to expand beyond the Mississippi. Horses did not expand much faster in the Bronze Age.
b)Would they really compete with local crops enough to instigate a rapid spread?
c)Even slower, I don't think it would go much beyond the Atlantic or Great Lake region if it's adopted, in Europe it took like 3-5 centuries for Iron to reach northern Europe from Greece and this involved larger distances and no bronze base.
d)Probably no real spread outside native societies directly under or in strong contact with the Vinlanders. They were not particularly literate themselves and to foster literacy you generally require more urbanization and advanced state formation and the Vinlanders wouldn't bring with them the kind of attitude Christian Iberians had in the 16th century, with their priests translating texts, writing native languages down etc.
e)Either the Vinlanders expand in the coast to render native coastal shipbuilding pointless or the Vinlanders are so isolated they don't contact many natives, either way I don't see why it would spread as comparatively shipbuilding technology did not spread like wildfire through mere contact, certainly river ships can be very useful so that could certainly spread, although I'm not sure there wasn't a local tradition anyway, I should check.
f)Probably aesthetics would diverge in the centuries of relative isolation.
 
Last edited:
I'd add religion too. Leif Eriksson was a Christian and the Christian element in Vinland (and no doubt ambitious Christian priests from elsewhere in the Norse world) would find it desireable to proselytise to the Amerindians of the region. I don't think we'd see large-scale conversions, but we'd certainly add a Christian influence into Amerindian religion that might spread very widely. Jesus might become associated with culture hero type figures common in Amerindian mythology.
a)I imagine more than 2 centuries to to expand beyond the Mississippi. Horses did not expand much faster in the Bronze Age.
Horses dispersed into the North American West in the early 17th century from New Mexico, and by the mid-18th century were revolutionising societies from the Canadian Prairies to the Columbia Plateau despite the disadvantages of the breeds the Spanish brought (namely their intolerance to cold). In the Andes, the Inca remnants owned and used horses. If there's anything that would spread fast, it's horses, although there is the issue that the Eastern Woodlands aren't as good for horses as the Plains and Plateau were. But still, I'd say maybe 150 years to get horses to the Mississippians and eastern edge of the Plains, then a rapid spread across the Plains and to the Puebloans in the next 50 years, then another 50 years to get horses to the Plateau and another 50 to the Pacific, California, and Aridoamerica.

Other animals would spread a bit slower I think. But sheep will be very useful for wool (the availability of winter clothing, often made from deer, played a role in limiting Amerindian populations in the Northeastern Woodlands OTL). Chickens are easy to raise so may be easy to spread very widely, adding additional protein. Pigs will likely go feral and thus mostly be important for ecological issues they cause plus the value of hunting wild boars. For goats, not sure, but probably decently useful. Cattle may be very useful if their role as oxen spreads, but this may be slow (the Norse aren't exactly just giving breeding stock away) and only just beginning to spread onto the Plains by the 16th century.
b)Would they really compete with local crops enough to instigate a rapid spread?
Maize farming was very recent in New England in 1000 and only poorly at best established in the Maritimes and the St. Lawrence in the 16th century so without a doubt. Same goes for the Great Lakes area, maize farming was marginal in this era and remained marginal. Barley, wheat, and rye are much better grains for the cooler climate than maize (a tropical/subtropical plant).
c)Even slower, I don't think it would go much beyond the Atlantic or Great Lake region if it's adopted, in Europe it took like 3-5 centuries for Iron to reach northern Europe from Greece and this involved larger distances and no bronze base.
Copper was an important trade item in Mississippian civilisation. In older times the Old Copper Complex existed but collapsed in part thanks to the depletion of easily malleable copper. Metalworking enables access to a much greater copper base. There is admittedly the need for skilled smiths, but for a Norse coppersmith there's a lot of money and fame to be made settling in a large Indian village. By this means copperworking could diffuse across the Plains, using copper deposits of the Canadian Shield and the Great Basin. I think by the 16th century we'd see vastly increased copper usage in Aridoamerica/Oasisamerica, possibly the Great Basin in general, likely in California, and in the Pacific Northwest, where native copper has a long history of usage and the locals were very knowledgeable about its usage. I believe we'd see centers of copper-working which are famed for it where the copper being produced is a sort of arsenical bronze. It's plausible, but a bit of a native wank, to see indigenous knowledge of tin bronze, although that might be a product of the Norse exchange. The best sources of tin are on the Canadian Shield, northwestern Nevada, northwestern Mexico (IIRC these deposits were known to indigenous cultures of northwestern Mexico), and the Kootenay region of British Columbia.

I think ironworking would be harder to spread beyond the Great Lakes and Mississippi, although would likely appear in the Southeast as well. The temperatures required are very high meaning there's a high fuel requirement. They'd obviously appreciate iron goods but find it easier to just import it from across the Plains.
d)Probably no real spread outside native societies directly under or in strong contact with the Vinlanders. They were not particularly literate themselves and to foster literacy you generally require more urbanization and advanced state formation and the Vinlanders wouldn't bring with them the kind of attitude Christian Iberians had in the 16th century, with their priests translating texts, writing native languages down etc.
This was the dawn of the Mississippian era, there's plenty of things the priest-kings and rulers of those cities might want to write down. OTL the Ojibwe had some writing for their secret societies and the Cree, Blackfoot, and some Athabaskan groups adopted syllabics brought by missionaries. In some cases the syllabics spread so fast that many groups assumed it was a native invention. They just need to be introduced to the concept of writing. As an Old World example, look at the spread of Phoenician writing.

A problem is the hugely divergent nature of Amerindian languages compared to Norse. Siouan languages and Muskogean languages (spoken by many Mississippian groups, the former likely including the people of Cahokia) aren't challenging to adapt to Latin (or god forbid even Runic), but other languages associated with the Mississippians like Natchez or Yuchi would be rather difficult. So you'd need enough Norse traders there and local traders, priests, and others receptive to the idea of writing and willing to take the time to adapt the Norse script to their languages.

From the Mississippians it would spread across the Plains and spread southwest to Aridoamerica and Mesoamerica (possibly, they had their own useful semasiographic writing). The Puebloans are complex enough to have plenty of uses, while in California you might have an Ojibwe-esque case where widespread religious societies like Kuksu, Hesi, and Chingichngish/Quaoar adopt it for ritual purposes. The Pacific Northwest has both the secret societies and population density to make plenty of use of writing.
e) shipbuilding
The big one is sails. OTL Pacific Northwest Indians adopted sails in imitation of European ships. Still, Norse ship construction might be seen as more efficient than typical Indian canoes so we could easily see imitations and copies throughout the Mississippi Basin and the Gulf although I don't think they'd be able to transmit shipbuilding tech past the Rockies. This could actually be huge since sailing and sturdy Norse ships make the Gulf of Mexico much easier to navigate meaning we could have some serious contact between the Mississippians and Mesoamericans like the Huastec and especially the Maya, plus Caribbean groups like the Taino.

Norse shipbuilding and sailing would likely appear in the Pacific at some point, transmitted by the Maya or nearby groups, and slowly spread up and down the Pacific coast. We could expect to see the Manteños of Ecuador (in limited contact with Pacific Mesoamerica) adopt it and also the peoples of Aztatlan at the northwestern fringe of Mesoamerica. From there it's more difficult to spread since Baja California is such an obstacle and the Yumans of the Colorado River don't really need it (except to trade with Aztatlan of course). But perhaps the Chumash (perhaps California's strongest seafarers OTL) would get a hold of sailing and they'd allow some expansion of sailing north. I think we'd have this "indigenous" (Norse-facilitated) expansion of sailing meeting later European sailing traditions in the Pacific Northwest, although since the Salish would encounter it at the same time the Haida and Wakashan groups would the Salish would do a lot better in the wars of the 18th/early 19th century brought by Europeans in the Pacific Northwest.
f) architecture/other
Highly doubtful. Amerindian architecture in the Northeastern Woodlands was perfectly functional and had no need to borrow from the Icelandic tradition of which Vinland would stem from. I'd consider the stave church perhaps the greatest architectural achievement of medieval Scandinavia, more distinctive than the post churches commonly found in this era. OTL Iceland didn't have any stave churches (historically) so it's highly doubtful such a tradition would be introduced into the New World. Although it's possible a Vinlandic clergyman might pave the way for such an introduction by his personal links to mainland Norway. But even if we have a stave church in Vinland, I highly doubt we'd see similar borrowings in Amerindian civilisation.
 

SwampTiger

Banned
1) Horses did not 'disperse" until the Great Pueblo Revolt in 1680. It took Pueblo's trained in horse riding and training to pass the knowledge to the surrounding Apache/Navaho.

2) The northeastern tribes include several using a longhouse style before the Norse arrival. This style appears with agriculter and more sedentary lifestyles.

3)Copper/Iron/Shipbuilding all appear early with contact. The natives stole iron tools, nails and weapons because of the advantages versus stone tools. Same goes for copper to a limited extent. Sails would be a huge benefit to fishing, sealing and whaling cultures. I would foresee a quick adoption. The use of planks does not readily appear. However, planked ships appear when dugouts begin to acquire raised wales. In Europe, sewed planking was still used by Sami in the Norse north. Indian Ocean shipping normally used sewn planking. Natives will adapt to this idea fairly quickly for some types of boats. However, it is hard to beat a birch bark canoe for the weight versus carrying capacity ratio.
 
Horses dispersed into the North American West in the early 17th century from New Mexico, and by the mid-18th century were revolutionising societies from the Canadian Prairies to the Columbia Plateau despite the disadvantages of the breeds the Spanish brought (namely their intolerance to cold). In the Andes, the Inca remnants owned and used horses. If there's anything that would spread fast, it's horses, although there is the issue that the Eastern Woodlands aren't as good for horses as the Plains and Plateau were. But still, I'd say maybe 150 years to get horses to the Mississippians and eastern edge of the Plains, then a rapid spread across the Plains and to the Puebloans in the next 50 years, then another 50 years to get horses to the Plateau and another 50 to the Pacific, California, and Aridoamerica.
The timeline fits but I believe it might be a bit slower given the position of the Vinlanders in the 11th century compared to the Spaniards that were in Florida and New Mexico from the late 16th century.

This and other diffusions would really depend on how much Vinlanders expand, if they really just stay in Atlantic Canada it would be quite slow, adding a couple generations to the spread.

Maize farming was very recent in New England in 1000 and only poorly at best established in the Maritimes and the St. Lawrence in the 16th century so without a doubt. Same goes for the Great Lakes area, maize farming was marginal in this era and remained marginal. Barley, wheat, and rye are much better grains for the cooler climate than maize (a tropical/subtropical plant).
In that case do you believe the Norse would be set to takeover the suitable region for Eurasian grains just like many other agriculturalist populations took over hunter-gatherer regions?
Also what is roughly the border were Eurasian grains become quite more suitable than maize?


This was the dawn of the Mississippian era, there's plenty of things the priest-kings and rulers of those cities might want to write down. OTL the Ojibwe had some writing for their secret societies and the Cree, Blackfoot, and some Athabaskan groups adopted syllabics brought by missionaries. In some cases the syllabics spread so fast that many groups assumed it was a native invention. They just need to be introduced to the concept of writing. As an Old World example, look at the spread of Phoenician writing.

A problem is the hugely divergent nature of Amerindian languages compared to Norse. Siouan languages and Muskogean languages (spoken by many Mississippian groups, the former likely including the people of Cahokia) aren't challenging to adapt to Latin (or god forbid even Runic), but other languages associated with the Mississippians like Natchez or Yuchi would be rather difficult. So you'd need enough Norse traders there and local traders, priests, and others receptive to the idea of writing and willing to take the time to adapt the Norse script to their languages.

From the Mississippians it would spread across the Plains and spread southwest to Aridoamerica and Mesoamerica (possibly, they had their own useful semasiographic writing). The Puebloans are complex enough to have plenty of uses, while in California you might have an Ojibwe-esque case where widespread religious societies like Kuksu, Hesi, and Chingichngish/Quaoar adopt it for ritual purposes. The Pacific Northwest has both the secret societies and population density to make plenty of use of writing.
Phoenician writing was spread quickly in a East Meditteranean that already had experience with writing and was one of the most interconnected regions at the time, on the other in non-Mediterranean Europe, despite writing being spread most likely relatively earlier than widely thought(Futhark is derived from Old Italic, so prior to Roman expansion in Italy) it still took centuries to spread from peninsular Italy and even then all those societies were of the "low" type of literacy(I don't remember the exact term), with writing being a self-sustaining and permanent feature but at the same time being sporadic, limited to short inscriptions and limited in use and maybe even carrying religious significance.

But I really do believe it would spread slowly if the Vinlanders are not spreading very fast throughout North America and the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean like Archaic Greece and Phoenicia did.
 
I'd add religion too. Leif Eriksson was a Christian and the Christian element in Vinland (and no doubt ambitious Christian priests from elsewhere in the Norse world) would find it desireable to proselytise to the Amerindians of the region. I don't think we'd see large-scale conversions, but we'd certainly add a Christian influence into Amerindian religion that might spread very widely. Jesus might become associated with culture hero type figures common in Amerindian mythology.
10th-11th century Europe had a bunch of native kings who after building up native heathen kingdoms chose to consolidate and perpetuate their authority by adopting a prestigious foreign religion. King of Norway, King of Denmark, King of Sweden, King of Poland, Duke of Bohemia, King of Hungary, Grand Duke of Russia... You might have a High King of Cahokia adopting a foreign religion for similar reasons many European upstart (a few generations only) kings did.
Chickens are easy to raise so may be easy to spread very widely, adding additional protein.
Yes, but the Skraelings already have turkeys.
Pigs will likely go feral and thus mostly be important for ecological issues they cause plus the value of hunting wild boars. For goats, not sure, but probably decently useful. Cattle may be very useful if their role as oxen spreads, but this may be slow (the Norse aren't exactly just giving breeding stock away) and only just beginning to spread onto the Plains by the 16th century.
Goat is the smallest domesticated ruminant. Same size as sheep, but less dependent on herds. Easier to raise small scale to get a reliable meat supply.
Maize farming was very recent in New England in 1000 and only poorly at best established in the Maritimes and the St. Lawrence in the 16th century so without a doubt. Same goes for the Great Lakes area, maize farming was marginal in this era and remained marginal. Barley, wheat, and rye are much better grains for the cooler climate than maize (a tropical/subtropical plant).
Yes. Barley and oats would be the most imports.
Highly doubtful. Amerindian architecture in the Northeastern Woodlands was perfectly functional and had no need to borrow from the Icelandic tradition of which Vinland would stem from. I'd consider the stave church perhaps the greatest architectural achievement of medieval Scandinavia, more distinctive than the post churches commonly found in this era. OTL Iceland didn't have any stave churches (historically) so it's highly doubtful such a tradition would be introduced into the New World. Although it's possible a Vinlandic clergyman might pave the way for such an introduction by his personal links to mainland Norway. But even if we have a stave church in Vinland, I highly doubt we'd see similar borrowings in Amerindian civilisation.

Even if the Amerindians reject Christian religion, they may very well adopt some architectural features. Monk´s Mound and the other mounds of Cahokia were not "perfectly functional" - they were for display. The wooden building on top was 30x15 m. We do not know its architecture above ground. Nor its purpose - was it palace of King, or temple treated as communal room?
Since Cahokia was actually built as an innovation in OTL second half of 11th century, in TTL that Norse are around, the King of Cahokia could very well copy the architecture of a stave church even while asserting that his Gods were really the high gods of this land.
 
The timeline fits but I believe it might be a bit slower given the position of the Vinlanders in the 11th century compared to the Spaniards that were in Florida and New Mexico from the late 16th century.

This and other diffusions would really depend on how much Vinlanders expand, if they really just stay in Atlantic Canada it would be quite slow, adding a couple generations to the spread.
As mentioned it was New Mexico that was the center of the spread of horses in North America rather than Florida, which succeeded over a century of other native encounters with horses in the Southeast and Southwest since De Soto and others. We also have the spread of horses in South America (including the Inca remnants and the Mapuche/"Araucanisation" in the Southern Cone) to use as a model but I'm a bit less familiar with that example.
In that case do you believe the Norse would be set to takeover the suitable region for Eurasian grains just like many other agriculturalist populations took over hunter-gatherer regions?
Also what is roughly the border were Eurasian grains become quite more suitable than maize?
I think the Norse have the population to take over the areas with less agricultural people (which are regardless still suitable for agriculture) like the Gulf of St. Lawrence but not much further, at least at first. The rest of the area, modern Southern Canada, New England, and the Great Lakes, were agriculturalists and it's likely the Norse will only improve them. Disease will decimate both groups (see Icelandic smallpox outbreaks) yet trickle in slowly.

Maize cultivation north of 40N or so will more or less be marginal and need supplementation with other plants (like wild rice, historically important among many groups), hunting, and fishing. This is near the southern border of the Oneota culture and relatives. I think indigenous and Norse-influenced farmers alike will find that European grains grow better in their cooler climate.
Phoenician writing was spread quickly in a East Meditteranean that already had experience with writing and was one of the most interconnected regions at the time, on the other in non-Mediterranean Europe, despite writing being spread most likely relatively earlier than widely thought(Futhark is derived from Old Italic, so prior to Roman expansion in Italy) it still took centuries to spread from peninsular Italy and even then all those societies were of the "low" type of literacy(I don't remember the exact term), with writing being a self-sustaining and permanent feature but at the same time being sporadic, limited to short inscriptions and limited in use and maybe even carrying religious significance.

But I really do believe it would spread slowly if the Vinlanders are not spreading very fast throughout North America and the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean like Archaic Greece and Phoenicia did.
I suppose there is a case to be made that writing would spread slowly, since many notable languages were not attested until much later than you'd think despite lengthy histories of trade and economic connections (as seen in much of South/Southeast Asia, West Africa, and East Asia). But I do find the spread of Canadian aboriginal syllabics an interesting counterexample. I guess there is the argument they spread fast as part of acculturation to the Euro-American culture around them.
Yes, but the Skraelings already have turkeys.
Weren't domesticated turkeys rather rare in the Eastern Woodlands?
 
Even if the Amerindians reject Christian religion, they may very well adopt some architectural features. Monk´s Mound and the other mounds of Cahokia were not "perfectly functional" - they were for display. The wooden building on top was 30x15 m. We do not know its architecture above ground. Nor its purpose - was it palace of King, or temple treated as communal room?
Since Cahokia was actually built as an innovation in OTL second half of 11th century, in TTL that Norse are around, the King of Cahokia could very well copy the architecture of a stave church even while asserting that his Gods were really the high gods of this land.

Isn't there a number of similarities between Christianity and Native American religions? It might not be a stretch for Native Americans to accept Christianity.

How does the disease affect Native Americans at this point? Pretty much the same as OTL. Vinland will cause a number of Native Americans to simply die due to disease? Maybe not the numbers of Spanish and Central America due to lower numbers of contacts. May could even be less to the extent that Native Americans get herd immunity?
 
Last edited:
Disease immunity has been addressed, but how about lactose intolerance and issues with alcohol? How quickly would these change given contact with the Norse who use dairy products and alcohol?
 
Disease immunity has been addressed, but how about lactose intolerance and issues with alcohol? How quickly would these change given contact with the Norse who use dairy products and alcohol?
Lactose intolerance wouldn't go away, it didn't with people that had diary product since long time.
 
If a Vinland settlement was successfully established, how long would it take for various cultural elements to disperse?
I'm fairly convinced any long term Vinland is going to look more like the Rus than Iceland. By that I mean a relatively small warrior elite (Iron weaponry is a big deal) ruling over a larger population of Algonquin. Most potential settlers are likely to come from Greenland, which only ever had perhaps 10,000 people at its peak, so I just can't see large numbers in Vinland. With that said, ferrous metallurgy is going to be essential to maintaining the status of warrior elites, so I think any surviving Vinland needs to maintain it. I would imagine literacy would come with said elites, but it isn't any guarantee either, nonetheless, a surviving Futhark would be quite interesting. Shipbuilding I imagine would also remain, any Viking polity is probably going to be concentrated around the Saint Lawrence (both the bay and river), so that probably remains as well. Over time I think all of those will spread to neighbouring groups, but I don't think it will necessarily be fast. Ironworking takes time to learn and spread rather slowly where it was developed. Shipbuilding too is a difficult skill to transfer, even between boatbuilding peoples, so that is probably not terribly fast either. Literacy is the one which I think would filter through faster, especially among the settled groups.
f) architecture/other
This I think is less likely to have too much impact, indigenous groups were already using Longhouses which would be the biggest potential introduction, so I don't think much, if anything, changes here.

Religion could be an interesting case, but to continue my Rus analogy, I think as a whole the society will remain fairly typical of Algonquin religion, though you might see some introductions from Norse and/or Christianity as deities, who knows.
a) domestication of animals- pigs cows , chickens. sheep, goats, horses.
b) cereal farming- barley, wheat
This is where I'm less sure of what would happen. I'm envisioning a largely warrior and skilled artisan elite, which implies they aren't the ones doing most of the agricultural work, but are using native labour instead. That makes me think there won't be a large shift in cereals, Three Sisters agriculture was already decently established in the Saint Lawrence by the time of Vinland, so my suspicion is that it wins out as an agricultural packet.

Livestock are a different matter, though I think its going to mostly be limited to Sheep, Goat, and Cattle. Chicken, pigs, and horses aren't particularly common in Iceland or Greenland at this point, so I think introducing enough of them to establish a breeding population is less likely. The aforementioned Bovids however are going to make a big impact on North American agriculture, especially Cattle, if they establish. They would provide wool, animal protein, and most importantly a source of horsepower/labour for farming. That can't be underestimated and is going to spread with this culture, and eventually start to radiate outwards from the Vinland/Algonquin heartland.
 
I'm fairly convinced any long term Vinland is going to look more like the Rus than Iceland. By that I mean a relatively small warrior elite (Iron weaponry is a big deal) ruling over a larger population of Algonquin. Most potential settlers are likely to come from Greenland, which only ever had perhaps 10,000 people at its peak, so I just can't see large numbers in Vinland. With that said, ferrous metallurgy is going to be essential to maintaining the status of warrior elites, so I think any surviving Vinland needs to maintain it. I would imagine literacy would come with said elites, but it isn't any guarantee either, nonetheless, a surviving Futhark would be quite interesting. Shipbuilding I imagine would also remain, any Viking polity is probably going to be concentrated around the Saint Lawrence (both the bay and river), so that probably remains as well.
Not every.
There could be a Viking polity along Atlantic coast - shipbuilding again vital.
Likely Vikings on Great Lakes - shipbuilding again vital.
And Viking polity on Mississippi and Ohio - here the margin of Viking shipbuilding is less clear.
Over time I think all of those will spread to neighbouring groups, but I don't think it will necessarily be fast. Ironworking takes time to learn and spread rather slowly where it was developed.
And iron is high-value, low-volume goods. Neighbouring groups can buy iron tools rather than learn to smelt.
Shipbuilding too is a difficult skill to transfer, even between boatbuilding peoples, so that is probably not terribly fast either.
Again, wherever Viking ships can be used, they will get, so a startup will be competing against Vikings.
This is where I'm less sure of what would happen. I'm envisioning a largely warrior and skilled artisan elite, which implies they aren't the ones doing most of the agricultural work, but are using native labour instead. That makes me think there won't be a large shift in cereals, Three Sisters agriculture was already decently established in the Saint Lawrence by the time of Vinland, so my suspicion is that it wins out as an agricultural packet.
The Norse brought agriculture to Iceland and Greenland. Newfoundland had no maize, so there certainly would be Norse agriculture on Newfoundland supplying Greenland and possibly Iceland.
When the Norse traders and skilled artisans move on to St. Lawrence, they would find Three Sisters unfamiliar, limited diversity nd poor reliability. I think they would bring Norse agriculture along.
Livestock are a different matter, though I think its going to mostly be limited to Sheep, Goat, and Cattle. Chicken, pigs, and horses aren't particularly common in Iceland or Greenland at this point, so I think introducing enough of them to establish a breeding population is less likely.
But horses were introduced to Iceland after all.
The aforementioned Bovids however are going to make a big impact on North American agriculture, especially Cattle, if they establish. They would provide wool, animal protein, and most importantly a source of horsepower/labour for farming. That can't be underestimated and is going to spread with this culture, and eventually start to radiate outwards from the Vinland/Algonquin heartland.
I think meat and cheese would be more important for Norse.
 
Not every.
There could be a Viking polity along Atlantic coast - shipbuilding again vital.
Likely Vikings on Great Lakes - shipbuilding again vital.
And Viking polity on Mississippi and Ohio - here the margin of Viking shipbuilding is less clear.
The first two I'm in agreement on, but establishing any polity on the Mississippi, where the Mississippian civilization already exists is downright impossible, especially so with the small numbers the Norse will have.

And iron is high-value, low-volume goods. Neighbouring groups can buy iron tools rather than learn to smelt.
Sure, but iron still rusts and breaks down with time. There's ultimately a limit to how far it can spread on a large scale without more widespread metallurgical technique.

Again, wherever Viking ships can be used, they will get, so a startup will be competing against Vikings.
It took more than 2 centuries for the cog to achieve widespread use and construction in the Baltic, and that was between far more developed shipbuilding societies than anything the Norse will encounter in the Americas. I just can't see Norse shipbuilding spreading that quickly. Eventually, sure, but eventually can be a very long time.
The Norse brought agriculture to Iceland and Greenland. Newfoundland had no maize, so there certainly would be Norse agriculture on Newfoundland supplying Greenland and possibly Iceland.
When the Norse traders and skilled artisans move on to St. Lawrence, they would find Three Sisters unfamiliar, limited diversity nd poor reliability. I think they would bring Norse agriculture along.
You're probably right about Newfoundland agriculture, but I'd also propose that pastoralism might be more likely than formal agriculture there, which wouldn't necessarily lead to the crop package coming over.

I'm still less convinced about the Saint Lawrence though, replacement of agricultural people and practices is rare and did not happen anywhere else the Norse settled. With the small numbers they'll inevitably have, I think that sort of displacement is even less likely. Far more likely in my opinion to be ruling elite who let the natives work their fields, and that is going to mean native agricultural practices.

I think meat and cheese would be more important for Norse.
I was factoring that in broadly as animal protein, that said, oxen were hugely important for plowing, which is ultimately going to be more significant than dairy products.
But horses were introduced to Iceland after all.
But were they present in Greenland? To my knowledge they weren't, or at least weren't prevalent, and that's going to be where much of the settler population is coming from along with their livestock. Even if introduced though, I don't think the Icelandic pony is going to be making an impact on warfare for a very long time. It is certainly another good ploughing animal, but as a mount for warfare it leaves much to be desired. Better than nothing I suppose though.
 
Last edited:
The first two I'm in agreement on, but establishing any polity on the Mississippi, where the Mississippian civilization already exists is downright impossible, especially so with the small numbers the Norse will have.
Norse are small in numbers, but so were Norse in Russia. And unlike Russia, they come with iron natives don´t have. Mississippi culture may get taken over by a small elite of Norse - or resist such a takeover so that Norse stay as subordinate Varangian guard.
You're probably right about Newfoundland agriculture, but I'd also propose that pastoralism might be more likely than formal agriculture there, which wouldn't necessarily lead to the crop package coming over.
Iceland and Greenland were dominted by pastoralism, but Iceland did have the fields Gunnarr admired at home, and Greenland at least sometimes harvested barley crops. The crop package was brought to Iceland and Greenland but proved marginal there.
In Newfoundland, the Norse crops would thrive for local self-sufficiency and export to Greenland.
I'm still less convinced about the Saint Lawrence though, replacement of agricultural people and practices is rare and did not happen anywhere else the Norse settled. With the small numbers they'll inevitably have, I think that sort of displacement is even less likely. Far more likely in my opinion to be ruling elite who let the natives work their fields, and that is going to mean native agricultural practices.
Wheat was not well suited to Mexico, yet Spaniards brought wheat there.
The Norse on lower St. Lawrence would bring their crops there because the natives are initially sparse and unreliable. As the natives gather to the Norse settlement - yes, they would diversify the farming. But Three Sisters are marginal and unreliable so far north. It´s easier to teach barley farming to a slave/farmhand who already knows how to farm maize than to one who is a pure hunter-gatherer.

As the Skraelings diversify their farming, first with barley, oats and rye as supplements to maize, that would go on to spread.
I was factoring that in broadly as animal protein, that said, oxen were hugely important for plowing, which is ultimately going to be more significant than dairy products.
Not even then.
A huge limitation of Skraelings was that they had little reliable sources of animal protein. Just turkeys - and then it was hunting.
Domesticated animals as a reliable sources of animal protein would reduce the dependence of hunting. Even more important than animal traction.
 
Norse are small in numbers, but so were Norse in Russia. And unlike Russia, they come with iron natives don´t have. Mississippi culture may get taken over by a small elite of Norse - or resist such a takeover so that Norse stay as subordinate Varangian guard.

Rus was right next to the Norse centres of power though and was easily accessible by waterways extending back to Scandinavia, while there may not have been a huge population of Norse settlers and rulers in the Rus lands, there was always some stream of reinforcements available. Projecting power from Newfoundland to the Saint Lawrence and maybe even the great lakes is within the realm of possibilities, but how on earth are the small settler population going to project power hundreds of miles inland from what is going to remain a fairly small power base? Not only that, but the Mississippians have a huge pre-contact population, which the Norse aren't going to be changing, they aren't coming over in nearly the numbers or speed to allow European diseases to spread so there's not going to be a big population drop. The Norse just can't project power that far, even the Great Lakes is going to be pushing that limit.

Iceland and Greenland were dominted by pastoralism, but Iceland did have the fields Gunnarr admired at home, and Greenland at least sometimes harvested barley crops. The crop package was brought to Iceland and Greenland but proved marginal there.
In Newfoundland, the Norse crops would thrive for local self-sufficiency and export to Greenland.
Fair enough, I think I'm projecting the lack of established crops in OTL Vinland onto ATL Vinland too much.

Wheat was not well suited to Mexico, yet Spaniards brought wheat there.
The Norse on lower St. Lawrence would bring their crops there because the natives are initially sparse and unreliable. As the natives gather to the Norse settlement - yes, they would diversify the farming. But Three Sisters are marginal and unreliable so far north. It´s easier to teach barley farming to a slave/farmhand who already knows how to farm maize than to one who is a pure hunter-gatherer.

As the Skraelings diversify their farming, first with barley, oats and rye as supplements to maize, that would go on to spread.
It should be noted that the Spanish view on native crops was coloured very much by racist and religious ideology; they thought eating native crops would turn them into natives and only wheat could undergo transubstantiation. I'm not sure the Norse will have that same view. Either way, Old World crops never supplanted Three Sisters agriculture in Mexico, and I don't think they will here either. Supplement perhaps, supplant no.
 
Rus was right next to the Norse centres of power though and was easily accessible by waterways extending back to Scandinavia, while there may not have been a huge population of Norse settlers and rulers in the Rus lands, there was always some stream of reinforcements available. Projecting power from Newfoundland to the Saint Lawrence and maybe even the great lakes is within the realm of possibilities, but how on earth are the small settler population going to project power hundreds of miles inland from what is going to remain a fairly small power base? Not only that, but the Mississippians have a huge pre-contact population, which the Norse aren't going to be changing, they aren't coming over in nearly the numbers or speed to allow European diseases to spread so there's not going to be a big population drop. The Norse just can't project power that far, even the Great Lakes is going to be pushing that limit.
Iron, sailing ships and Norse crops would make Great Lakes a powerbase. And you´d soon have Norse speaking elites who are racially more than three quarters Indian.
It should be noted that the Spanish view on native crops was coloured very much by racist and religious ideology; they thought eating native crops would turn them into natives and only wheat could undergo transubstantiation. I'm not sure the Norse will have that same view.
Here I agree. Not ideological reasons. Practical.
Either way, Old World crops never supplanted Three Sisters agriculture in Mexico, and I don't think they will here either. Supplement perhaps, supplant no.
Mexico was a warm summer region. Three Sisters grew well there.
In Vinland, there are sizable areas where summers are too chilly for maize, period, but not for Norse crops. As well as sizable areas where summers are chilly for maize to be marginal, but Norse crops grow well.
It would not start right at Newfoundland - Beothuk are few and don´t know how to farm, so they are not inclined to learn even at Norse farms. Making Beothuk slaves and forcing them to farm would just piss off neigbours - Norse did not enslave Sami either.
But once the Norse settle on St. Lawrence River and meet maize growers, some of them would join Norse farms as slaves/farmhands/in-laws, and be taught to farm.

I imagine, not warrior elites who never soil their hands with soil, but upper middle class yeomen, who have dependent workers in their farms but who personally participate in farming to some extent, working alongside their slaves, directing and instructing them.

Thus a bunch of Skraelings learn to grow Norse crops and return to their home tribes as freedmen or free all along. And bring crops with them.
Since it is a region where maize is marginal, these tribes, recently migrated to distant north, find tat Norse crops grow better than maize. And they are able to migrate even further north, where maize does not grow at all, but Norse crops do.
And unlike iron smelting or shipbuilding, this does not compete with Norse. For the Norse stick to near the main navigable routes and a few major portages. Norse do not bother going north to inland Labrador - but Skraelings equipped with Norse crops for subsistence do.
 
Even if the Norse population is initially small, there is no reason why more settlers from Iceland or even Scandinavia can't join or why the Norse population can't grow in size by exploiting the areas they initially settle.
 
Even if the Norse population is initially small, there is no reason why more settlers from Iceland or even Scandinavia can't join or why the Norse population can't grow in size by exploiting the areas they initially settle.
But why would a Norse settler go clear across the Northern Atlantic, past the British Isles, past Iceland, past Greenland even, to Newfoundland, and then onto elsewhere when they could settle much closer to home in the British Isles or Baltic, which are wealthier and still in need of settlers. We never saw that kind of settlement pattern OTL because it just doesn't make since. Norse settling in the North Atlantic is almost a series of Matryoshka dolls, each one populates a smaller settler group. Iceland's population during the Medieval period fluctuated between 40-50,000, Greenland in turn had perhaps 10,000 at most, how many people either really afford to send to Newfoundland, much less onward to the Saint Lawrence and beyond? The demographics just don't work, Newfoundland is basically as marginal as Iceland is, and its going to be settled with a population dramatically less than Iceland was. Going into the Saint Lawrence you finally get to decent land, but its already fairly well settled by Algonquin and Iroquois, the Matryoshka scheme is going to run out at some point.


Iron, sailing ships and Norse crops would make Great Lakes a powerbase. And you´d soon have Norse speaking elites who are racially more than three quarters Indian.
Except no where in the Norse world did they maintain their language where there was an established population, they assimilated into local power structures and language within a generation of conquest. The great lakes might become a powerbase if the Matryoshka dolls somehow make it that far, but that group isn't going to be Norse speaking, and it probably won't be on the Saint Lawrence either.

Here I agree. Not ideological reasons. Practical.

Mexico was a warm summer region. Three Sisters grew well there.
In Vinland, there are sizable areas where summers are too chilly for maize, period, but not for Norse crops. As well as sizable areas where summers are chilly for maize to be marginal, but Norse crops grow well.
The Saint Lawrence remains predominately maize focused to this day, with wheat being grown significantly less. I'll concede on Newfoundland, the entire place is marginal, but its marginal for wheat too, which is why the agriculture there is centered on livestock today. The Norse can grow whatever they want there because no cereal crop grows all that well there.

The underlying theme here is that the Norse will have an impact overtime in the New World, writing, ironworking, and shipbuilding will slowly spread along the rivers and lakes of North America. Some crops and livestock might dissipate outwards too, but the Norse being as prone to assimilation as they are won't replace the Natives anywhere outside of Newfoundland.
 
Last edited:
The Saint Lawrence remains predominately maize focused to this day, with wheat being grown significantly less. I'll concede on Newfoundland, the entire place is marginal, but its marginal for wheat too, which is why the agriculture there is centered on livestock today. The Norse can grow whatever they want there because no cereal crop grows all that well there.
That is with modern cultivars. Maize cultivation on the Lower Saint Lawrence and in adjacent areas like New Brunswick and Nova Scotia and much of Maine was marginal and not enough to support the native populations there even during the Medieval Warm Period (hence why they extensively hunted, fished, and gathered) and by the time of European contact they had practically abandoned agriculture.
 
Even if the Norse population is initially small, there is no reason why more settlers from Iceland or even Scandinavia can't join or why the Norse population can't grow in size by exploiting the areas they initially settle.
Yeah, but I'm more wondering how much Norse influence would spread, rather than Norse themselves. I can see it spreading in concentric circles, with leaps here and there for reasons both ecological and historical (short for "who knows?").
 
Top