Repercussions of Norse mass settlement in the new world

[Commander 598]

One would think that the largely unprepared natives, better climates (If found), loads of resources (If found), and no pesky Christian priests might appeal to a fair amount...

[Thanas]

^Please show that the opportunities were greater than in Europe, otherwise I will toss your post into the Bottom of the Barrel thread.

[LaCroix]

But there simply isn't enough reason for large numbers of Scandinavians or Irish or whatever to cross the Atlantic

Barring some Alien Space Bat reason like meteorite strike or Wanked Mongols Overruning Europe (haha..ha), I'd have to agree. I'm sorry, I just don't see why a massive population interchange would take place.

I cited volcanoes on Iceland (which is nothing a than a honking big array of volcanoes) as a possible reason for a big part the Icelandic population to move. Since they already made it far across the Atlantic, moving some more to get to greener land wouldn't be completely out of question if the island they had gone to started to spit lava at many places at the same time...

A Population interchange from Scandinavia itself would only start if the colony is prospering. To my knowledge, there was massive emigration pressure in Scandinavia at that time due to the lack of arable land.

One would think that the largely unprepared natives, better climates (If found), loads of resources (If found), and no pesky Christian priests might appeal to a fair amount...

those unprepared natives were not so far behind Europe in weapon technologies. Bows and maces were known to indians.
Climate in that area would be more or less like Scandinavia, but better than Iceland and much better than Greenland.
They were already Christians at that time.

That's why I went for volcanoes as reason to move. More likely to start a mass move than 'It seemed like a good idea at that time.'

[Simon_Jester]

That said, with regards to this proposal, it is an impossibility. How are you going to do the logistics of such an operation?

True. Greenland couldn't support many inhabitants today, let alone a thousand years ago. It's a tribute to the ingenuity of the Norse that they survived at all in a treeless environment when so much of their way of life depends on timber.

My understanding is that the climate was nicer in Greenland a thousand years ago then it was now; when the Little Ice Age hit the Norse colonies withered away in short order.

This szenario was spurred because the Tv show said that the settlements on continental America were too small to survive the pressure of the natives.

My wife then added she couldn't see why ten thousands of Norse stayed in Iceland, when there was so much 'better' land available. this led to the question what would have happened if about half the Icelanders, this would mean 10000 people would pack and move. A 10.000 people immigration is by no means a small settlement, and they would bring every several people of every profession with them.

The short answer is that the Iceland Norse didn't have the shipping or the social organization to transport 10000 people, their livestock, and their tools, from Iceland to America via Greenland. The food to keep them alive wasn't there, the ships to carry so many people didn't physically exist, and Iceland had major social issues caused by it being a dumping ground for the Norse world's renegades and outlaws.

Norse settlements of the size they could create in the New World weren't big enough to last long under pressure from a large native population. To change that, you'd have to do some really drastic stuff that would also cause major changes in European history (such as giving the Norse the kind of advanced shipbuilding techniques that, historically, kicked off the Age of Exploration... five hundred years ahead of schedule).

Why would they starve on the way if they pack food and sail over to greenland and then nova scotia?

Because there wasn't enough food to pack, because there weren't enough ships to ferry all the people in a reasonable timeframe (we're positing a huge disaster on Iceland, remember? People left on the island will die if they aren't moved within a year or so), because the Icelanders thought of America as a rumored patch of land on the edge of the universe and would much rather try their luck in Europe... take your pick.

But there simply isn't enough reason for large numbers of Scandinavians or Irish or whatever to cross the Atlantic

Barring some Alien Space Bat reason like meteorite strike or Wanked Mongols Overruning Europe (haha..ha), I'd have to agree. I'm sorry, I just don't see why a massive population interchange would take place.

Out of curiosity, why would the Mongols have to be all that Wanked to overrun Europe?

[Commander 598]

^Please show that the opportunities were greater than in Europe, otherwise I will toss your post into the Bottom of the Barrel thread.

There are sizable quantities of native copper in sections of the Great Lakes apparently so easily accessed that the natives knew about it for a long time. Then there's the timber which should be self explanatory as Europe's been chopping down their forests for thousands of years. Were there to be a greater colonization attempt of North America the discovery of easy copper located in a much better climate than the abysmally frigid North Eastern tip of Newfoundland or Greenland, with presumably much more fertile land, contained within an inland sea, and near a massive South flowing river I hope would obviously drive colonization efforts to that area.

Whether or not it's better than Europe is beside the point isn't it? They already left Europe to live in inhospitable near-arctic locations and they apparently stayed there until death. I doubt most have any intention of going back to Europe regardless of theoretical Icelandic volcanoes or Greenland Natives.

those unprepared natives were not so far behind Europe in weapon technologies. Bows and maces were known to indians.

Iron versus probably stone weapons is kind of far behind, several thousand years really. The best metalworking the natives had was to pound soft metals (Given the location: Copper) into a usable shape.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Copper_Complex

By about 3000 years ago the use of copper is increasingly restricted to jewelry and other status-related items, rather than for tools. This is thought to represent the development of more complex hierarchical cultures in the area.

And going by this copper weapons and tools may even be pretty rare. Also, no armor at all and I'll be blown away if an influx of thousands of medieval Norse settlers aren't bringing any to a land known to have dangerous natives.

Climate in that area would be more or less like Scandinavia, but better than Iceland and much better than Greenland.

And still worse than lower latitudes.

They were already Christians at that time.

In 1000AD (Or did I miss a post somewhere?)? The whole thing was quite mixed at the time with converted Kings giving it a thumbs up for obvious political reasons, and as I recall it was one of the reasons some of the Norse left Europe in the first place. Leif Erikson bringing a Christian Priest to Greenland doesn't appear to have been a popular move.

[Simon_Jester]

...Then there's the timber which should be self explanatory as Europe's been chopping down their forests for thousands of years.

Historically, though, the main source of shipbuilding timber for Europe other than the forests of America was... wait for it... Scandinavia. Of all the peoples of Europe who might want to go to America for timber, the Norse are probably at the bottom of the list. It's much more pleasant than living in Greenland, but that begs the question of why anyone would want to go that way rather than to Europe in the first place.

Yes, people voluntarily moved from Norway to Iceland, and a subset of the Icelanders moved voluntarily to Greenland. But it seem odd that when Iceland or Greenland are suddenly rendered more inhospitable, the people there would respond by forging further west into uncharted territory, rather than trying to make a go of it back home. Especially in light of the very real risk that if conditions get bad enough, the Greenland or Iceland links in the chain connecting them to their homeland will be broken.

Of course, some of them (like Erik the Red) can't go home, and would happily press on, but at that point we're talking about a much smaller population than "half the people of Iceland."

those unprepared natives were not so far behind Europe in weapon technologies. Bows and maces were known to indians.

Iron versus probably stone weapons is kind of far behind, several thousand years really. The best metalworking the natives had was to pound soft metals (Given the location: Copper) into a usable shape.

Iron weapons are better than stone, but they don't confer a decisive advantage the way machine guns do over swords and spears. Not when the iron-users don't have the metalworking to produce heavy plate armor, and when their numbers are likewise extremely limited. Chain mail isn't that great a protection against being beaten to death with a club.

[Elfdart]

The 10000 people starve on the way to Nova Scotia.

More likely they starve after they arrive. I doubt Nova Scotia or Labrador could support 10,000 people back then. If they arrive at all: Eric the Red lost almost half his ships between Iceland and Greenland (11 of 25).

The willingness of the Norse to adapt and assimilate appears to have been based on how many women they brought with them. In Normandy, Ireland and Russia, very few were brought along. These men (usually viking raiders and mercenaries) were absorbed into the host culture within a generation or two. For example, Rollo (the viking chief who was given Normandy) had a son who was thoroughly Frankish: almost total assimilation in one generation.

This was not the case in areas the Norse really were out to colonize, such as Iceland and the Danelaw. In those regions, the Norse brought everything with them: women, children, livestock, customs, you name it. They succeeded in Iceland because they only had to displace a few Irish monks. England was a special case because the area they colonized was inhabited by -and next door to- people who were already very much like themselves, the Anglo-Saxons.

I find that argument to be a bit curious and would like to ask you for your sources.

It's really just conjecture on my part, but Michael Wood's In Search of the Dark Ages and Bill Bryson's The Mother Tongue: A History of the English Language made the case that the Danes who invaded England started off as viking raiders just like ones who did smash-and-grab raids elsewhere. By the late 800s this had changed radically since the Danes started bringing their families and their entire way of life to stay permanently, especially after Alfred the Great ceded the Danelaw to Guthrum. The Norse also did this in the Orkneys and Iceland. I haven't found any mention of such settlement in Normandy or Ireland. The closest thing I could find was that Dublin was founded by the vikings, but that wasn't so much a colony as an armed camp and a way station for exporting Irish slaves.

The only source I have that spends any time on the East is The Oxford Illustrated History of the Vikings, and most of the artifacts are weapons, armor and similar gear. The only area that appears to have had any kind of Norse colony was around Ladoga, which has some evidence of Swedish farmers, as well as women's shoes of the kind that a Norse noblewoman would wear (they look very similar to those found in the Oseberg ship burial). If that's the case, then it's more than coincidence that in areas where the Norse were out to colonize, they didn't assimilate.

I mean, yeah, available women certainly play a part in cultural assimilation, but IMO it is more likely regarding what the cultures they settled in had to offer.

I'm not blaming the Norse women, it's just that people usually prefer to find mates in their own group. There was a similar pattern in the differences between the way the Spanish and the English colonized the Americas. The Spanish who came over were mostly soldiers and adventurers (which is to say, men). They usually didn't bring women with them, since their goal was to make a killing (literally and figuratively) and go back to Spain as rich men. The ones who didn't find their fortune ended up intermarrying with native women and formed a kind of hybrid culture. The English sought to re-create England in North America and brought everything and everyone with them. Under these conditions, they had little use for the natives, except as people to trade with or rob.

The Scraelingers offered very little advantages unless it was too late.

However, the Norse were interested in trade, piracy, and later, land. Considering that much of the plunder the vikings got from Russia and the Baltic was in the form of furs and slaves, North America would have had pretty much everything any would be Norse traders would want.

However, that does not mean that the decline of the Norse settlements is due to no assimilation.

I agree. I also think it's time to call bullshit on Jared Diamond's theory about why the Norse settlements on Greenland fizzled out. Scandinavian culture revolved around boats, fishing, whaling and hunting seals back home in Northern Europe, so the idea that when hard pressed, they would refuse to go fishing, whaling and hunting seals to survive in Greenland is moronic. It could just as easily be a case of Greenland being the medieval equivalent of an Old West boom town that was abandoned when it was played out.

[Samuel]

Out of curiosity, why would the Mongols have to be all that Wanked to overrun Europe?

While I'm not positive over the exact answer, I think that they face the same problems the Huns had- namely getting enough fodder for their massive number of horses.

[K. A. Pital]

The Varangian Theory dominated Russian historical science for ages. Detractions were few and their fame only lasted through 1949-1953 on the height of post-war nationalism (and even then they were the lot of but a few academics). The dispute didn't flare that seriously anyway - it was more of an academic dispute on whether a pre-Varangian tribal Rus had a proto-state or not. Yeah, about that.

So I don't know where people get all this fuss about Russian nationalists "refusing" the Varangian theory (if anything, most Russian nationalists ardently support it for racist reasons).

[Simon_Jester]

I agree. I also think it's time to call bullshit on Jared Diamond's theory about why the Norse settlements on Greenland fizzled out. Scandinavian culture revolved around boats, fishing, whaling and hunting seals back home in Northern Europe, so the idea that when hard pressed, they would refuse to go fishing, whaling and hunting seals to survive in Greenland is moronic. It could just as easily be a case of Greenland being the medieval equivalent of an Old West boom town that was abandoned when it was played out.

Though in that case, I'm not sure how to explain some of the actual evidence Diamond documented- the archaeological finds that indicate a group of people who were starving and falling apart at the end. Were those the people who just didn't get the memo that the town was being "abandoned" and tried to hang on after everyone else lost interest?

It's easy to see how the boom town could have played out in terms of no longer being able to export goods valuable to Europe, but harder to see why people in the colonies themselves would have hung around and starved to death simply because no one was interested in buying polar bear furs.

[Samuel]

Were those the people who just didn't get the memo that the town was being "abandoned" and tried to hang on after everyone else lost interest?

It's easy to see how the boom town could have played out in terms of no longer being able to export goods valuable to Europe, but harder to see why people in the colonies themselves would have hung around and starved to death simply because no one was interested in buying polar bear furs.

What makes you think they had enough boats to move everyone? Why would they even have ocean going ships that could go to Iceland?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The Varangian Theory dominated Russian historical science for ages. Detractions were few and their fame only lasted through 1949-1953 on the height of post-war nationalism (and even then they were the lot of but a few academics). The dispute didn't flare that seriously anyway - it was more of an academic dispute on whether a pre-Varangian tribal Rus had a proto-state or not. Yeah, about that.

So I don't know where people get all this fuss about Russian nationalists "refusing" the Varangian theory (if anything, most Russian nationalists ardently support it for racist reasons).

Which is enormously stupid anyway, as Russia fairly freely integrated lots of non-white minority populations and even from fairly substantial enemies, like the Tartar families which were freely accepted into the nobility of the old Empire. Or Abram Petrovich Gannibal's position in Russian society, for that matter. Though one grants that the Varangians probably didn't have as much of an impact on the gene pool of the Russian people as they could have, due to be concentrated in the upper classes through conquest and state origination.

[Simon_Jester]

What makes you think they had enough boats to move everyone? Why would they even have ocean going ships that could go to Iceland?

What bothers me is that if they didn't, then everyone still stuck in Greenland after the last ships from Iceland came would have had to know they were going to need to try and make a go of it in Greenland. In which case you'd think they'd try as hard as possible to make the best of local food sources (like seals). I don't have Collapse at my current location, but I could have sworn that Diamond claims that the Norse didn't do so.

Is he just plain wrong to claim that, or is there another explanation for it besides the Norse failing to adapt to local conditions that I've missed?

The only thing I can come up with is that the last sailors to leave took not only the last ocean-going ship with the range to reach Iceland, but also the last small boats capable of navigating the coast immediately around the settlement. If they had not only no ships but no boats, they'd be largely screwed, because they didn't really even have the wood to build small boats from.

[Guardsman Bass]

I also think it's time to call bullshit on Jared Diamond's theory about why the Norse settlements on Greenland fizzled out. Scandinavian culture revolved around boats, fishing, whaling and hunting seals back home in Northern Europe, so the idea that when hard pressed, they would refuse to go fishing, whaling and hunting seals to survive in Greenland is moronic.

Actually, he does say that they hunted and consumed seals, although it wasn't their favorite food source (usually the richer the Greenland Norse person and farm, the less seal meat as a proportion of their diet). He said that they didn't seem to eat fish, at least based on the relative paucity of fish bones at the settlements.

I don't have the book in front of me, so I'm not sure exactly what he listed as the reasons why they had a hard time simply eating more seal meat when other food sources declined later in the history of the settlements. It was some combination of the Inuit plus the climate change, if I recall correctly.

I could have sworn that Diamond claims that the Norse didn't do so.

See above.

[Simon_Jester]

OK. The lack of fishing, as opposed to seal hunting, could be pretty easily explained by a lack of boats, too, which falls into a generalized problem the Greenland Norse suffered from because of the lack of timber.

[PainRack]

I agree. I also think it's time to call bullshit on Jared Diamond's theory about why the Norse settlements on Greenland fizzled out. Scandinavian culture revolved around boats, fishing, whaling and hunting seals back home in Northern Europe, so the idea that when hard pressed, they would refuse to go fishing, whaling and hunting seals to survive in Greenland is moronic. It could just as easily be a case of Greenland being the medieval equivalent of an Old West boom town that was abandoned when it was played out.

So, how would you answer Diamond question about the lack of fish-hooks and fishbones then? As for seals, errr.... they did do so.

Its entirely possible that they failed to adapt in time back to fishing as the logistics/infrastructure was more fragile in Greenland. The ships stopped coming in to trade, iron supplies and fuel ran out, more labour was required to maintain shelter and living and thus could not be diverted to try experimental ways of living.......

[PainRack]

I don't have the book in front of me, so I'm not sure exactly what he listed as the reasons why they had a hard time simply eating more seal meat when other food sources declined later in the history of the settlements. It was some combination of the Inuit plus the climate change, if I recall correctly.

He suggested it was a "possible" combination of hostile inuits and ice that blocked the Norse access to seal breeding grounds. Also, one should consider the increased number of "refugees" as survivors from failed farms moved to viable settlements. Even if they did increase access to eating seals, its plausible that the efforts were insufficient to feed the majority of the settlement and social/economic order collapsed. Once that happened, any surviving Norse would either have died of natural old age, died from starvation or assimilated with the natives.

[Spoonist]

So I don't know where people get all this fuss about Russian nationalists "refusing" the Varangian theory (if anything, most Russian nationalists ardently support it for racist reasons).

Just that we have met/talked to enough of them and with the revisionism of WWII from modern Medvedev/Putin era I assumed this was still taught in russian schools.
Personal anecdote, but stilll... of the three russian colleagues (moscow) that I have met and discussed history with all of them said that they considered norse influence in proto-russia was non-existant and pure cold war propaganda.
All three where interested in history and was otherwise quite knowledgable.

Then there is usually one or two which show up in any given forum about norsemen in the east.

[K. A. Pital]

*shrugs* Vocal minorities do not represent the conformal views of most in a society. I mean, I haven't heard anything but the Varangian theory and I have travelled well across the Soviet Union and spoke to many, many people about it. Even in a casual talk about Ancient Rus (which is a fairly rare subject to talk of, I admit), most either know nothing or know that "Rurik was a Varangian" (hell, Russia has a missile cruiser named "the Varangian" in honour of the Varangian princes of Rus, and this "Varangian" ship existed in all ages through Russian history).

This is all very strange.

all of them said that they considered norse influence in proto-russia was non-existant

*wonders* I really don't know what to say. 9 out of 10 people whom I'd usually talk to here would say Rurik was a Varangian. Same goes for school teachers, but it would be 10 out of 10, because there's a state education program and Varangian Theory is hard-written there since, well, probably 1960 or maybe even prior to that.

[Thanas]

*shrugs* Vocal minorities do not represent the conformal views of most in a society. I mean, I haven't heard anything but the Varangian theory and I have travelled well across the Soviet Union and spoke to many, many people about it. Even in a casual talk about Ancient Rus (which is a fairly rare subject to talk of, I admit), most either know nothing or know that "Rurik was a Varangian" (hell, Russia has a missile cruiser named "the Varangian" in honour of the Varangian princes of Rus, and this "Varangian" ship existed in all ages through Russian history).

This is all very strange.

Indeed, because the only Russians I have ever talked about this were of the slav/Rus-wanking sort. Not knowing your age, is it possible that the Rus-only view disappeared somewhere around the early 90s? Because the books I have read who support that view dated from the 70s/80s iirc (I don't have them with me, but that is what I remember).

[Spoonist]

This is all very strange.

Agreed.
Its the result of nationalists from many nations trying to dictate how history should be taught.

Just look at the wiki pages within the context. The talk pages goes on and on for no good reason with everyone having their own agenda. Oh, and for the record I'd say that scandinavian nationalists are worse when it comes to this than their russian counterparts.

[K. A. Pital]

The proto-Rus view was shelved in 1960s when most academia turned to Varangian theory and it was officially implanted in books. In 1948 there was the height of anti-Varangian campaign (though in the history field no one suffered repressions because probably no one really gave a damn about some vocals rambling).

I have entered school in 1991 on the verge of Soviet collapse, the programs we studied were still the same Soviet ones until grade 9 (all books were Soviet). Nothing indicated anything contrary to Varangian theory. *shrugs*

Perhaps some nationalist take a different view. There are a lot of various sects in Russia anyhow.

[Spoonist]

Perhaps some nationalist take a different view. There are a lot of various sects in Russia anyhow.

Maybe its as simple as this; only the ones with the nationalist view would bring it up? The rest would simply not care and thus would not bring up the subject at all.

[K. A. Pital]

Yeah, quite probably. I couldn't fathom that anyone but the nationalists would even care.

[Bilbo]

I agree. I also think it's time to call bullshit on Jared Diamond's theory about why the Norse settlements on Greenland fizzled out. Scandinavian culture revolved around boats, fishing, whaling and hunting seals back home in Northern Europe, so the idea that when hard pressed, they would refuse to go fishing, whaling and hunting seals to survive in Greenland is moronic. It could just as easily be a case of Greenland being the medieval equivalent of an Old West boom town that was abandoned when it was played out.

If the Norse that could leave did leave then those that were left behind were chosen for a reason. They were the bottom of the bottom of the social order. There is no reason to expect that the Norse who did leave left them with all that much in the way of resources to survive with on Greenland.

So you would have a reduced population made up of the troublemakers and the weak, who do not have much in the way of tools to use, and whose reduced numbers make it much harder to defend against the locals. This could easily result in a siege mentality where the remaining Norse, who have no ships to go fishing with, cannot effectively leave their village to gather other food, or even do much more than poor fishing off the immediate shore.

It is not much to imagine such a group being wiped out, starved out, in one winter.