Viking colonialism in the New World

[Arrian]

The tech gap had widened.

The Vikings were cutting edge for their time, but still didn't have firearms. The Spanish did, even if they weren't as dominant within Europe (although there were quite powerful).

Naval technology had also advanced. And there is the issue of just plain 'ole numbers.

-Arrian

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by binTravkin
Vikings were much more champions of european warfare than Spaniards in their time. What makes people think american natives would be much problem to them if much more skilled and better organized europeans weren't?

You needed more of them than the few who set up on Newfoundland.

This is not to knock the Viking achievement in any way- given the distances involved, the ocean they had to cross, the weather they had to contend with- getting to Newfoundland and Labrador (and possibly further south, but there's no certain proof) was a feat in itself.

They lacked horses and gunpowder, but also they lacked large numbers of indigenous peoples on their side- which the Spanish had in the Aztec and Inca empires- and also a sufficiently large 'metropolis' and power structure/trading network to attach themselves to.


Imagine if news of a huge silver find in Labrador or Newfoundland had reached Iceland or Norway- there would have been no shortage of Norse willing to risk the dangers to amass a hoard of riches.

[Odin]

I've always wondered why the Norse never transmitted Eurasian diseases to the Native Americans and Inuit. The Greenland Norse often made trips to Labrador for timber, certainly they would of interacted with the natives.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Odin
I've always wondered why the Norse never transmitted Eurasian diseases to the Native Americans and Inuit. The Greenland Norse often made trips to Labrador for timber, certainly they would of interacted with the natives.

As molly has alluded to, while the Spanish were going after empires with great population densities, the North American civilizations were far more spread (with the possible exception of the Mississippian natives whose capital was Cahokia). That would mean that Eurasian diseases wouldn't have had the same impact. Perhaps small epidemics, but due to the distances involved would probably wouldn't have spread as quickly.

[Wernazuma III]

What's more, the Vikings who came to America were rather small groups from Iceland, themselves rather unconnected to the rest of the Old World - thus it is well possible that none of them carried small-pox or influenza with him. And if one did, then the low population density in north eastern America did its part to prevent it from spreading.

I wouldn't, however, throw all North America in one "low population density" pot. The Mississippi region definitely was highly populated and was struck by European diseases right at the arrival of the first Spanish expeditions, Florida and parts of the eastern US-states were a bit less so, but still more vulnerable than the few Indians on Newfoundland of the Mic-Mac of Nova Scotia.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Odin
I've always wondered why the Norse never transmitted Eurasian diseases to the Native Americans and Inuit. The Greenland Norse often made trips to Labrador for timber, certainly they would of interacted with the natives.

It's quite possible that some of the Beothuk did contract some illnesses from the small group of Vikings at L'Anse aux Meadows on Newfoundland and perhaps some of the Inuit/Eskimo in Labrador and Greenland did too.

Unfortunately unlike the Spanish who had their own literate scholars to rely on (and Mayan/Aztec clerks/artists who could produce the Codex Mendoza for instance) the Beothuk/Inuit could only leave tantalising physical clues behind and the reports of their enemies.


Somewhere else where a population density may have allowed for rapid transmission of diseases from Europeans is oddly the Amazon Basin.


In South America, the remains of a once flourishing Amazonian civilization have been found- they relied on incredibly fertile soil called terra preta- this is now being seen as a new black gold:

The secret of the soil

The search for clues in the Amazon takes place at grass roots level - in the soil itself. Along Brazil's Tapajos River, archaeologist Bill Woods has mapped numerous prehistoric sites, some with exquisite, 2,000 year old pottery. There is a common thread: the earth where people have lived is much darker than the rainforest soil nearby. Closer investigation showed that the two soils are the same, the dark loam is just a result of adding biological matter. The Brazilians call this fertile ground terra preta. It is renowned for its productivity and even sold by local people.

Archaeologists have surveyed the distribution of terra preta and found it correlates favourably with the places Orellana reported back in the 16th century. The land area is immense - twice the size of the UK. It seems the prehistoric Amazonian peoples transformed the earth beneath their feet. The terra preta could have sustained permanent intensive agriculture, which in turn would have fostered the development of advanced societies. Archaeologists like Bill Petersen, from the University of Vermont, now regard Orellana's account as highly plausible. But if the first Conquistadors told the truth, what became of the people they described?

Tragically, the visitors brought diseases to which the Amerindians had little resistance: smallpox, influenza, measles. Orellana and his men were the first and last Europeans to set eyes on an Amazonian civilisation. They themselves may have been the ones to trigger its rapid decline.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/eldorado.shtml