In the infinite worlds setting is there a world where the vikings were more succesful

[aesir23]

I started a thread over on the Geek Culture forum to discuss the possibility of Norse Paganism surviving longer, it might be of interest to you.

Most of the write-ups in Infinite Worlds aren't really detailed enough to be a campaign setting anyway. You might as well design it yourself. A few words of advice on that score:

Decide when and where in this alternate history you'd want you campaign to be set. Start there. Then, work backwards from where you want to end up: e.g. if you want to center on Viking vs. Conquistador warfare in 16th century, set your divergent points in such a way as to make that possible.

A possibility to keep in mind: since the Norse were such avid travelers and traders, one possible result of more successful Vinland colonies might have been introducing the Native Americans to European diseases earlier and more gradually. Not to mention the possibility of the Norse acting as a bridge for technological development to travel between the Americas and Europe. Perhaps, Vinland would even join the Iroquois Confederacy!

Therefore, I'd posit that a very likely result of permanent Norse Colonies in America would be indigenous populations much more capable of defending themselves from from further colonization by Europeans.

[Whyte]

Originally Posted by ericthered

Is it known why the Spanish kicked off massive pandemics while the Vikings didn't seem to?

Number of people involved, length of contact with the natives, and pure bad luck of having infected people amongst the Spanish (and later, other colonists).

The Vinland colony was small (around 50 men or so, based on the sagas) and the contact with the natives was brief and quickly hostile. So not that many chances of spreading any diseases. They stayed in Vinland perhaps over the winter and then abandoned the colony.

It may have also helped that since the Norse (including Icelanders and Greenlanders) tended to live in scattered farmsteads rather than in crowded villages and towns, the infection rate must have been smaller, too.

Cold weather may have had something to do with it, too. Black Death didn't appear in Europe until well over three centuries after the abandonment of the Vinland colony.

[Dalillama]

Originally Posted by aesir23

A possibility to keep in mind: since the Norse were such avid travelers and traders, one possible result of more successful Vinland colonies might have been introducing the Native Americans to European diseases earlier and more gradually. Not to mention the possibility of the Norse acting as a bridge for technological development to travel between the Americas and Europe. Perhaps, Vinland would even join the Iroquois Confederacy!

Therefore, I'd posit that a very likely result of permanent Norse Colonies in America would be indigenous populations much more capable of defending themselves from from further colonization by Europeans.

I don't doubt that they'd rapidly start trading livestock to the locals, who would then in turn be introduced to things like cowpox (quite a number of the European diseases that devastated the Americas are versions of ones from livestock). The Vinlanders themselves wouldn't have brought smallpox; the first smallpox epidemic didn't hit the Scandinavian countries for a couple centuries, probably due to low population densities.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by ericthered

Is it known why the Spanish kicked off massive pandemics while the Vikings didn't seem to?

It might be rather difficult to know if they kicked off an epidemic appropriate to their population size. But their was not only more Spaniards, they were entering a more thickly populated area.

[aesir23]

Originally Posted by Dalillama

The Vinlanders themselves wouldn't have brought smallpox; the first smallpox epidemic didn't hit the Scandinavian countries for a couple centuries, probably due to low population densities.

A Vinland colony wouldn't have been isolated from Europe, though, they would have continued to trade with and receive fresh colonists from Iceland and Greenland.

Despite their reputation, the vikings were far-reaching merchants and traders, they would have traded products from North America for goods from Europe--and that would have exposed them to small-pox and other epidemics.

The Norse were also involved in a lively slave-trade, so they would have probably eventually brought some Slavic thralls to the Americas and would have probably enslaved some "Scraelings" and sold some of those in Europe.

[jovos]

I just remembered reading the comic book exiles its about a team of heroes each recruited from different alternate earths they go on missions to save alternate earths on the verge of destruction more specially i remembered Earth-991 A world where the Vikings built permanent settlements in America after the Mongols took control of Europe and North Africa. The Vikings then interbred with the indigenous tribes. which i thought was a good example of the kind of world I'm thinking of i remember the Norse/native people are at war with the mongols there was advanced weapons and technology such as automatic machine guns and tanks

[dcarson]

One difference in disease is that the Vinland settlers did not come directly from Europe. So that gives more time for diseases to die out in the trip. For most diseases you need a fast enough trip that there is still a contagious individual in the ship.

A semi-successful attempt that introduces some diseases, horses, cattle, iron, and some food crops would be interesting. No viking culture but natives that are closer technologically and don't die off in as a large a number. Would make it more like the colonization of India then the almost total replacement of the population.

[thecommabandit]

Originally Posted by ericthered

Is it known why the Spanish kicked off massive pandemics while the Vikings didn't seem to?

The settlers in Greenland had very little contact with natives. The area was totally uninhabited when they arrived and the Thule people slowly migrated from the Arctic, moving southwards down the western coast of Greenland, over a century or two. Most contact was very brief and involved lots of stabbing, and any time spent in Markland and Vinland was brief, only long enough to gather timber, hunt some animals then pack up and leave. In contrast, the Spanish explored Mesoamerica extensively and in great numbers, having already established colonies in the Caribbean in Hispaniola where their diseases had already devastated native populations, giving them plenty of space to incubate. Cortez stopped off in Hispaniola before he went to Mexico, giving his crew plenty of time to get infected with, or carry, the diseases that would later destroy the Mesoamericans.

[jovos]

What i meant was is there a world where the viking were more successful in that some of their conqests had been more permanent like in The Hammer and the Cross is the first part of a trilogy written by Harry Harrison and John Holm, a pseudonym for the Tolkien scholar Tom Shippey. The book chronicles the rise of protagonist Shef, a bastard son of a Viking and an English lady. The book is alternative history set in 9th century England, where Viking raids are common.

In this tale, the authors explore what might have happened if the Vikings had fought more successfully against the rule of Chalcedonian Christianity. Central to this story is the protagonist Shef. In the story, Shef's birth is discussed. Is Shef the son of the Norse god Ríg, or of a Viking named Sigvarth? More widely, the story questions whether the gods are real or just dreams. These questions are developed through the trilogy.

[Jasonft]

I've heard some severely scary estimates of the population crash after the European plagues hit North America. What are the best guesses about how many natives were there when the Vikings tried to settle?

Was there enough potential for trade between North America and Europe via Vinland for it to be an Alternate Earth?