Say the vikings came in large waves to north america and established a huge presence there, eventually having grown into a small country by the time the english and french settlers arrived... How large of a divergence would this be in world history, up to the 21st century?
Hard to say. Why were they more successful and permanent than the Viking settlement(s) that did occur (depending on your history). Keep in mind that even though the Spanish were here first, ultimately the British and French fought for most of North America with Spain and Portugal influencing South America and the Southwest in North America. I'd say the divergence would be huge, but it's up to the author to decide. I think the biggest factor is going to be WHEN do these settlements begin to flourish and then when does the land grab start, because once word spreads in Europe other world powers will follow. If these settlements occur before gunpowder was ubiquitous in European warfare would that affect the balance between the Indigenous and result in permanent Indigenous nations that coexist with European ones?
Other things to consider: Is there an American Revolution? Does the French Revolution still happen or happen differently, etc?
All those things are in the cards. Thanks for the input. Considering what you said: European powers arrive earlier. Around 1500? Maybe earlier? Before gunpowder is an interesting idea. Then maybe the balance of power shifts significantly enough that french and indian war doesn't happen. This would then mean that USA still exists, but is smaller and shares borders with an independent brotherly french-derived nation that perhaps became independent as a result of the chaos of the french revolution, the modern nordic nation derived from the viking settlers, and an independent indian confederation. So, then, how would this ultimately change modern 20th century events, WWI, WWII, cold war, etc? Does soviet union even exist? Maybe Russia doesn't exist, but instead Rurik's Gardariki, with norse culture?
The Scotch-Irish would still immigrate, ignore the rules, cause untold problems for those in New World authority, and end up kicking Viking butt instead of English butt.
disclaimer: I am an idiot Leif Erikson's settlement thrives instead of disappearing? Europe would have found out about America a few hundred years earlier, presumably. A big question in this scenario is whether European seamanship and nautical technology would have been developed enough in the High Middle Ages for Western Europeans to establish anything more than a tenuous connection with the New World; and if not, whether this discovery would have spurred an earlier development in sailing technology. I don't know the answer to that. Then there's a bigger question, which is why the Europeans would care much. I doubt that the feudal kingdoms of the time would have had the capability or the economic incentive to do much colonizing. Canada is cold with a bunch of trees. I assume that a connection to mainland Europe would have been tenuous at the least. Each age has its characteristic impulses, and my suspicion is that if you told Europe about the New World around this time, she would have said "cool bro" and kept building cathedrals and going on crusades. What's the most interesting is this new Norse kingdom in Canada. I imagine as the settlement grows, a good proportion of them will drift south. It's warmer there. A few questions: 1. Is it Christianized? 2. How do they interact with the Indians? I imagine that they would fight a lot, and there would be significant cultural exchange. 3. How much contact do they maintain with the old world? 4. How does the New World look by 1500? Have the Indians achieved technological parity with the Norse? How have Norse political and social institutions influenced them? What is the size and power of this Norse kingdom? Basically, what world (not so new by now) are Western Europeans confronting? I'll go out on a limb and say that if a Norse nation in the New World is already hundreds of years old by the time that Western Europeans begin to arrive en masse in 1500, then nothing will look the same by the 20th century. The United States? I seriously doubt that exists. The French and Indian war was born out of a rivalry between the British and the Bourbon monarchs of Spain and France. That rivalry seems resilient enough (although do the Bourbons rule Spain in this timeline?) but is there room in North America for French colonies? The colonial situation in North American would be so different that I would have a hard time believing that the French and Indian war, as such, occurred. The French Revolution's cause was a very particular set of contingencies, most immediately the financial difficulties of the French monarchy and specifically Calonne's convocation of the Assembly of Notables. It didn't just happen because the sans culottes got angry one day and decided to storm the Bastille. If Calonne hadn't decided to convene the Notables it's probable that the French government could have defaulted on their loans with less dire consequences than were apprehended at the time, and certainly with consequences less dire than turned out to be the case. Hell, even if the king had been willing to deal with the Estates and agree to some reforms, things would have turned out much differently. No Tennis Court, no Bastille. And even during the first couple years of the Revolution, a republic was far from inevitable. The Revolution was a very contingent event, made even more unlikely if the Seven Years War, and therefore the American Revolution (two major contributors to French financial difficulties), never happened. My basic hypothesis is that neither the French nor American revolutions would have occurred in the way that they did without the financial/constitutional complications which were laid bare by the Seven Years War. And that's assuming that American and French settlement in North American didn't change very much between timelines, which seems dubious but what do I know? And if those revolutions never occurred, then liberalism looks quite different. The modern world, by extension, looks quite different. No French Revolution, no Napoleon I. No Napoleonic Wars, no nothing, you know? How does 1848 look? Probably not a significant year in this timeline. Marx wouldn't be as important, I guess. I would suppose that the lack of a Napoleon significantly changes German/Prussian history--Germany Reunification? I don't know. Of course, you'll get massive conflagrations on the European continent, but it won't be the same. I'd just write off the 19th century. Forget about the 20th. Every preceding century would have been quite different as well, I imagine. What is the Spanish colonial situation? Do they get a headstart on colonization, or the opposite? Does the Aztec empire fall in the same way? At any rate, one thing is sure--there would be a lot more blonde people.
Wow. You really came through on this post. Thanks for being so in-depth. Let me try to answer some of your questions so we can continue the brainstorming: I agree with you that maintaining a connection to Europe would be very difficult and it would indeed be a very minimal/tenuous route. This however answers your other question. This cut-off norse kingdom in north america would be largely free of Europe's christianizing influence on Scandinavia, as such, I would say that only a minimal christian presence would exist, not enough to alter the course of nordic culture and root out paganism. This christian minority could be a key conflict point in the nordic kingdom, maybe? I believe a bitter rivalry with the indians would develop, with both parties learning from and developing warfare tactics. This would leave the indians better prepared to face future european colonizers, I guess. As I said previously, I believe it would be minimal contact until 1300-1400. Any thoughts before I go in-depth on what you estimate in the latter half of your postt?
I think this one is hard to say for certain. The French, for instance, got along quite well with the natives because they treated them as equal trading partners in the fur trade. If the Vikings were a source of European goods for the natives without claiming their land and pushing them off by force...they probably would have found terms of coexistence. Interestingly they found female Native American DNA in the population of Iceland so even during the rather limited experiment in Vinland at least one Native American female contributed her genes. Hard to say if it was by force or by marriage as we know so little about the settlement at all, let alone their interactions with natives.
One major difference between vikings and native Americans is that vikings developed metallurgy. Their weapons would be devastating in combat against tomahawks, clubs, arrows and stone knives. But quite likely they would get along and establish trade, since I doubt there would be mass quantities of vikings moving in and wanting to take over. If they did move in in those kinds of numbers that would mean there would be ships moving frequently between America (or whatever it would be called) and the Viking world, so maybe the connection wouldn't be all that tenuous really? But I don't know how numerous vikings were or if they had any great need to expand into other regions. Also quite likely, if they live in peace and establish trade, that the natives would learn metallurgy from them.
It seems obvious that if the vikings established themselves in North America, they would eventually overcome their differences with the indigenous nations and form a joint confederation with them. Then veterans of the Varangian guard from Constantinople would start moving into Vinland with Byzantine technologies so that when the Spanish or English arrived their ships would meet with Greek fire and be set ablaze before they even made landfall. (Naturally this technology would have traveled down to Mexico in time for the conquistadors' arrival). Cortes would be captured and the Aztecs would send him home with his eyes put out (like Basil II did to the Bulgars). After that the Americas would would be rumored to be a nightmarish hellscape fiercely defended by demonic supermen and the would-be colonists would steer well clear of it. And they all lived happily ever after.
That all sounds quite plausible. An Iroquois Confederation with steel swords and armor? Hell yeah. That's so badass. The thing about Christianization is that it only takes a missionary or two to make a large impact, especially in those times. And although Vinland may be only tenuously connected to mainland Europe, I suspect that there would be considerable intercourse between Vinland and Scandinavia.
Well, It would be way more interesting for the universe if this nation is pagan, so I'll go with that. My story is mainly set in the US so I sort of need it to exist as well. I made a map, I guess this is what it should look like given what we discussed? Here's the explanation of some of my choices, please correct me if I'm wrong somewhere: France never sells Louisiana as it never lost too much territory as the french and indian war never happened. In this universe USA is not as strong as it is IRL, so it never fights a war against a strong, organized mexican empire under the dynasty established by Maximilian Habsburg. It also ultimately annexes and incorporates most small central american nations that ultimately became independent and stretches all the way down to connect to south america. Vinland colonized what would have ended up being Quebéc and Rupert's Land. Maybe I should give Canada a bit of land near Hudson's Bay though, I think I went wrong here, I can fix it later. Canada also ends up buying Alaska.
Don't forget the Dutch. The resort island off the coast of Rhode Island, Block Island, was named after the Dutch explorer Adrian Block. New York City was originally New Amsterdam. When my grandparents were alive they had a summer house in Castine, Maine. There are (or were) historical signs all over Castine referring to the "battle line of four nations." It's a very small, seacoast town with a good natural harbor. At various times it was under the control of the English, the Dutch, the French, and the Americans. (And that doesn't take into account the Native Americans who were there when the Europeans arrived.) If the Vikings had settled along the coast of northern New England, Castine would almost certainly be part of New Iceland rather than New England.
Why should this cascade of events ultimately change the fact that the dutch no longer have a stake in north america? Btw, do you believe anything else needs changes to make sense?
I wouldn't concentrate on that too much; that was purely a result of trade priorities of the time. Europe needed sugar & gold during the early days of colonization, which were grabbed by the Spanish. North america had food (which was abundant in Europe), iron/coal for steel (recently discovered in Europe and produced abundant in Germany, Spain and Sweden) and oil (not yet discovered). The concentration on NA colonization and development came with the 18th century and the importance of cotton. Once Bengal was claimed by the British sugar trade pretty much slumped. As they had overcome differences with Muslims in Sicily, Britons in England, Slavs in the east and the French in Normandy... ... or not. I would cast a weird eye on that, it would paint them too idyllic. Vikings were adventurers and conquerors, not peacemakers. They arrived to America with knowledge of metallurgy, they'd likely wreak havoc and establish a hegemony. Beyond that, I doubt Native Americans would have the bargaining chip of hiring the vikings like the Pope or the French had. Unsure about that too. Don't know what greek fire's worth against naval artillery. If it was that simple, the Byzantines wouldn't have been eternal underdogs in naval warfare throughout their late history. Remember, their city first fell under a (crusader) naval blockade. What precisely stopped Vinland from spreading westwards / southwards from the Great Lakes? It's the largest issue I see with that map. I can easily imagine a Vinland eastablished in Newfoundland & Nova Scotia, isolated from the rest of North America as they encounter the Iroquois directly to the west and can only spread unopposed down the east coast. But what stopped them from pushing inwards? All those lands south of the great lakes are ripe farmlands for the taking, with a huge viking-issue ... ... Lousiana in general to me parallels the geography and potential of the dnieper-don-volga area and portage system. The reaction of the vikings in Europe was adventure - they pulled ships over land, explored and established trade posts. The importance of Chicago parallels the importance of Novgorod as both control major north-to-south portages. Even more important, the Chicago portage was much easier to traverse - Natives have been using it for over a thousand years and showed it to Europeans like it was a simple valley or pass. And it is this understanding that kind-of leaves you with the strange perception over French holdings in Canada - it might seem like a strange snaky patch of colonies, but in reality, the French simply colonised the banks of a major river/portage system where trade could flow freely. In a way, I see this as a beautiful parallel to European viking adventures. Miklagard was the "Great City" at the end of the long rivers & portages, a city of gold the vikings reached after months of travel and a final stretch across the sea. Couldn't they perceive Tenochitlan as their own Miklagard (and not Constantinoples), just as Alexander looked at the Himalayas and said "Ah, so this /is/ the mountain of the Gods!". Also I have to do it, sorry. Spoiler
Would Canada exist at all? That started as colonies along the Atlantic coast, not sure that would ever have happened if Vinland was in the way. The British and French settlers would likely aim further south.
I suspect that, for France to have retained its North American colonies, Napoleon would have had not been overthrown - which would have had a whole other set of ramifications for Europe. If you're positing that Vinland survives for 500 years into the Age of Exploration, they're going have grown into something comparable to, say, Denmark, and inevitably gotten involved in European wars of the era, with ramifications there. During the 30 Years' War, Norway-Denmark owned Iceland and settlements on Greenland. It's not a stretch of the imagination to suggest that they would have controlled an expanded Newfoundland colony - which would have meant war with France after 1635.
I was thinking about this during a work meeting....what if...Vinland had been firmly established but for one reason or another was cut off from Europe and developed in a bubble? So from the Viking age until Europeans (re)"discover" the Americas, no contact with other white men. I would imagine that they would assimilate with the natives to some degree but would keep their organization, laws, written language, metal work, agriculture and such...perhaps setting up a Scandinavian-Native American empire. Downside is I don't think they would independently develop gunpowder, however, could you imagine the carnage that coordinated, steel-weapon armed native soldiers could have inflicted...the disorganized ones did plenty of damage in our real timeline...
The Vikings weren't known in the Old World for peaceful assimilation, staying in their own physical space, or respecting the property of others. I doubt they'd be known for these things in the New World, either.
Exactly. I don't know where it's coming from that people think the natives would get along so well with them.
In England, once they conquered the local Anglo-Saxons, they pretty much lived and let live as long as they got their Danegeld (taxes). Outnumbered on a far away continent and cut off from Europe I could see them assimilating with natives quite easily...if for no other reason than because there would be a ton more natives than Vikings so being billy badass wouldn't do them so well. Also, between Vinland and the Greenland settlements it looks like while some were warriors, a lot more people were Scandinavian farmers looking for some open land to raise sheep and cattle. I don't think they would be looking to start a brouhaha and upset their agricultural lifestyle. If anything it would be a lot more likely that the natives would have seen how weak they were and killed them all off to take their iron goods and animals than the other way around.