If Viking trans-Atlantic exchange, then better fate for Native Americans?

[The_Persian_Cat]

Hello all,
So, Norse settlers established a colony in Vinland (Newfoundland) around 1000 CE. Leif Erickson and other Norsemen are known to have explored the Gulf of Saint Lawrence, and to have made contact with the Skrælings (indigenous peoples; a term also applied to the indigenous Greenlanders). But the venture in Newfoundland failed, and there was little interest in starting another one, so there was no trans-Atlantic contact again until the voyages of Columbus (except, of course, among the Inuit and other peoples of the Arctic Circle).

But, if the Vinland settlement was more successful, and had inspired more Norse (and possibly other European/Islamic/Old World) exploration of the New World -- might the indigenous peoples have fared better than they did OTL? (I acknowledge that naval technology wasn't really capable of sustaining trans-Atlantic settlements at this point, without things like magnetic compasses and so on; but one divergence at a time)

For one thing, the Norse didn't come as conquerors to the New World -- at least, not like the Spanish did. They set up only a couple coastal settlements, mostly as fishing/whaling outposts, and didn't seem to have much interest in pushing further into the continent. Not that they had the means to anyway -- the Norse settlements were established by companies of largely-independent Viking merchant-adventurers, not representatives of a kingdom like Early Modern Spain, with the men and materiel to conquer and administer a global empire. Additionally, the Norse religion didn't have a missionary impulse in the way that Christianity does, and (like many polytheistic faiths) didn't preach that its pantheon was necessarily the only real one; perhaps the indigenous people who fell under Norse rule would be spared the cultural erasure they suffered under the Spanish and other Europeans. I acknowledge that Leif Erickson was a Christian, and Christianisation was spreading among the Scandinavians at this point -- but the Norse didn't justify their expeditions with a mission to spread Christianity, like the Crusaders or the Conquistadores, and as far as I can remember they didn't really attempt to preach to the Skrælings, either. I think the Vinland settlements were populated by both pagans and Christians, iirc.

Aside from all that, though -- perhaps the smaller, more isolated settlements would spread disease among the indigenous Americans at a slower rate, such that by the time the Black Death spread across Europe, the Americans would have developed some immunity to European diseases (or at least, not have been as vulnerable to things like smallpox, plague, etc as they were IOTL). This last point is my biggest concern -- I'm not sure about it, but I'd be curious to know if it's a fair assessment.

If Norse settlements were successful (and brought interest in resources like beaver, whales, etc) perhaps adventurers from other Atlantic countries (Anglo-Saxon England, Ireland, Brittany, Hispania, Andalusia, Morocco, etc) would take an interest eventually, too. I don't know. Thoughts?

 

[Pauh the federalist]

Natives might pick up medival era tech (a lot of people assume gunpowder but that came vary late so it would be unlikely and if it did arrive it would not give that much of a jump start) what would be big for the natives is if horses are introduced earlier by the vikings instead of later by the Spanish thus giving wild horses a few centuries to spread ahead of otl. By the time of otl colonization assuming this butterflys Columbuss travels, without the discovery of new world gold europian intrest would be smaller so as you mentioned a slower europian colonization would give more time to rebound from old world diseases after the initial shock. A slower europian colonization would also give more time to adopt things like fire arms natives would not be able to get from the early viking settelers.

 

[WhatSantayanaSaid]

Aside from all that, though -- perhaps the smaller, more isolated settlements would spread disease among the indigenous Americans at a slower rate, such that by the time the Black Death spread across Europe, the Americans would have developed some immunity to European diseases (or at least, not have been as vulnerable to things like smallpox, plague, etc as they were IOTL). This last point is my biggest concern -- I'm not sure about it, but I'd be curious to know if it's a fair assessment.

Unless there was constant contact between the indigenous peoples, the Norse settlements, and the Old World, there's not going to be a level of immunity that prevents catastrophic population loss. There's a reason why there's a different flu shot every year, after all. Disease mutate constantly and immunity to one local strain doesn't guarantee immunity to another. One only has to look at the bubonic plague outbreaks in Europe after the Black Death to get a sense of this. Seville lost up to a quarter of its population in the 1647–1652 outbreak, the 1665 to 1666 Great Plague of London killed a quarter of the population, Malta lost 41% of its population in their 1675–1676 outbreak. And these were regions that already had plague pop up every so often (there were recurrences of plague in Europe in 1360–1363; 1374; 1400; 1438–1439; 1456–1457; 1464–1466; 1481–1485; 1500–1503; 1518–1531; 1544–1548; 1563–1566; 1573–1588; 1596–1599; 1602–1611; 1623–1640; 1644–1654; and 1664–1667 ). If plague and other diseases are even more intermittent, then the effects would be more acute.

Aside from that, contact with the Eastern Seaboard doesn't really change much for the Mesoamericans and South Americans. It's a long way from Newfoundland to Mexico and, unless there's way more trade and contact along the Atlantic coast, the circumstances for those regions don't change all that much. On that point, the Black Death was part of the reason the Norse lost contact with their overseas holdings (hard to fund colonies and send settlers when everyone back home is dying of plague and the economy is buckling from the collapse of the labour market and supply chains).

And, most importantly, this doesn't change the fundamental reasons behind Columbus's expedition. The Iberians still want access to Asian goods without having to pay exorbitant price hikes to the Italian merchant republics and the Islamic empires, so they'll be going around Africa and getting blown off course or trying to go west. They also have all the myths of fabled lands to the west, like Antillia. Unless the Reconquista goes very differently, they'll still be in the "God, gold, glory" mindset that drove the conquest of the New World. The Iberians likely land in Brazil, Colombia, and/or Mexico, all rich in gold/rumors of gold, due to currents and wind patterns.

The natives likely wouldn't have convert en masse to Christianity for the reasons you stated above and, even if they did, they'd likely not conform to the Catholic Church due to distance from Rome and their own religious practices. Which is still grounds for conquest and conversion from the Spanish perspective. Plus, being Christian didn't stop the English from colonizing Ireland, even when both were Catholic (the English said the Irish weren't properly Catholic and needed to be brought into the fold. And then Anglicanism happened and then Ireland was too Catholic).

 

[Jürgen]

One of the major problems for Native Americans is that Europeans had a better cold adapted crop packet, so if the Norse settle in the areas people suggest, they will have the crop packet to produce densely populated settlement and then move into Native American territories while slowly adopting American crops and create a mixed packet, mix that with the random epidemics hitting the Native Americans harder than European populations, I suspect that Native American will have problems.

 

[Lothal]

The issue is that from what we can tell introduction of Old World diseases seemed to be a localized phenomena that followed the Europeans wherever they went around the continent, not made better by constant warfare between tribes and the Europeans and food insecurities resulting from constant instability.

 

[Jürgen]

The issue is that from what we can tell introduction of Old World diseases seemed to be a localized phenomena that followed the Europeans wherever they went around the continent, not made better by constant warfare between tribes and the Europeans and food insecurities resulting from constant instability.

Yes, and the Norse will if they almost certainly set up a trade network in Eastern USA and Canada, pretty much in what would become New France in OTL. So Norse traders will spread epidemics among the native of this region, and even if they get a reputation for spreading disease the native will likely grow dependent on Norse for metal tools and weapons. Also without the beaver pelt trade dominating the main export of the natives to the Norse will likely be slaves, of course that may ironically increase food security.

 

[Domrémy-Scorniçesti Axis]

Hello all,
So, Norse settlers established a colony in Vinland (Newfoundland) around 1000 CE. Leif Erickson and other Norsemen are known to have explored the Gulf of Saint Lawrence, and to have made contact with the Skrælings (indigenous peoples; a term also applied to the indigenous Greenlanders). But the venture in Newfoundland failed, and there was little interest in starting another one, so there was no trans-Atlantic contact again until the voyages of Columbus (except, of course, among the Inuit and other peoples of the Arctic Circle).

But, if the Vinland settlement was more successful, and had inspired more Norse (and possibly other European/Islamic/Old World) exploration of the New World -- might the indigenous peoples have fared better than they did OTL? (I acknowledge that naval technology wasn't really capable of sustaining trans-Atlantic settlements at this point, without things like magnetic compasses and so on; but one divergence at a time)

For one thing, the Norse didn't come as conquerors to the New World -- at least, not like the Spanish did. They set up only a couple coastal settlements, mostly as fishing/whaling outposts, and didn't seem to have much interest in pushing further into the continent. Not that they had the means to anyway -- the Norse settlements were established by companies of largely-independent Viking merchant-adventurers, not representatives of a kingdom like Early Modern Spain, with the men and materiel to conquer and administer a global empire. Additionally, the Norse religion didn't have a missionary impulse in the way that Christianity does, and (like many polytheistic faiths) didn't preach that its pantheon was necessarily the only real one; perhaps the indigenous people who fell under Norse rule would be spared the cultural erasure they suffered under the Spanish and other Europeans. I acknowledge that Leif Erickson was a Christian, and Christianisation was spreading among the Scandinavians at this point -- but the Norse didn't justify their expeditions with a mission to spread Christianity, like the Crusaders or the Conquistadores, and as far as I can remember they didn't really attempt to preach to the Skrælings, either. I think the Vinland settlements were populated by both pagans and Christians, iirc.

Aside from all that, though -- perhaps the smaller, more isolated settlements would spread disease among the indigenous Americans at a slower rate, such that by the time the Black Death spread across Europe, the Americans would have developed some immunity to European diseases (or at least, not have been as vulnerable to things like smallpox, plague, etc as they were IOTL). This last point is my biggest concern -- I'm not sure about it, but I'd be curious to know if it's a fair assessment.

If Norse settlements were successful (and brought interest in resources like beaver, whales, etc) perhaps adventurers from other Atlantic countries (Anglo-Saxon England, Ireland, Brittany, Hispania, Andalusia, Morocco, etc) would take an interest eventually, too. I don't know. Thoughts?

The natives are likely worse off

 

[Arkenfolm]

Very likely there is, given there will likely be the emergence of a mixed-race Metis population which will cause the slow diffusion of Norse livestock (probably just sheep, but maybe cattle) along with Norse technology such as sailing/shipbuilding, the loom, metalworking, writing, and Norse crops like barley. This means a gradual sedentarisation of at least some Algonquian and Iroquoian societies (i.e. a lot less burning villages every 20-30 years) who will be much richer than OTL. There also will likely be a spread of Christianity in some form, even if it is heavily garbled and ends up similar to existing medicine societies where it is controlled by a single clan in the tribe and requires all sorts of initiations.

so there was no trans-Atlantic contact again until the voyages of Columbus

Not technically since Markland was routinely visited by Greenlanders as late as the mid-14th century. It may have been a minor supply of iron and timber (normally they used driftwood), but was certainly a major supply of seals and walrus to hunt after the southwards migration of the Thule culture Inuit made accessing their traditional hunting grounds too dangerous.

Yes, and the Norse will if they almost certainly set up a trade network in Eastern USA and Canada, pretty much in what would become New France in OTL. So Norse traders will spread epidemics among the native of this region, and even if they get a reputation for spreading disease the native will likely grow dependent on Norse for metal tools and weapons. Also without the beaver pelt trade dominating the main export of the natives to the Norse will likely be slaves, of course that may ironically increase food security.

I highly doubt they'd spread much disease, at least not particularly lethal diseases, given the huge distance between Vinland and Europe. And Vinland's population will be too spread out to support an endemic plague even if it does arrive from Europe (just like Iceland was for many centuries). What disease spreads will be fairly low mortality like chickenpox/shingles (not much more than 5% lethality in adults), mumps (maybe 1% lethality in adults but also chance of sterility), or whooping cough (very rarely lethal).

I'd argue they'd still trade for furs since it isn't like every Norseman is a hunter (or desires to hunt/trap). A chief could demand more valuable goods from his Norse followers and have the natives pay in furs. Consider also the right to dry fish or process dolphins/whales requires an available shore and the natives would demand the Norse offer something in exchange for using their land.

 

[Luuuma]

Unless there was constant contact between the indigenous peoples, the Norse settlements, and the Old World, there's not going to be a level of immunity that prevents catastrophic population loss. There's a reason why there's a different flu shot every year, after all. Disease mutate constantly and immunity to one local strain doesn't guarantee immunity to another. One only has to look at the bubonic plague outbreaks in Europe after the Black Death to get a sense of this. Seville lost up to a quarter of its population in the 1647–1652 outbreak, the 1665 to 1666 Great Plague of London killed a quarter of the population, Malta lost 41% of its population in their 1675–1676 outbreak. And these were regions that already had plague pop up every so often (there were recurrences of plague in Europe in 1360–1363; 1374; 1400; 1438–1439; 1456–1457; 1464–1466; 1481–1485; 1500–1503; 1518–1531; 1544–1548; 1563–1566; 1573–1588; 1596–1599; 1602–1611; 1623–1640; 1644–1654; and 1664–1667 ). If plague and other diseases are even more intermittent, then the effects would be more acute.

I feel that merely the introduction of the concept of epidemic disease would be a benefit in resisting the earliest waves of disease when the Spanish later arrive. Iirc the typical response in these earliest epidemics was for the family of the ill person to gather around them to comfort them.

Of course this is all contingent on epidemics from the vikings continuing to have a periodic effect, which they might not. The Americas had much less movement of people which would stymie disease spread up to a point. Diseases that spread into the mississippi basin would likely be there to stay- though idk how quickly it'd spread from there to mesoamerica.



I was under the impression that the Vikings had at least as poor relations with natives as the initial Spanish, the difference being that the balance of power was more in favour of the natives in the case of the Norse. After all, they didn't actually establish a single settlement due to hostility with the natives. With that as the precedent, contact would probably only be through visitors arriving to fish the Grand Banks or procure furs. The introduction of livestock is possible, with animals escaping the seldom-occupied waystations. Goats are best at surviving independently so would be more likely to reach the settlements of the natives who avoid the waystations.

With the premise of following the norse model, I don't think changes permeate beyond the northern Eastern Seaboard before the Spanish arrive. Honestly, the Spanish might be more hostile if they're familiar with tales from these other explorers, with the natives in the norse case being that combination of elusive and hostile which would be a much worse introduction than the Carribean Islanders were. For all the good it did otl.

 

[Vabasion]

Europe would still undergo Bullion famine. Europe would still desire silver and gold - which may not be found in Newfoundland but settlements would dot Americas and sooner or later explorers will come across Mesoamerican civilizations and spark desire for conquest. Plagues and diseases can build immunity but that doesn’t mean they’re fine with it. Ottoman Empire in 1840 covered a huge part of the world but thanks to diseases it had the same population as British Islands which again disabled its ability to urbanize and industrialize. Natives would get conquered sooner or later. Vinland settlements would spread Christianity by word or by sword as well

 

[Hastings]

In terms of what would happen, looking at places like Puritan New England, Hawaii, etc, in a low-disease environment with plentiful land, 2.5-3% growth rates are possible until things get ‘full’. So Vinland demographics will take off. Say a couple thousand by 1100. 30,000 by 1200. Iceland largely had farmable land taken at ~35k population but Newfoundland is better climate. Newfoundland has little Native population. It is one thing to harass a few dozen people when an island population of ~1000, it is another thing to be a threat to colonization except in the very first years. Will get squeezed out with little trace. Before mid-1200s expect little broader impact, Vinland isn’t huge trade option and for Vinlanders they are 1000 miles from native agriculture. Sure they will trade, but doubt much makes transfer. Horses won’t spread at this point, NE not near as suitable as SW for wild horses.

Then in mid-1200s comes overflow. Exponential growth means that like OTL 1700/1800s spread will be fairly rapid. By this time Vinland is becoming larger trade target and also getting a large enough population to support endemic pandemic diseases. But smaller tech/military tactics advantage than OTL Europeans and agricultural package mean could see substantial challenges once they get toward denser areas in North America. And much less likely to pull a Spanish Conquistadors. As for what is happening in Europe, high middle ages was time of increasing European poking around, could see European powers start poking around further south. They will still totally roll over the areas north of the corn line and then keep going south though. They will still have tech and agricultural advantage. In practice the line between it being clear you need to rejuggle your society and it being too late is a very fine one. Numerous examples of cultural groups pretty much entirely overrolling their predecessors with a better package with smaller advantage than Norse over Native.

 

[Jürgen]

In terms of what would happen, looking at places like Puritan New England, Hawaii, etc, in a low-disease environment with plentiful land, 2.5-3% growth rates are possible until things get ‘full’. So Vinland demographics will take off. Say a couple thousand by 1100. 30,000 by 1200. Iceland largely had farmable land taken at ~35k population but Newfoundland is better climate. Newfoundland has little Native population. It is one thing to harass a few dozen people when an island population of ~1000, it is another thing to be a threat to colonization except in the very first years. Will get squeezed out with little trace. Before mid-1200s expect little broader impact, Vinland isn’t huge trade option and for Vinlanders they are 1000 miles from native agriculture. Sure they will trade, but doubt much makes transfer. Horses won’t spread at this point, NE not near as suitable as SW for wild horses.

Then in mid-1200s comes overflow. Exponential growth means that like OTL 1700/1800s spread will be fairly rapid. By this time Vinland is becoming larger trade target and also getting a large enough population to support endemic pandemic diseases. But smaller tech/military tactics advantage than OTL Europeans and agricultural package mean could see substantial challenges once they get toward denser areas in North America. And much less likely to pull a Spanish Conquistadors. As for what is happening in Europe, high middle ages was time of increasing European poking around, could see European powers start poking around further south. They will still totally roll over the areas north of the corn line and then keep going south though. They will still have tech and agricultural advantage. In practice the line between it being clear you need to rejuggle your society and it being too late is a very fine one. Numerous examples of cultural groups pretty much entirely overrolling their predecessors with a better package with smaller advantage than Norse over Native.

A interesting factor is that they may leave native population behind them, some native lives on land which is likely not worth the bother for the Norse settlers, when there’s better land elsewhere. As example the Beothuk seems to have been centered around Grand Lake and connected waterways, and while this region is not bad for Norse farming, it’s out of the way and bordersome to settle. So the Beothuk may survive in this region and may even thrive with them adopting some aspect from Norse culture like herding. We saw something similar in the Scandinavia up to the High Middle Ages, with Sami enclaves existing in southern Scandinavia on land of little agricultural value. Such entities will likely be integrated into the Norse political structures.

 

[Hastings]

The southern Sami weren't actually herders! I could see similar trend of staying on garbage land. For a time. Once Newfoundland fills up in 1200s though... That is basically what happened to Beothuk OTL, they died out once Newfoundland's population crept into 10s of thousands and will be worse here because land pressure inland will rapidly exceed anything in OTL where farming was largely not economical and economy was *very* sea-skewed.

Not sure what odds are of the herding/flourishing thing. Beothuk didn't show themselves the greatest tech adaptors OTL. I think they likely last a while in less desirable areas, sort of like OTL, since good odds no one systematically tries to purge them.

 

[Hearkener]

But smaller tech/military tactics advantage than OTL Europeans and agricultural package mean could see substantial challenges once they get toward denser areas in North America. And much less likely to pull a Spanish Conquistadors.

The military advantages the Conquistadors enjoyed were pretty universal across Eurasia: dense formation warfare, iron metallurgy and the horse. A viking warhost would likely have much the same impact as a Spanish Tercio, a Roman Legion or indeed a Neo-Assyrian army.

What'd actually protect the NAs here was the same think that helped them ITL: flat social hierarchies are much harder to capture. The Spanish seized control of the Andes and Mesoamerica by beheading the centralized state-societies they found there, and for centuries their dominion was only possible through the continued use of control mechanisms established by native empires.

Unless there was constant contact between the indigenous peoples, the Norse settlements, and the Old World, there's not going to be a level of immunity that prevents catastrophic population loss. There's a reason why there's a different flu shot every year, after all. Disease mutate constantly and immunity to one local strain doesn't guarantee immunity to another. One only has to look at the bubonic plague outbreaks in Europe after the Black Death to get a sense of this. Seville lost up to a quarter of its population in the 1647–1652 outbreak, the 1665 to 1666 Great Plague of London killed a quarter of the population, Malta lost 41% of its population in their 1675–1676 outbreak. And these were regions that already had plague pop up every so often (there were recurrences of plague in Europe in 1360–1363; 1374; 1400; 1438–1439; 1456–1457; 1464–1466; 1481–1485; 1500–1503; 1518–1531; 1544–1548; 1563–1566; 1573–1588; 1596–1599; 1602–1611; 1623–1640; 1644–1654; and 1664–1667 ). If plague and other diseases are even more intermittent, then the effects would be more acute.

The Black Death was an exceptionally lethal disease though (likely a hemorragic fever specialized on humans, rather than the bubonic plague btw), that advanced at a time when the global climate was rapidly shifting and destabilizing every single major Eurasian society. Broadly, resistance to one type of flue still enables some form of resistance to all of them. Remember that there is a strong gradiant between complete immunity and no immunoreaction whatsoever.

 

[Hastings]

A lot of those advantages are still true. But they didn't really fight on horseback and not sure we should expect the Vinlanders to be that good at dense formation fighting either. Iceland/Greenland didn't have military combat and military-type experience in new world will largely be for at least long time a mixture of low-intensity raiding conflicts with natives and ax duels with the guy who your wife had an affair with.

But yeah, lack of hierarchy will help a lot here as well as the lower densities. Which incentivized making yourself a raiding nuisance retreating west or in undesirable land as opposed to enjoying your new slave life.

 

[Jürgen]

But let’s us discuss how Norse society was loosely organized, I will use Danish term for many of concepts, but also used the Icelandic when I know they use different terms.

Norse organized in Landskaber (landscapes) which was a geographic region with relative clear borders, it could everything from a medium size islands to large inland regions. Here’s the Danish Landscapes

These were run by a Thing/Landsting, which made laws, judge people, made peace and declared war. If the country had a king, the king travelled to the different thing to be hailed as king, but if not as on the Icelandic Commonwealth or medieval Jämtland, they elected a someone to lead the thing (more speaker of the house than president). Not hereditable position of power was usually called chieftains (Gothi in Iceland, landshøvding in continental Scandinavia). Without a king we usually call these landscapes for peasant republics, if this seems somewhat familiar it’s because the Swiss Canton developed from similar structures.

Iceland had their thing the Althing, but their population was mostly centered in the south western corner of the island, if the Icelandic population had been more split up it would likely have been necessary with several strong local things. If we use Greenland example the strong Western and Eastern settlements (Byggedh in Icelandic) served as two different landscapes.

So when looking at how Newfoundland is run by the Norse it’s necessary to think about how many landscapes do it have, are the separate peasant republics or are they united in a commonwealth under a Althing? But even if united in a commonwealth, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia almost certainly are their own separate landscapes.

But it also being up other powerful actors, without a king to centralize power and these will get influence. We have local chieftain who may grow into true nobles. But we also have the Church without any true state or common leader, the Church will take one state like structures. Even under the Norwegian rule the Church grew into the most powerful actor in Scandinavian North Atlantic, to such degree that it’s dominance only ended with Danish defeat of the Catholic Bishops in 1550. Of course we also have the entire element of the end of Icelandic independence with the Icelander bowing their head to the Norwegian king to end the continued feuds.

 

[Jürgen]

The southern Sami weren't actually herders! I could see similar trend of staying on garbage land. For a time. Once Newfoundland fills up in 1200s though... That is basically what happened to Beothuk OTL, they died out once Newfoundland's population crept into 10s of thousands and will be worse here because land pressure inland will rapidly exceed anything in OTL where farming was largely not economical and economy was *very* sea-skewed.

Not sure what odds are of the herding/flourishing thing. Beothuk didn't show themselves the greatest tech adaptors OTL. I think they likely last a while in less desirable areas, sort of like OTL, since good odds no one systematically tries to purge them.

The Sami were pretty much everything, honestly up to the 18th century a majority were fishermen, while only a minority was hunters and herders. of course the inland Sami of southern Scandinavia were not fishermen, but mainly mixing hunting with goat and sheep herding.

As for Beothuk I imagine the earlier contact with the Norse and a major Norse presence on Newfoundland will make them adopt some thing, and goat and sheep herding are really low hanging fruits. It gives meat and milk to eat and wool to sell for finished textiles and iron tools.

 

[Arkenfolm]

Then in mid-1200s comes overflow. Exponential growth means that like OTL 1700/1800s spread will be fairly rapid. By this time Vinland is becoming larger trade target and also getting a large enough population to support endemic pandemic diseases. But smaller tech/military tactics advantage than OTL Europeans and agricultural package mean could see substantial challenges once they get toward denser areas in North America. And much less likely to pull a Spanish Conquistadors. As for what is happening in Europe, high middle ages was time of increasing European poking around, could see European powers start poking around further south. They will still totally roll over the areas north of the corn line and then keep going south though. They will still have tech and agricultural advantage. In practice the line between it being clear you need to rejuggle your society and it being too late is a very fine one. Numerous examples of cultural groups pretty much entirely overrolling their predecessors with a better package with smaller advantage than Norse over Native.

200 years might be enough to start getting indigenous societies influenced by mixed-race peoples akin to the OTL Creeks, Cherokee, etc. (who became the "Five Civilized Tribes" because of that influence), so in most of modern Quebec around the St. Lawrence, in most of New England, etc. you'd see a new sort of Algonquian and Iroquoian society arise which would be very resilient to foreign incursion and terrible enemies to more distant peoples. There is archaeological and anthropological evidence that the peoples of the area north of Massachusetts in New England (most of modern New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine) had a lot of cultural differences from those in modern Massachusetts and south of there, and certainly some of this is because farming in northern New England is much harder.

So assuming the absolute best case for the Norse, this is where their border would sit. More likely the border would be far to the north and these would be Norse-influenced tribes inhabiting the region instead. It's also very worth considering that Markland would also be settled. Plugging in the population density of Norse Greenland to Labrador gets around 30-50K people, and Labrador's climate ranges from the Eastern Settlement's harshness to Iceland-tier "bountiful." Since it is known that Greenlanders visited Labrador as late as the end of the 14th century, I doubt they'd want to fight against the stronger Iroquoian and Algonquian confederations of the south if displacing the weaker northerly Algonquians like the Innu (who in precolonial times lived in scattered bands of no more than 100 or so people) is an option.

Iceland had their thing the Althing, but their population was mostly centered in the south western corner of the island, if the Icelandic population had been more split up it would likely have been necessary with several strong local things. If we use Greenland example the strong Western and Eastern settlements (Byggedh in Icelandic) served as two different landscapes.

From what I've read, the Eastern and Middle Settlement both were ruled by the Western Settlement because the Western Settlement had the bishopric, the best farmland, and best connection with the outer world, so they'd peacefully defer to it. Greenland was essentially united. Vinland would certainly not have this, and nor would Markland since there isn't one central wealthy location.

 

[Hawkeye]

If the Norse introduce horses to North America, I expect plains Mississippian city-states like Cahokia to collapse earlier than OTL. This is because native Americans would abandon intense agriculture in favor of hunting bison year round, which is a lot easier to do with horses when compared to backbreaking farmwork. Siouan languages might also spread further west.

 

[Arkenfolm]

If the Norse introduce horses to North America, I expect plains Mississippian city-states like Cahokia to collapse earlier than OTL. This is because native Americans would abandon intense agriculture in favor of hunting bison year round, which is a lot easier to do with horses when compared to backbreaking farmwork. Siouan languages might also spread further west.

There's a reason that farming peoples thrived on the Plains long after horses were introduced. The nomadic bison hunters relied on them for extra calories and goods. The natives in the region at European contact were semi-nomadic farmers, but that was more because of both their culture and that the land had been naturally degraded by its transition to a different sort of prairie due to the Little Ice Age. Yes, some might end like the Cheyenne, but the majority would not and they'd coexist well with large sedentary villages (even if they might try and rule over them with military strength).

It's also very dubious if the Norse could introduce the horse to North America. Throughout Scandinavia it was an animal owned only by the elite, and very few in Greenland ever owned one. Sure, they might gift a powerful allied chief a horse, but he'd just as likely slaughter it for a feast as he would ride it (let alone breed it). The boreal forests also aren't horse country, so there wouldn't be giant herds of feral horses for the natives to supplement horses traded to them.