This should probably be in ASB, but what if the Vikings, who seem to have traveled as far as the Middle East if not further OTL, sailed down the coast of Africa and established settlements in the Cape region?
Viking Colonization of the Cape
- Thread starter theman7777
- Start date
-
- Tags
- africa cape colonization vikings
Varangians (more or less Swedes) merchants did went as far as the Middle-East, but they went there trough Russia (originally down the Itil/Caspian road, then trough the Dniepr) : mostof the exchange, that said, took place in modern Russia.
While they did settled, apparently twice, in Newfoundland, it remained a small settlement fairly close to the secondary settlement of Greenland, fairly close itself to Iceland, and so on.
The Cape is definitely too far from both Scandinavian heartlands to be reached, even with Norse fairly developed seafare, without any reason (raid or trade) to go that far in the south (African states or cultures south of Morroco weren't really leaning to the coasts, and were rather set in the hinterland).
While they did settled, apparently twice, in Newfoundland, it remained a small settlement fairly close to the secondary settlement of Greenland, fairly close itself to Iceland, and so on.
The Cape is definitely too far from both Scandinavian heartlands to be reached, even with Norse fairly developed seafare, without any reason (raid or trade) to go that far in the south (African states or cultures south of Morroco weren't really leaning to the coasts, and were rather set in the hinterland).
That's why I said it's pretty ASB, I'm more wondering about the aftereffects rather than how it happens, but let's say that some Viking launch an expidition southward, and are able to continue down the African coast by trading with local peoples until they reach the Cape, where they hit a storm, forcing them to stop and settle in the region near OTL Cape Town.
Well, they settle around the Cape, and as they're only an handful of men, they'll go native (as it was customary of virtually all Vikings settlements historically, but giving we're talking of a really reduced number, it would not take even one generation to happen there). When Dutch come, what remains of their legacy are possibly undiscernable Scandinavian-issues genes.
I'm not too sure what's to be expected from a really reduced number of men that settle in the middle of nowhere, to be honest. Of course, we could co full ASB from the PoD and not just for it, and imagine the establishment of a southward equivalent of Mapungubwe.
I'm not too sure what's to be expected from a really reduced number of men that settle in the middle of nowhere, to be honest. Of course, we could co full ASB from the PoD and not just for it, and imagine the establishment of a southward equivalent of Mapungubwe.
For the sake of having a more interesting concept, let's say a large enough number of Viking men and women settle there that through conflict and disease with the natives, the Vikings maintain their culture and grow their settlement(s).
Burton K Wheeler
Moderator
"Unlikely" isn't the same as ASB. People shouldn't be afraid to exercise their imaginations.
Burton K Wheeler
Moderator
I recently was going through ten-year-old notes for a TL in which Carthaginians flee their city for Cape Verde before the Third Punic War and then become big traders in West Africa, eventually colonizing the Cape. You could probably handwave Northmen going to Cape Verde and even settling there, and get them to the Cape from there. Maybe have a Viking colony in Iberia that the Cape Verde expedition launches from?
There are two big problems I see with the Viking scenario. First, what brings the Vikings around Africa? The currents aren't very agreeable past the Bight of Benin. In my scenario, the Romans cut off the Punic trade with Spain and the British Isles and so they had to start going around Africa to trade in the Red Sea and the Gulf. I don't know a lot about Viking sailing, or sailing in general, but from what I understand, no one is likely to head south just to see what's south. Second, by 1000 AD the Cape may still be inhabited by San cattle herders, but you don't have to get very far inland or east along the coast before you run into Bantu cattle herders who the Vikings have no technological or organizational advantages over. The Trekboers were able to take advantage of depopulation and upheaval caused by Shaka Zulu to colonize South Africa beyond the Cape, but the Vikings can only realistically go north.
.
I read that one Pharaoh paid for Phoenician sailors to circumnavigate Africa. Took them 3 years to do it, leaving from the Red Sea and returning through Gibraltar.
Did the Norse use cavalry, did the Zulu?
It's kind of cheating, but you could use a Viking-founded state in Southern Europe to get to Africa.
For some reason I keep talking about Sicily on this site so I'll do it again. Successful Norman Kingdom of Africa could lead to them getting involved in trans-Saharan trade routes. In at attempt to bypass hostile Muslim states in the interior some adventurer tries to sail past the Strait of Gibraltar and sets up shop in Arguin or better yet, the mouth of the Gambia. From there you don't see Vikings ruling the Cape but you could possibly see Sicilians there, which would be impressive in and of itself.
For some reason I keep talking about Sicily on this site so I'll do it again. Successful Norman Kingdom of Africa could lead to them getting involved in trans-Saharan trade routes. In at attempt to bypass hostile Muslim states in the interior some adventurer tries to sail past the Strait of Gibraltar and sets up shop in Arguin or better yet, the mouth of the Gambia. From there you don't see Vikings ruling the Cape but you could possibly see Sicilians there, which would be impressive in and of itself.
Burton K Wheeler
Moderator
I like a Norse state in the Iberian peninsula (Galicia?) that does what Henry the Navigator did, but 500 years earlier. One big caveat is that Portugal had a big push towards Africa because of the shortage of gold in Europe at the time, which wasn't the case in the early medieval period (but was the case in the 3rd Century AD). If we imagine the Norse add lateen sails to knorrs, they'll basically be as good of ships for Atlantic voyaging as Portuguese caravels (correct me if I'm wrong, I know very little about sailing).
It's slow going if you hug the coast, which is what Dias did on his voyage. The later sailing route was basically shooting straight south from West Africa and then turning east when you think you're close enough to the Cape. Dias left Portugal in August and reached the Cape in February, so that's probably the most useful figure.
It seems the Carthaginians knew of Cape Verde and quite possible the circum-Africa route was well-known. Medieval Europeans aren't going to have that same confidence, though.
Zulus didn't use cavalry, and Afrikaners and later English learned that cavalry was one of the best ways to counter them. The Zulu didn't really fight like previous Nguni people did. Traditionally Nguni people fought as skirmishers; Shaka's innovation was to turn the Zulu into a melee army, which is going to be more vulnerable to cavalry. Vikings had horses, but I don't think they fought much as cavalry, and their horses were pretty small. I don't think it would confer much of a military advantage.
We must consider that the travel from East Africa to West Africa is easier than the opposite.
Actually, use of horses was relatively common during Norse raids, in order to add mobility. If we admit they carry enough supplies up to the Cape, regardless why, I don't see why they wouldn't use it for slave-hunting for exemple.
As for motivation for the norse to explore the area, I would say that potentially there could be a rumor of treasures or other valuable things in the region, thus prompting the norse to send an expedition.
Burton K Wheeler
Moderator
Using horses for mobility isn't the same as fighting as cavalry.
There would have to be a lot of rumored treasure to make a challenging six-month sail into unknown and uncharted waters more appealing than raiding the Mediterranean. The North Atlantic voyages were only a month or two long. The Portuguese were driven to West Africa by a gold shortage in Europe at the time, combined with legends of Prester John's kingdom, but that was a major state-sponsored effort that Vikings couldn't really replicate.
It's wasn't uncommon for them to do both, war horses being accounted for in both litterary and archeological sources.
As Kormak's Saga points
Horsemanship could fairly be associated as well to mobility than to fight.
While mounted fight wasn't used at the same extent as Late Carolingians and Post-Carolingians did (altough such use shouldn't be exagerated, especially for local fights) during raids, it is attested to see Vikings using mounts they carried for mobility to fight.
Burton K Wheeler
Moderator
Also this. From West Africa, Brazil is more accessible than the Cape.
I wasn't familiar with that, though I did know the large raiding armies of the late Viking era were often mounted. Still, horses won't give them as much advantage against skirmishers on rough terrain as they would against infantry relying on a shock charge.
My recent studies of Norse settlers in Greenland reveals global influences.
Circa 980, feuds forced Norsemen (e.g. Eric the Red) into exile. We suspect that some of those feuds started over food shortages and shortages of farmland in Scandanavia.
Meanwhile Moslem conquest of North Africa severed traditional trade routes that carried luxury goods like gold and elephant ivory to Europe.
Norse settlers in Greenland traded walrus ivory for European goods like timber and iron tools.
Climate and trade route changes reduced viability of the Greenland colony by 1400. Drift ice curbed communal walrus hunts. Walrus ivory was always considered inferior to elephant ivory. Around 1400 Portugese traders opened new shipping routes down the west coast of Africa.
Surely Vikings could have expanded their trade routes south of Constantinople and the Iberian peninsula.
Maybe Norse traders could have dominated Atlantic trade the same way the Dutch did.
Circa 980, feuds forced Norsemen (e.g. Eric the Red) into exile. We suspect that some of those feuds started over food shortages and shortages of farmland in Scandanavia.
Meanwhile Moslem conquest of North Africa severed traditional trade routes that carried luxury goods like gold and elephant ivory to Europe.
Norse settlers in Greenland traded walrus ivory for European goods like timber and iron tools.
Climate and trade route changes reduced viability of the Greenland colony by 1400. Drift ice curbed communal walrus hunts. Walrus ivory was always considered inferior to elephant ivory. Around 1400 Portugese traders opened new shipping routes down the west coast of Africa.
Surely Vikings could have expanded their trade routes south of Constantinople and the Iberian peninsula.
Maybe Norse traders could have dominated Atlantic trade the same way the Dutch did.
One idea I have not seen mentioned so far is a kind of Norman thing, a crusade to bring Christianity to the heathen Africans taking enclaves on the coast on a lot of the OTL locations slave forts and then after the crusade ends go into the business of selling slaves first to the north Africans then to the Europeans and becoming a kind of Venice of west Africa. Hey just a thought lol!
This could absolutely come out of successful Norman Sicily in the Kingdom of Africa or a Norman state in Spain. The religious aspect of it could come from an Iberian state that gets caught up in anti-Muslim Reconquista sentiment and basically becomes an alt-Spain.
This scenario reminds me of silly CK2 Crusades where Danes win control of Andalusia and then culture convert it to Danish...