Most discussions about Vinland-related PoDs seem to center around Vinland itself and its effects on Europe, moreso than its effects on the Americans, so I'm wondering: what if through contact with the Norse in Vinland (which would presumably need to be at least a little more robust in this scenario), Old World diseases like smallpox or measles were introduced to the general population of North America (as opposed to just some isolated tribes who will die before spreading it)? In this scenario, Vinland doesn't necessarily need to survive for longer than it takes to do this.
WI: Vinland introduces Old World diseases to New World
- Thread starter Keperry
- Start date
twovultures
Donor
IIRC smallpox didn't break out in Iceland until the 1200's, so you'd need pretty close contact between Iceland and the northeast for 200 years for it to reach there.
Going by OTL, smallpox will burn through the northeast to the great plains. It *might* burn itself out, but it possibly could become established in a densely populated area like the Mississippi valley. If this happens, the disease could eventually reach Mesoamerica and from there South America.
Going by OTL, smallpox will burn through the northeast to the great plains. It *might* burn itself out, but it possibly could become established in a densely populated area like the Mississippi valley. If this happens, the disease could eventually reach Mesoamerica and from there South America.
Or alternatively is there a way to get smallpox to Iceland (and from there to Vinland) earlier than that? Maybe if Iceland's trading links with the mainland are stronger somehow?
I will say that what I'm most interested in are the potential effects of having Americans already having reasonable immune resistance by the time that Europeans are "ready" to colonize on the large scale they did in OTL. If their populations have already reasonably bounced back from the epidemics by then, which I don't know if they would.
PhilippeO
Banned
by the time second contact happen, American smallpox would be different. In Europe, smallpox usually recur after several decades, virus continue to adapt. If smallpox survive as endemic in NW, during second contact, both smallpox would only give little immunity to each other.
it would be difficult to have Vinlander introduce variety of diseases to NW, one or two wouldn't have much effect, since during second contact multiplicity of disease would still be overwhelming natives.
it would be difficult to have Vinlander introduce variety of diseases to NW, one or two wouldn't have much effect, since during second contact multiplicity of disease would still be overwhelming natives.
Here's what I think would happen: the Natives would be more disease-resistant by the time second contact happens, which would make the African slave trade unnecessary for the European empires to practice, and the Manifest Destiny would be a lot bloodier.
See, the predicted outcome here is "Natives Stronk, Europe Rekt", but I'm not so sure. Wasn't the time scale needed (13th-14th centuries) critical to the rise of their organized civilizations to begin with? What's to say that the Spanish or whomever find a devoid and backwater wasteland full of people who are resistant to disease but otherwise incapable of fighting back?
twovultures
Donor
Not likely, IMO. The orthopox virus has jumped species and still provides cross-immunity (for example, cowpox can vaccinate against smallpox). So while diverged for hundreds of years, American and European strains of smallpox would provide immunity to each other.
Monter said:
Current thinking is that the camps in Newfoundland were actually base camps from which further exploration took place, and that 'Vinland' proper refers to the North American mainland, or at least the Maritimes. Smallpox introduced there could easily ravage its way across eastern North America, and possibly further depending on trade contacts/refugees.
For Nalphnado and Spelph, I agree that people are being too optimistic about 'disease-resistant' Natives. I don't think the Vinland contact is going to spread measles, and definitely isn't going to spread malaria. These could still function as biological weapons when a second, post-black plague contact develops.
That said, smallpox was a major killer. If it has already become endemic and the population has bounced back, the Native cultures will be in a better position to at least fight off the first wave of TTL's version of Pizarro and Cortez. Even if they are conquered by Europeans, Native people will be more numerous and have higher morale, as they would have had a chance to develop cultural ways to cope with massive pandemics already.
Alright, so things still won't be good for the natives once the Europeans get there in force, but it might at least be harder for some random European asshole to waltz in with a bunch of rubes and conquer the whole damn empire. Instead might the colonization be slower and more piecemeal, and preserve more of the local population and culture, like the European colonization of Asia in OTL (except with more disease and death thrown in for good measure)? And I think that some sort of apocalyptic, millennarian-type religious movement (which seems reasonable to conjecture as a cultural reaction to massive pandemics) could be very cool.
I don't know about that, I think that in a lot of places (Mesoamerica, Andes, Mississippi Valley, Southwest) there were established organized civilizations already, so smallpox would be a major blow but wouldn't stop organized civilization from rising entirely.
Agreed. It's worth noting that disease by itself has almost never caused the collapse of any civilization. The plague of Justinian devastated the Byzantines, but the empire survived. Not a single European kingdom fell due the Black Plague. Smallpox, when it came IOTL, didn't end the Aztec Alliance and Inca Empire.
Overall, I think this would be a big boost for Native Americans. The disease would result in a much lower population density in densely settled areas beginning in the high medieval times - by the time more Europeans follow hundreds of years later, it's well settled into the native populations, which have already begun to bounce back.
Cheers,
Ganesha
There are actually two schools of thought about the disease's effects in North America.
One school assumes that the average population density there in pre-colonial times was originally quite high, so that the disease spread easily out of Mexico -- with a comparable lethality to the situation in Mexico right through that spread -- and then the more scattered tribes eventually encountered by Europeans were just the descendants of the relatively few survivors.
The alternative theory suggests that the pre-colonial population in most of the continent (apart from parts of the south-west and the Mississippi basin) was actually only at about the same strength that the Europeans later encountered, with enough breaks in the pattern to severely limit group-to-group spread of the disease out of Mexico.
The former theory lets one credit the natives with more success and blame Europeans for an even greater effect on those natives' wellbeing than was historically recognised, but apparently there's little if any evidence for significantly higher population density during the period in most areas and the extreme vulnerability to disease shown by many tribes when they were actually contacted does help to argue against the possibility of earlier exposure...
The latter theory presumes a total pre-colonial population for all the lands north of Mexico put together of somewhere between 2 million & 3 million, which is coincidentally about the total population claimed by native groups today, whereas the former theory multiplies that figure by ten, twenty, or maybe even more.
One school assumes that the average population density there in pre-colonial times was originally quite high, so that the disease spread easily out of Mexico -- with a comparable lethality to the situation in Mexico right through that spread -- and then the more scattered tribes eventually encountered by Europeans were just the descendants of the relatively few survivors.
The alternative theory suggests that the pre-colonial population in most of the continent (apart from parts of the south-west and the Mississippi basin) was actually only at about the same strength that the Europeans later encountered, with enough breaks in the pattern to severely limit group-to-group spread of the disease out of Mexico.
The former theory lets one credit the natives with more success and blame Europeans for an even greater effect on those natives' wellbeing than was historically recognised, but apparently there's little if any evidence for significantly higher population density during the period in most areas and the extreme vulnerability to disease shown by many tribes when they were actually contacted does help to argue against the possibility of earlier exposure...
The latter theory presumes a total pre-colonial population for all the lands north of Mexico put together of somewhere between 2 million & 3 million, which is coincidentally about the total population claimed by native groups today, whereas the former theory multiplies that figure by ten, twenty, or maybe even more.
The population needs to be high enough to support smallpox indefinitely. Meaning that there's enough peopl, in desnely populated enough regions, connected over a wide area, that the disease can work its way back and forth along trade routes, without wiping them out. If the population crashes utterly, then there's not enough trade or contacts for the disease to make its way back. I which case, how will their immunity be boosted at all?
And if there were widespread populations high enough for that, then it standa to reason that he Americas would have had more potent diseases of their own in the first place, not just the scattered variety that they did.
And if there were widespread populations high enough for that, then it standa to reason that he Americas would have had more potent diseases of their own in the first place, not just the scattered variety that they did.
twovultures
Donor
Not necessarily. The Americas had not been populated by humans for as long as Eurasia and Africa, and did not have widespread domestic animals (which isn't as vital to the evolution of disease as Jared Diamond makes it out to be, but it is helpful), so did not have as many lethal epidemic diseases-even in very highly populated areas like the valley of Mexico.
While I believe that the pre-Columbian area north of the Rio Grande wasn't very densely populated, it did have areas that were densely populated like the Mississippi valley where there's a possibility for smallpox to become endemic. In addition, increased contact with Vinland could mean a higher Native population through the adoption of livestock-milk to wean babies with means higher birthrates, and wool clothing and domestic meat means that the limiting factor of deer for hunting doesn't keep the population down like it may have IOTL.
Driftless
Donor
Doesn't this premise count on a longer exchange between Europe and North America? As much to mesh with the cycles of Smallpox or other diseases going from continental Europe to Scandinavia, Iceland, maybe Greenland, then to North America? Then, some frequent direct interaction between the Vinlanders & the Indians? Even if the Vinlanders brought the diseases to North America, and if their colony were functionally wiped out themselves, what's the likelihood of passing the disease to the Indians, unless there is some level of interaction?
IF more extensive interaction is the case, isn't there likely other exchanges being made: some metallurgy, some domestic animal husbandry, the wheel, etc?
You probably get both levels of exchange going on, or neither: disease and technology
IF more extensive interaction is the case, isn't there likely other exchanges being made: some metallurgy, some domestic animal husbandry, the wheel, etc?
You probably get both levels of exchange going on, or neither: disease and technology
iddt3
Donor
That's part of the issue. Vinland wasn't sustained enough, and transport wasn't fast enough, to really bring the Americas into contact with European diseases. Moreover, a one off introduction isn't enough, you need sustained contact and a large enough population to select for immunity across multiple generations. Even today, with modern medicine, people of Native American descent are far more vulnerable to the likes of the common cold, and that's with generations of intermixing and exposure.
Without intensive and sustained enough European contact Vin-pox kills a bunch of people locally and probably precipitates a regional collapse, but it likely burns out before it spreads too far and doesn't retain a local reservoir. Then outside groups not affected by the spread of the disease come in and displace the badly weakened survivors (which is what happened many times OTL), which means the people with immunity in many cases aren't even surviving to pass it on to their children.