What if the 1783 Laki volcano eruption had had a lot worse effect on Iceland? It killed 50% of the livestock on the island, which led to a famine in which 25% of the population died.
Let's increase that somewhat. Say the eruption kills 90% of the livestock in Iceland. The famine is much worse, and between fifty and seventy percent of the population die. Also, after the eruption there was a semi-poisonous cloud over Iceland (and other parts of the world) for a while.
So would the remaining population of Iceland, less than half of that of the 1770s, remain on Iceland? There is next to no livestock, the land is devastated, and many parts are still uninhabitable. Might they flee the island, back to Denmark, to Iceland, or to the Americas? What do you think would happen in this scenario?
Let's increase that somewhat. Say the eruption kills 90% of the livestock in Iceland. The famine is much worse, and between fifty and seventy percent of the population die. Also, after the eruption there was a semi-poisonous cloud over Iceland (and other parts of the world) for a while.
So would the remaining population of Iceland, less than half of that of the 1770s, remain on Iceland? There is next to no livestock, the land is devastated, and many parts are still uninhabitable. Might they flee the island, back to Denmark, to Iceland, or to the Americas? What do you think would happen in this scenario?