WI: Vikings bring disease, AmerIndians build immunity

[crya_]

In OTL, the Norse settlers in America were driven out quickly. So quickly, in fact, that there were no major epidemics spread by them in America, leaving the Spanish in 1492 to spread disease such as smallpox to screw over the Indians.

Let's say the Vinlandic colony survives longer and establishes a larger trade network. The colony still fails, but it leaves a longer-lasting influence and ends up spreading tons of disease across the continent. This leaves the Indians with a much smaller population than in 1492, but they would have a full 492 years to build an immunity to European diseases.

If this is the case, how would the colonization of America change? Europe would still establish colonies for sure, but with immunities to prevent widespread epidemics, would their colonies still be as successful? Would the Aztec Empire rise to the power it did in the 1400s? If Vikings trade horses, would they become widespread and domesticated by the Indians before Columbus arrives?

 

[Umbral]

Well, there were sporadic contacts with the Norse for about 400 years after the Vinland settlement. I do seem to remember reading about some disease outbreak among the natives traceable to Norse contact, but I read that before there was an internet, and have no idea where anymore.

But the thing is, to get something like immunity you'd need tens of thousands of years of exposure, and the diseases evolve faster. After thousands of years of exposure, Smallpox was killing half a million Europeans every year in the 18th century.

You'd also need a fairly large/dense population to keep the diseases going, to build up resistance. You had that in Mesoamerica but not around where the Norse were. And resistance also takes time to build up. For example, it took native Mexicans about 300 years to build serious resistance the the European disease they knew as Cocolitzli. But that was with the introgression of a lot of European genes, and with the epidemics creating a pressure favoring European genes.

 

[kholieken]

- Disease evolve, after 500 years with no contact, America is 'virgin field', it would result in ZERO differences with OTL.
- Native American genetic differences would still low, making them more susceptible to disease.
- Even if trade somehow magically spread disease to South America, many isolated groups would still never experiences epidemic

 

[Modern Imperialism]

The Norse also had low resistance to these diseases and they didn't get hit by these diseases harshly until a bit later. I am pretty sure the Nordic areas suffered greatly and some of the worse when the European diseases spread to their areas.

 

[Gloss]

The Norse also had low resistance to these diseases and they didn't get hit by these diseases harshly until a bit later. I am pretty sure the Nordic areas suffered greatly and some of the worse when the European diseases spread to their areas.

Norway had regions losing 2/3 of their population AFAIK.

 

[Albert.Nik]

To evolve immunity,many and many people would die first with a first contact of a germ. That's not how evolution works AFAIK. So the populations would still be cut down with a first contact with an old world germ. Lack of a relative genetic diversity among the Native Americans also plays an important part. Basically this is not possible. And even if it happens,it would insert a huge Viking DNA into the native Americans and would still continue the Cultural continuity wherever possible considering Vikings weren't Colonial entities or Christian. Unlike the Old World where mixing happened in waves and waves for thousands of years,the New World didn't have these. The Genetic components were lesser in origins and diversities. Of course,a larger Viking population could achieve this and in that way build immunity as the Descendents would be in the range of 50-100% Old World Norse DNA.

 

[Modern Imperialism]

To evolve immunity,many and many people would die first with a first contact of a germ. That's not how evolution works AFAIK. So the populations would still be cut down with a first contact with an old world germ. Lack of a relative genetic diversity among the Native Americans also plays an important part. Basically this is not possible. And even if it happens,it would insert a huge Viking DNA into the native Americans and would still continue the Cultural continuity wherever possible considering Vikings weren't Colonial entities or Christian. Unlike the Old World where mixing happened in waves and waves for thousands of years,the New World didn't have these. The Genetic components were lesser in origins and diversities. Of course,a larger Viking population could achieve this and in that way build immunity as the Descendents would be in the range of 50-100% Old World Norse DNA.

Like I mentioned above, doesn't Norse dna not help much since they also had lower immunity then most Europeans?

 

[Albert.Nik]

Like I mentioned above, doesn't Norse dna not help much since they also had lower immunity then most Europeans?

At least not as much immune as Italian,French,British or anyone in busier regions would be. But they would definitely be more immune than Native Americans. The Norse or Germanic peoples did have interactions and Genetic components of a more diversity from the Old World than the NAs.

 

[Gloss]

a larger Viking population could achieve this and in that way build immunity as the Descendents would be in the range of 50-100% Old World Norse DNA.

Why so high?

 

[Albert.Nik]

Why so high?

The ones immune and more dominant would prosper and eventually even if they retain large amounts of Native cultures and are linguistically NA speakers,genetic component would spread or it would need to be to achieve the result the OP Wants. Higher immunities of native cultures.

 

[Gloss]

The ones immune and more dominant would prosper and eventually even if they retain large amounts of Native cultures and are linguistically NA speakers,genetic component would spread or it would need to be to achieve the result the OP Wants. Higher immunities of native cultures.

But not even in the Andes or Mesoamerica through conquest were those % reached, those are a bit too high for even mix.

 

[Deleted member 114175]

If Vinland became so large and populated that it introduced disease immunity to substantial numbers of Native Americans, Vinland colony would also leave a lasting Scandinavian population similar to the Acadians to Cajuns. Also, interactions with native tribes, who were at the time hunter-gatherers, would probably not go well.

However, creating a Vinland that is that populated, is implausible considering the difficulties of settlement. The Norse settlers would be desperately poor at first and not have much to trade.

 

[BlondieBC]

To evolve immunity,many and many people would die first with a first contact of a germ. That's not how evolution works AFAIK. So the populations would still be cut down with a first contact with an old world germ. Lack of a relative genetic diversity among the Native Americans also plays an important part. Basically this is not possible. And even if it happens,it would insert a huge Viking DNA into the native Americans and would still continue the Cultural continuity wherever possible considering Vikings weren't Colonial entities or Christian. Unlike the Old World where mixing happened in waves and waves for thousands of years,the New World didn't have these. The Genetic components were lesser in origins and diversities. Of course,a larger Viking population could achieve this and in that way build immunity as the Descendents would be in the range of 50-100% Old World Norse DNA.

The 50%+ range would only be on immune system DNA, the rest is probably still mostly native American. Much like what happened IOTL, but 500 years later.

 

[BlondieBC]

If Vinland became so large and populated that it introduced disease immunity to substantial numbers of Native Americans, Vinland colony would also leave a lasting Scandinavian population similar to the Acadians to Cajuns. Also, interactions with native tribes, who were at the time hunter-gatherers, would probably not go well.

However, creating a Vinland that is that populated, is implausible considering the difficulties of settlement. The Norse settlers would be desperately poor at first and not have much to trade.

I tend to think you need the colony to move south. To get this type of ATL working, you would need the plant/animal package brought over along with enough settlers. I have seen numbers as high as 50,000 for the Viking peak in Greenland. So if we imagine a world where the immigrant flow is double or tripled, then it would work a lot better if the Vikings moved to better locations. Something like occupation of the lands around Halifax or maybe something like Long Island. Of course, we need something pushing more Vikings out of the homelands, some good/lucky decisions on where to land, and some winning battles.

To keep it simple, lets make it Long Island. Less imagine a world where there is maybe 3 times our population of Vikings. About 50,000 are in Long Island. We have enough trade to keep the European waves of disease going. The Vikings have limited competition for 200-300 years as waves of disease keep the native population down and land open. Also keeps the Vikings in check, but to a lesser extent. Probably big enough for Vikings to make a series of voyages and temporary (less than 2 generation) settlements up and down North America. Then we can have Greenland fail. Vinland fails. Long Island lose contact with old world so it can be "discovered".

I don't really see the scenario as that hard. And I am not sure it really takes more population, just a bit more disease. If we assume the Greenland colonies have enough trade to keep the disease coming, then it opens up land farther south. And if we assume that at some point, the Vikings begin to move towards clearly better land, over a century or two we could see the Greenland population move much farther south. Maybe even lose its culture.

 

[BlondieBC]

In OTL, the Norse settlers in America were driven out quickly. So quickly, in fact, that there were no major epidemics spread by them in America, leaving the Spanish in 1492 to spread disease such as smallpox to screw over the Indians.

Let's say the Vinlandic colony survives longer and establishes a larger trade network. The colony still fails, but it leaves a longer-lasting influence and ends up spreading tons of disease across the continent. This leaves the Indians with a much smaller population than in 1492, but they would have a full 492 years to build an immunity to European diseases.

If this is the case, how would the colonization of America change? Europe would still establish colonies for sure, but with immunities to prevent widespread epidemics, would their colonies still be as successful? Would the Aztec Empire rise to the power it did in the 1400s? If Vikings trade horses, would they become widespread and domesticated by the Indians before Columbus arrives?

It appears the native built up a good bit of immunity in 200 to 300 years IOTL. Human populations can grow 10 to 1 per century (think Nigeria) with plenty of food. Given 200 years of recovery, the population may well be the same. It could be higher if you want to introduce animals like horse or cattle. Not sure what type of ATL you are shooting for here.

We have butterflied away all OTL empires in 500 years, but I think we can get broad outlines by looking at places where natives had better immune systems. If you look at where the natives had advantages in immune systems (Congo, India), the European footprint left behind is small in population terms. Where equal immunity (South Africa, Zimbabwe), we see significant but minority populations. So the next step of analysis is probably easiest if I jump to ASB land.

Imagine a world where the natives had a good bit of immunity but the rest is mostly the same. Then the Europeans have to win battles to clear lands. So Columbus comes in and the rest of the Spaniards. There is enough of technology to conquer many Caribbean Islands. They can still work the natives to death in sugar plantations. We don't have the need to bring in Africans due the Natives being plentiful. So we do get some white areas, I think Sao Tome in Africa is a good example. The Aztecs don't fall without disease, Cortez is just a tough series of battles that may switch which Indian tribe dominates. So we see some trading ports, maybe decent size cities. White immigration will be focused in limited areas where the European crop package does a lot better. Maybe something like Cuba can be turned white.

The vast majority of the empires survive, or at least, their language and general culture survives. The mainland of North America will be more like India than anything else that jumps to mind. In India, the British are an important part of their history, but a minority of their history.

 

[WilliamOfOckham]

On this episode of "immunity doesn't work like that and the primary cause of Native American depopulation was social rather than biological"...

 

[BlondieBC]

On this episode of "immunity doesn't work like that and the primary cause of Native American depopulation was social rather than biological"...

The science does not support you. We have some of our greatest if not our greatest genetic diversity on immune related DNA. The American population lost that immunity. So where any population in Africa, Asia or Europe will have 100s of different genes on each Alleles, in Native American Tribe, a single gene dominates. Against rapidly mutating germs, one wins, one loses.

Denial of clearly established scientific facts simply leads to incorrect analysis. If the European has been pure traders that limited themselves to 10 trading towns of a few thousand European each, the Native American still would have been depopulated by disease. The proof is the Amazon basin where a thriving group of civilizations vanished with almost no (single passing expedition) direct European contact. The Aztecs and Incas were likewise doomed, it just so happens they got conquered before the disease accomplished the same feat.

 

[Umbral]

Like I mentioned above, doesn't Norse dna not help much since they also had lower immunity then most Europeans?

I think the differences in lethality between the Norse and the more southerly lattitudes were within the range of what can be expected from different lifestyles. I.e. Scandinavian winters encouraged an architecture where people clustered together, plague-carrying rodents would be driven inside the homes by the cold, etc. At least I've never seen anything about genetic differences in resistance between the North and South of Europe. No plague of Justinian may have contributed?

Today, of course, the heavy impact of the Black Death can be seen in AIDS resistance maps.

If Vinland became so large and populated that it introduced disease immunity to substantial numbers of Native Americans, Vinland colony would also leave a lasting Scandinavian population similar to the Acadians to Cajuns. Also, interactions with native tribes, who were at the time hunter-gatherers, would probably not go well.

Well. Thing is, hunter-gatherer population densities compared to agriculturalists are incredibly low. At the time Erik the Red colonized Greenland, Newfoundland had a population of about 750 people.

If you desire large hybrid populations and interaction you'd need the more advanced native peoples inland.

However, creating a Vinland that is that populated, is implausible considering the difficulties of settlement. The Norse settlers would be desperately poor at first and not have much to trade.

I think it was on the edge of viability myself. On the cusp you might say.

Anyway, they'd be poor, but for a very strange definition of poor to Norse and Europeans. Massive amounts of food and land, but dirt poor in luxuries, at lest for a while.

 

[Lusitania]

The problem is that the survival of Norse Vinland colony provides native Americans with no protection at all.

In scenario A - an isolated Vinland survives and prospers but looses all contact with Europe and European “discovery” still happens at end of 15th century as iotl. What has actually happen is that the northeast would of been hit by a series of plagues allowing Vinland to expand BUT both Vinland and natives would be hit just as hard by new strains of diseases that existed in Europe by 15th-16th century.

This scenario would of allowed for faster settled and conquest of north east America. So we have provided the natives no help and made them actually weaker.

Scenario B - a Vinland that stays in touch with Europe. This is actually an even harsher scenario for natives for they will be conquered faster by a stronger Vinland plus be subject to European diseases as they travel from Europe to America’s. We would also see European nations follow Vinland and settlements appear south of Vinland from other countries much sooner.

History would change as we know it both in Europe and America’s but that would not help natives as disease still kills tens of thousands and a weakened Native American tribes attached by expanding Europeans.

 

[WilliamOfOckham]

The science does not support you. We have some of our greatest if not our greatest genetic diversity on immune related DNA. The American population lost that immunity. So where any population in Africa, Asia or Europe will have 100s of different genes on each Alleles, in Native American Tribe, a single gene dominates. Against rapidly mutating germs, one wins, one loses.

We've had this argument before, haven't we?

The history and epidemiology do support me. You're citing Black, I guess (and it's always good to say who you're talking about when you say "the science" - much more helpful for the reader), but his proposal is pretty much unverifiable and a good example of a just-so-story. There is very little - I hesitate to say "absolutely no" - evidence that MHC diversity has an important role in epidemic disease transfer, much less mortality. There's obviously no evidence whatsoever to reasonably claim that populations with high MHC diversity would have not experienced similar mortality rates in similar social conditions. We'd also expect epidemics amplified by low MHC diversity to have a much stronger communal effect, but even Black's own serious empirical research ("Intensified Reactions to Measles Vaccine in Unexposed Populations of American Indians", 1971) justifies the virgin soil hypothesis in individual terms!

If you want to know whether something's a just-so story, you have to ask yourself: can I possibly conceive of a control for this alleged cause? In this case obviously not, since we're talking about the basically universal spread of disease. So what could possibly make you so sure that the only relevant causes were biological? Meanwhile, we do have controls for social factors, and we do see that indigenous communities which experienced less social disintegration. To quote myself from a paper I wrote on this two weeks ago:

Crosby notes the case of the Moqui of Arizona, who contracted smallpox in 1898; those who accepted Euro-American medical treatment (even from a physician who lacked the means to treat smallpox or even secondary infections) experienced a mortality rate of only 6%, while 74% those who rejected treatment died (1976: 296).

Does this not seem like a big deal to you? A doctor, who had no way to treat smallpox or even control opportunistic infections, managed to reduce the indigenous mortality rate to well within normal bounds just by letting them into the hospital. Where does the presumption of inherent biological inferiority go in this case?

The proof is the Amazon basin where a thriving group of civilizations vanished with almost no (single passing expedition) direct European contact.

This is not true. In fact, I would go so far as to say it is false. It is astonishingly false. It's so false I'm not exactly sure how to debate it. Do you really want to discuss this? If so, I'm going to need some kind of citation first so that we have a ground to discuss on.