What if the Vinland Colony Survived? | Alternate History 

THE SHOW WOULD FLOP SO HARD YOU WOULDNT EVEN NOTICE WRITER KNEW WHAT HE WAS DOING.

@@user-bq8zq5ic8v It wouldn't flop at all, Vinland Saga only got better as it went

@@jonasw3945 to be honest i miss the fighting Thorfin did tho

@@jonasw3945 the reason many of us got sucked into it, and the reason why Thorfinn's "pasifism" is so intresting to watch, is exactly becouse of how a violent past he got, allmost everyone loves a good underdog/redemption arch, and Thorfinn got both of them becouse of the past season. knowledge without context is worth nothing, and we got both now in season 2

King Sweyn would have lost his conquest of England. Since albeit unbeknown to him, he wouldn't have a dagger wielding edgelord 1v1 the entire country for him

He is just too based to explain.

What is there to explain?

His IQ is too high for us to understand his art.

@@Sebbir exactly, creators decided themself when and if to upload anything, dosent owe anyone any explaination, its simply not part of the "social contract" involved here

damn bro so original totally hasnt been copied and pasted

VIKINGS IN AMERICA IS FAKE NEWS

As a Scot I would choose anything than being apart of England.

Britian was formed due to the Scotish monarch getting a personal union with England. For Britian to not form you have to remove the Scottish monarchy from the line of succession of the English throne. They were in the line of succession due to a marriage alliance which was the result of the English trying to stop Scottish border raids. A potentially more powerful Scotland would only increase the chances the English would seek a marriage alliance to end border conflicts.

@@matthiuskoenig3378 potentially, but would the Scots see any benefit in obliging, especially when they have ample marriage alliance possibilities with France and Scandinavia? Furthermore, whilst there was a personal union, the actual act of union was far from inevitable without the failure of Scotland's colonial efforts which i don't see happening in this scenario. Scotland would have far more agency here, and even if a personal union happened as in real life, I don't think that an actual union would be very likely before nationalism becomes a thing (after which either country has the option of just becoming a Republic if the monarchy makes the wrong moves.)

@@ScottishProductions0001 I am also Scottish lol I understand your pain. But genuinely, in this scenario I think Scotland would have more agency ergo I doubt gb would form.

VIKINGS IN AMERICA CONTINENT IS BIG FAKE NEWS,NOT EXISTED

The Aztecs literally almost won from Cortes, the only hardship was the large amount of native armies that sided with Cortes his 200 men with rifles. However in Tenochtitlan the smallpox and other diseases would grow rampant due to the siege killing many defenders. If that hadn't happened I bet Cortes would have lost HARD, after that the Aztec empire would have had time to trade with europeans like the Chinese and Japanese did, or even the African kingdoms did that.

@@willemvanoranje5724 Would they have maybe survived the initial attack by the Spanish? Yeah, they could have. Maybe as well as India, Indonesia or Africa. Oh wait, those place all ended up conquered by the Europeans... I am not saying that they couldn't have survived, just that I do not find it plausible. Also, I am pretty sure almost beating 200 men with terrible rifles isn't the flex you think it is.

@@LeDoctorBones Hey maybe actually read what I said... I said giant armies of rival states filled with natives, added with Cortes and his own small stolen army, (he wasn't allowed to do the mission from the Spanish crown at ALL) And yes India and Africa ended up conquered, but did their cultures and people get run into extinction and their religions and cultures eradicated? NO, even then Thailand, Ethiopia, Iran all got out unscathed without direct european rule over them. This could mean the same for atleast a few native states as well, certainly ones that would have handled the situation wisely, just look at Japan. So stop trying to nitpick my comment up into making it appear laughable...

@@willemvanoranje5724 When have I ever said the aztec culture would be run into extinction. I have since my first comment said it would probably be like Asia and Africa. It is, however, unlikely that it doesn't get conquered since it is too close to Europe. Ethiopia was occupied for ~5years and only survived because of WW2, Iran's south was controlled by the British and the whole country occupied during WW2. Unscathed is a big claim in that context. And this is completely ignoring that even before plague killed a lot of Native Americans, the population was already low. Could their culture have survived better than nowadays - Definitely. Could they have survived? No.

We would still dont have even industrialization

​@@svyatoslav4289 Bro... ROME WAS NEAR INDUSTRIALISATION BEFORE ITS FALL

@@inzyniertv9305 no, it was there 400 hundred years befor it fall. Its more than entirety of USA

That's basically just Italy, the outcome.

The usa only started to influence the world in the 20th and 21st centuries, so that’s when you’ll see the biggest shift

The Vinland Colony was a Norwegian colony

@@Emilsigland South africa was a dutch colony

@@cameroonemperor755 Vinland isnt south africa bruhhh🤣

@@Emilsigland bro🤦‍♂

Dem kids would have been beautiful

True!

yeah it would def be colonized. My best guess would be by France since in this world they'd have to concentrate their power more southwards around the gulf of mexico since their enourmous network of trade around the mississipi would be mostly held by the danes. That's assuming spain doesnt still "discover the americas" tought, cause its still probable vinland is seen as just another island like greenland or iceland

@@cameroonemperor755 Why would anyone want to colonise them though? Even Spain had no interest until Cortes (against the Crown's wishes) went ahead and made it a fait accompli.

They weren't really hated any more than any other overlord would've been, for most of Spain's war against the Aztecs they only had two allies, one of which was already at war with the Aztecs before the Spanish even arrived. The rest of the rebels only joined Spain once it became glaringly obvious they had the upper hand, and even then they're allegiance was dubious. It was pure opportunism, they could see who the new to dog was going to be and they wanted to make sure they were in the pack. They couldn't've cared less about Aztec sacrifices, they themselves sacrificed just as much just on a smaller scale.

@@Threezi04 Glory and gold, same as in OTL, but Good point. it all depends on how Europe interacts with this new world

I agree

You would have to divide China into Nation states and create new cultures to make this scenario. It would represent an insane amount of work. Like worldbuilding level of detail.

@@arthurbriand2175 Which would be awesome to see

@@TheHatersarebad This in fact almost happened after the fall of the Western Jin dynasty and the collapse of the Tang dynasty. For the first part; as the court of the Jin fled southwards, Northern China was settled by numerous Central Asian tribes who carved out their own states. Occasionally the North would reunite (as happened with the Northern Wei dynasty), though division was more of the norm. Also, the North and South would try to reconquer the other, but both would fail to do so for centuries until the Sui dynasty of Northern China came along (though the success of the Sui to reunite China was more due to the blunder of the emperor of the Chen dynasty of Southern China, so reunification of China by the Sui was not an inevitability). As for the second part, Northern China also split up into multiple states with the occasional bouts of unity (as what happened above). The difference here is that after the fall of the Tang, Southern China also split into multiple states. And unlike the North, no state could ever reunite the South (though the Southern Tang dynasty did come close to doing so) due to the existence of coalitions of the Southern states against anybody who would try to unite the South. So, if the Wei/Jin dynasty succumbed to the Central Asian nomads before they could conquer the other two states, it is possible that China would never reunite. This is because at the time, the population of both Shu and Wu combined is still smaller than that of Wei/Jin, and the former two doesn't always see each other eye to eye. So neither would have been able to reconquer the North (Shu under Zhuge Liang tried to do so multiple times and they failed because they couldn't afford to lose too many soldiers). Wu themselves might eventually splinter into multiple states, as the Wu government is infamous for being the most corrupt of the three.

- Northern China would have much more Central Asian influence on its culture and military. It's possible that Northern China could become like Persia/Iran and would often be conquered by Central Asian tribes while also sinicizing them or go into the Tang dynasty route of co-opting the Central Asian military tactics and became a powerhouse that would occasionally subjugate the tribes around Mongolia and Manchuria. Northern Chinese culture in this would be much more militaristic and authoritarian. In this timeline, "Han" would be synonymous with Northern Chinese. - Korea might preserve more elements of it's own culture, still adopted some aspects of Chinese (or in this case, Northern Chinese culture), or even adopt some Central Asian culture. They could even try to to subjugate the tribes around Manchuria, just like what the Goguryeo and the Goryeo did. - Central Asian influence on the neighboring regions would be stronger as Northern China would be an additional base of power for them. The Yuan dynasty might even still hold on to power in Northern China and thus, the Mongols would still be a powerful force for a longer time (at least until the Northern Chinese or the Manchus overthrew them)

- Southern China in this time would be a lot more similar to Europe as there might be more states existing at the same. Aesthetically, the cultures of the Southern Chinese would be similar to Vietnamese as they would receive less influence from the Northern dynasties (while they would still have immigrants from the North who are trying to escape the chaos around the Yellow River Valley) Maritime trade in Southeast Asia and the Indian Ocean would be their main focus. Thus their culture would be much more focused on commerce and seafaring. It's not impossible that the Southern Chinese might set up trading companies similar to what the Europeans have (the Song dynasty had already seen the appearance of stock trading) and st up trading post in Southeast Asia, India, the Middle East, East Africa, and perhaps South and West Africa. When the Europeans have started to colonize the Americas, the Southern Chinese might instead focus their attention on colonizing Southeast Asia, Australia, and the small islands of the Pacific and Indian Oceans. Southern China might also develop much more rapidly in this timeline (at least militarily) and use much more creative use of gunpowder, especially because there's always a looming threat of Northern China conquering them - Japanese history might not change a lot initially (besides the Japanese adopting both Northern and Southern Chinese cultures which might become more divergent in this timeline). But when Hideyoshi would attempt to conquer Korea and (Northern) China, the Southern Chinese might help him in the conquest to weaken the North. The Toyotomi might even receive help from the South during the civil war against the Tokugawa

Why?

@@blugaledoh2669 us being a dominant block in the west is not really great, i wish they werent.

@@Illuminat-ve5ue the major reason why US became dominant in the west is because Europe keep fighting with each other. If it wasn’t for the two world war, US would not have become as dominant as they are not. Also, not great for who exactly?

Video link please

When encountering the Sami, Vikings established mutually beneficial trade relationships where the Norse traded metalwork such as knives, salt and fish for fur, meat and manpower. Vikings specialized in coastal fishing and settled along the coast, while the Sami kept closer to their hunting grounds inland. A Vinland colony would most likely not expand in areas where the Indigenous peoples 1. had better knowledge on how to hunt and gather. 2. Already were in a trading relationship with them. 3. One would be far away from supplies and safety of the longships.

In Ukraine, the Norse sought to create a unified, centrally powered and culturally integrating kingdom that would protect the vital trade route along the Dnieper. They were just a small minority, but created strongpoint settlements where trade, defense and religion could connect the vast expanses between the Baltic and Black sea. This was done in cooperation with the local majority population, with the Norse often acting as mercanaries, arbitors and administrators. A Vinland settlement would probably seek to create strong Indigenous empires that would protect the tradelanes from the Great Lakes region, the Hudson river valley and later the Mississippi. One could imagine a Proto-Iroquoian super-confederation with a mixed Norse/native nobility to protect the trade in fur, timber and bog Iron from the great lakes region. Vinland ending up as a major hub for sale of iron tools, fish and boatbuilding. Along the eastern coast of modern US proto-Algonquian trade settlements at the mouth of the rivers would probably trade and interact with Norse who would keep using their ship-knowledge to access unique resources.

And may Odin walk with you, friend.

@@vegardbratteng9997 Do you actually believe in Odin?

the u.s. was strongly against the British. Even today. the u.s. is very anti-British the u.s.also strongly opposed any groups that even questioned the u.s.

the u.s. colonists. did lose the war of 1812. The war was very quick and definite. Similarly with the battle of Little Big Horn. After nearly a century of wars. established a fairly stable border between Canada & the u.s.

Oh, that is a good point

The black death would struggle to cross the Atlantic since the s carriers of the plague would die before managing to cross. For example in the real world when a ship from England carrying the plague entered the Norwegian capitol of Bergen in 1349, all onboard had either died or were dying.

AMERICA CONTINENT, ALASKA A ARGENTINA, IS AMERICAN CONTINENT,AMERICA, OTOMAN EMPIRE NEVER

Reaching Central America would be child's play for Norsemen after stabilization of Vinland colony, but to them reaching Inca empire it would take some more innovation in naval technology.

@@Motofanable The big question for me is whether they'd prefer to go down the coast, or follow the river upstream. I suppose it depends on which direction had the most, hmm, "raidability"...?

@@hoi-polloi1863 I don't think that raidability is that big factor, it more depends how much of supplies they could take with them on ships.

Are you referring to St Brendan the Voyager?

Cultivated. Yes, to a certain extent only in the southern parts.

Ottomans didn't have superior ships. They had galleys suited for the mediterranean. The Ottoman-Portuguese conflicts (1538 to 1559) proved the superiority of Iberian and western ocean going ships.

Why i want america to have these pennisulas and isalnds. Fossil Fuels without having to contend with geopolitical laws. The shear potential of. Alaskan Pipelines. And Offshore Oil and Gas.

The Pueblo already had civilisation since ancient times

Not enterily, N.W. France not perchance is called Normandy. Many "French" settlers in Qebec have norse/danish DNA, despite being from France.

Kalmar union was created by a Norwegian queen.