Konráð J. Brynjarsson

 
Ég þjáist af geðveiki, ég veit, en mér datt í hug að henda þessu hér inn, í þeirri veiku von að ég fái nú einhver skemmtileg viðbrögð. Þau ykkar sem ekki eruð almennilega lesandi á ensku (*hóst*kári*hóst*) verðið bara að afsaka, en megið náttúrulega líta á þetta sem gullið tækifæri til æfinga.

It has been remarked by many a wise man, and some not so wise, that history is a most volatile substance. Many who “explore” the possibilities of time travel, often end up as their own fathers, grandfathers, teachers or in extreme cases as their own mothers. Those same “explorers” also have the means to prevent many historically important events from ever happening, and of course, to influence those that would not have happened. But fortunately we do not have the ability to travel through time or change the past in any physical sense, but are free to do so within the realms of our imaginations and in our stories. We have used this freedom on numerous occasions, creating many stories where changing of history is a major factor. Starting with H.G. Wells’ Time Machine, published sometimes in the mid 1800’s and we are still going strong. A widely used form of storytelling in this respect, is the ‘what if…’ motif. What if Hitler had been accepted into that Art school in Austria, what if Brutus had been a better son to Caesar, what if Alexander’s (the great) mother had gotten smallpox? What effect would these relatively small changes have on history in whole?

Many would say none. That history would play out in a similar fashion. Hitler is an unknown Austrian artist, but the evil Ditmar Spitzpots came to power in post WWI Germany and slaughters millions of Jews. Brutus loves his adopted father, but a loyal servant by the name of Claudius inspires the famous quote, “Et tu Claudi?” A woman in Greece has a miscarriage due to smallpox but has a daughter two years later, who grows up to become Helena the unbeatable, the queen of the great Greek empire.

Others on the other hand would readily point out that logically if Hitler got into Art school then WWII would never have happened. The Holocaust would not happen and Israel wouldn’t have been founded and no struggle would occur between Jews and Palestinians. Yasser Arafat wouldn’t become a PLO member, since it never would have been founded, and the Icelandic Country singer Hallbjörn Hjartarsson wouldn’t write a song called Vinsæll og veit af því about an Icelandic politician who went to Palestine to meet Arafat.

If we agree that indeed history can be changed if we change something in the past, then it is also agreed upon that the further back we go to change something, the more affect it will have presently. You see how much can be changed if we “prevent” WWII, imagine what would change if say, Columbus hadn’t found America. That could have a dramatic effect indeed. But lets take it a little further.

Most well educated people know that it wasn’t Christopher Columbus that found America originally. About 500 years before him, around 990 AD, a young Icelandic Viking by the name of Leifur Eiríksson, embarked upon a mission to find lands seen by his uncle, south and west of Greenland. He sailed west from Greenland and soon found a land, a land of barren flat rock, which he named Helluland. He was rather disappointed and sailed off again. He saw land again a few days later. The land was grassy and slightly hilly. He named it Markland. Again he sailed off, because he hadn’t found a land that matched the description given by his uncle. He found land again that looked like the land his uncle had seen. He went ashore and became the first known European to step on the continent of North America. After he and his men had stayed for a few days, one of them found Vines close to their site. Leifur then aptly named the land Vínland.* He settled in America for a while, his cousin came and replaced him and had a child there, which of course is the first American of European decent. But the Viking settlement didn’t last. The natives were one reason and unfamiliar lands and atmosphere another. Anyway, the Vikings left America and forgot all about America, well not forgot since the story of Leifur and his father Eiríkur was written down in Iceland around 1300, but they didn’t go back there. And in 1492 a Portuguese man by the name of Christopher Columbus sailed on his ship St. Maria from Spain to find a shorter way to India, a search that led him to America and to the rather inaccurate naming of its natives as Indians. The rest as they say, is history.

Here comes the familiar motif. What if Leifur Eiríksson and his crew had not left but stayed and started their own colony. Then more people would have arrived, proud Vikings that were getting thrown out of Scandinavia or Iceland. They would sail to Vineland and claim land there as their own. They would, because the Vikings were great seamen (and women), sail further south the coast and discover the vastness of the continent. They would both wage war upon and trade with the natives. The proud nation of Vineland would become strong and mighty. The land is rich, especially of timber, which makes Vinelanders powerful very quickly. And lets say, for sake of argument, that they would discover South America before the Spanish, which is rather likely due to the aforementioned seafaring abilities of the Vikings. Lets say that they would have discovered a way to cross Central America. They would not be able to sail across Central America, but it is likely that the natives would tell them (like they told Columbus in 1502) that another sea lay but a few days march south. Now weather they would try to cross the land and build a ship on the other side is hard to say, but I assume that along with the previously mentioned piece of information would also follow information about the “big land” to the south and east (the continent of South America) and that would inspire the Vikings to trek across Panama to the Pacific and explore the west coast of Vineland. These explorations would undoubtedly lead them up to Alaska. And if we let the narrative have its way, then they obviously would sail far enough north so that they would stumble upon Russia and from there, the way is not long to Japan (if they wouldn’t get lost in the sea of Okhotsk), and the wonders of the far East. From which they could bring back pasta, making it a Vinelandic delicacy (in stead of Italian), gunpowder, which would give them tremendous firepower and ensures them a monopoly position on the seas. Along with some mapmaking and astronomy from Europe and voila, you have a major power in America around 1350 AD.

What consequences would that have on the progress of Europe? Firstly, hardly any colonies in the new world. More competitive business in the Far East and last but not least, a strong culture of Vikings in Scandinavia, Iceland, Greenland and Vineland. Each nation independent but with strong intertwining ties of joint origin. Also the idea of democracy that Icelanders discovered would spread to Vineland and Scandinavia. The kings that had established a foothold in Scandinavia would inevitably have to bow their heads to democracy because of the strong Vineland influences.

Now why wouldn’t there be very many European colonies in the new world (North-, Central- and South-America)? The Vikings that settled Iceland were fiercely independent people. They left Norway because they did not fancy being ruled by a king. When they had settled in Iceland they saw the need for common law, but because they wanted to be independent, they thought up something called Þing. In the year 930 AD the first national parlament (i. Alþingi) was established in Iceland at a place aptly named Þingvellir (parlament fields). We are assuming that Leifur discovered Vineland around 990 so already his nation has had 60 years experience of democracy. Because of all this they wouldn’t hold very well to other people getting to close and would therefore fight any that would try to take their land. (We are assuming that Europeans don’t have the means of traveling that far by sea until around 1300) Of course we are assuming quite a lot here but I believe that that this historical storyline is quite plausible, just as about any other option of history that we can create in our heads.

What about the natives of the continents? What would their position be? Well the Vikings were in many aspects barbaric people. They were in many cases pirates and men of violence who attacked coastal towns of neighboring countries. But they were also men of diplomacy and trading, admittedly they often traded stolen goods, but also things they had either made (hunted) or otherwise legally acquired. So it is likely that they would have coexisted relatively peacefully alongside the North-America natives. Firstly because the Indians didn’t have very many permanent settlements, especially along coastlines. Secondly because of the often business like thinking patterns of the Vikings, they would see (and indeed saw) the benefits of trading with the Indians.

The natives of Central- and South-America are another matter altogether. They are far enough away to be convenient targets and they did indeed have permanent settlements. It is very likely that there would have been some skirmishes between Vikings and the natives of Central- and South-America. According to the timeline of the Aztecs, they didn’t come into power until around 1300 AD, that is about 200 years after the Vikings would first have discovered Central-America, and it is not unlikely that the Vikings would have settled as far south as the southern coast of the Gulf of Mexico by the year 1300 AD. The Aztecs were fierce warriors and as proud as the Vikings and would probably not have tolerated to much foreign interference, but it is very likely that the oriental inventions (such as gunpowder) would have reached the Central-American natives, by trade between them and the North-American natives (who in turn had gotten them from the Vikings), and would therefore have helped them to defend against the Vikings and of course the Spanish (another reason why the Spanish wouldn’t have much success in settling in the Americas). It is therefore plausible to say that most of Central-America would be in the hands of the natives of the area, and in time be ruled by the Aztecs. The Incas start their uprising about one hundred years before the Aztecs, in the year 1200 AD (or there around). The center of their power is in Peru and they also ruled the lands that now are known as Bolivia, Ecuador as well as parts of Chile and Argentina. The distance from their empire to that of the Aztecs isn’t very great, so it is very likely that they would have known of each other. So if we add the Vikings and their potential oriental influence into the equation, then the Spaniards would not be facing “Indians” with spears and shields but possibly with guns and bombs there for it is very unlikely that the Spaniards would have gotten a foothold in the lands of the Incas. So I think it can be assumed that the Incas would rule most of South-America. The rest would be in the hands of the Spanish and possibly the Aztecs.

Lets return our attention to the northern part of the continent. Vikings like other Europeans were very big on borders. Defining ownership of land and objects. On the other hand, the tribes of North America were roaming people that coexisted with the land but were not its owners. But they were fierce warriors that protected their interests’ vigorously and of course have a few hundred years head start on the Vikings to get to know the land and its behavior and of course the best way to fight on its terrain. When all of this is kept in mind along with the fact that the Vikings traded with them, it is safe to assume that the Indians would keep a good part of the land to themselves. Most likely the west coast and much of the mountain regions and middle parts of both Canada and US. The Vikings would colonize the east coast where they originally landed and most of the costal region all the way down to the Gulf of Mexico.
Having stated this what then about the Inuit* people? They inhabit the northern most regions of the continent, most of Greenland and all the islands in the Artic sea. They are nomadic people like the Indians but quite capable of defending themselves. It is doubtful that the Vikings would go far into the north, even though they are used to cold weather I doubt they would bother with the Artic lands. The same goes for the Indians. So the Eskimos are left alone with the Frostlands.

So the Americas are mapped out. Around the year 1400, good 100 years before the Spaniards were even thinking about sailing west, we have 5 thriving nations occupying the continent. Lets assume that history is relatively the same with the findings of Australia and the East Indies and the islands in the South Pacific so basically the world is the same, as we know it today with the exception of the Americas. Well there are of course some details to be worked out concerning certain world wars (I & II) but that is a matter for later times.


skríbentar Konráð J. þegar klukkan slær 02:30