Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

RiceAlicorn t1_iysx8dv wrote

Disease prevalence was mentioned already, so I'll mention location.

While it has been extensively documented that Vikings had many settlements on modern day Greenland, the same cannot be said of modern day Canada. The only undisputed settlement on Canada is L'Anse Aux Meadows, located at the northern-most tip of the island of Newfoundland. It should be noted that this site is believed to have been rather short-term and small in scale — it was used for several decades, upwards of perhaps a century, and was significantly less populated than settlements in Greenland. This is because the site lacked features that are typically associated with permanent, constantly-populated settlements (animal pens, agriculture, burial sites, etc.).

Part of why the Europeans devastated the Native Americans with disease was because they established permanent, populated settlements on continental North America. The permanence of these settlements meant that by extension there was always a permanent source of disease to infect the Native Americans. Also, because the settlements were on continental North America, that made it a lot easier for trade and travel to occur, thereby spreading the disease. Much easier than if your settlement is located on a island, which would either limit you to trading just on that island or demand you having to get on a boat and go elsewhere to trade then boat back to the settlement.

12

TheGreatOneSea t1_iytilmc wrote

Adding to this, animals were (and are) massive disease vectors: if large numbers weren't present, that alone cuts down the risks dramatically.

Just as an example, one of the worst outbreaks in history came from the horses of nomads around China.

3

Mo_dawg1 t1_iz6zpkc wrote

Something you failed to mention is that the earliest mass disease deaths didn't occur in isolated native villages. The started in the relatively large urban areas of Central Mexico.

1