WI English Conquistadors

[Magnificate]

Suppose that for some reasons during the Age of Explorers England focuses on South America. (Diamond made a map fairly recently, with the POD of Columbus sailing for England).

1. How would England fare against Inca, Aztec or Maya Empires? Would it be possible to achieve success similar to Spanish Conquistadors? Any ideas for catchy names for English explorers/soldiers/treasure hunters?
2. How would English fiscal system cope with silver overflow and inflation? Would it be enough to destabilize the economy, or would England rather easily absorb additional American money. Any changes in shipbuilding or trade with rest of Europe?
3. Would colonizing South and Central America be substantially different than North America? Any possibility for successful break-away colonies, a’la USA?

[Riain]

A British conquest would be different, for starters the wreck of the Mary Rose showed that the English army still relied heavily on longbows at this time, in contrast to Spanish crossbows. The Brits would also lack that crusading fervour of the Spanish, fighting the Christinan French doesn't radicalise like fighting the Muslims in Grenada. But that said, I think men and materiel could be found to copy the most important parts of Cortez' and Pizarro's feats. Unlike the Spanish the English didn't have delusions of imperial grandeur and would spend the influx of treasure in the country rather than piss it away on wars.

[mobius]

Unlike the Spanish the English didn't have delusions of imperial grandeur and would spend the influx of treasure in the country rather than piss it away on wars.

Are you sure of that? I wouldn`t be surprised if they used their new found wealth to restart the 100 Years War.

[Riain]

Phillip had dynastic claims all over the shop, I've seen it commented that with the pressures acting upon him he had no chioce but to fight the wars he did. What wars were Henry and Elizibeth in durig their reigns, apart from Elizibeth's cold, then hot, war with Spain? Didn't Henry make peace with France, and he was pretty well off financially?

[Atom]

No other (European) nation, but Spain and Portugal, could have caried out at that time the conquest of central america and the Inca nation. They were too populated, to entrenche in tradition. The spanish would have had very different goals in conquest versus the French, English, Swedish or Germans. The Englands primary reason for settlement in the americas was to deal with a fracturing populace and get rid of excess agricultural population. They could not have fought the total and complete war necesary to control the populace and add their values. Spain had had experience in the battle versus a powerful alien entrenched enemy, England did not. England could never have achieved the vast fusion of religion and culture achieved by the spanish.

[ninebucks]

Suppose that for some reasons during the Age of Explorers England focuses on South America. (Diamond made a map fairly recently, with the POD of Columbus sailing for England).

1. How would England fare against Inca, Aztec or Maya Empires? Would it be possible to achieve success similar to Spanish Conquistadors? Any ideas for catchy names for English explorers/soldiers/treasure hunters?
2. How would English fiscal system cope with silver overflow and inflation? Would it be enough to destabilize the economy, or would England rather easily absorb additional American money. Any changes in shipbuilding or trade with rest of Europe?
3. Would colonizing South and Central America be substantially different than North America? Any possibility for successful break-away colonies, a’la USA?

Two words: Trade. Winds. When you set sail from Britain, you get blown over to North America. When you set sail from Spain, you get blown into the Carribbean. Where the explorers landed wasn't an accident, they were just taking the path of least resistance.

1. English people do not have catchy names.

3. South and Central America have the kind of climates that are unappealing to British people. Seeing as they already had a significant population base, its more likely the English would just use them.

[Michael B]

The Englands primary reason for settlement in the americas was to deal with a fracturing populace and get rid of excess agricultural population. They could not have fought the total and complete war necesary to control the populace and add their values. Spain had had experience in the battle versus a powerful alien entrenched enemy, England did not. England could never have achieved the vast fusion of religion and culture achieved by the spanish.
It has been suggested that the first English colony was Northern Ireland and the approach used here was mirrored in the New world. Beyond Nova Scotia which did mirror it, I can not comment.

The Spanish's main advantage was that they got there first and able to build up in each "theatre" before moving on to the next one. Mexico was taken by conquistadors who were already in the Caribbean and Peru from Mexico (the diseases that weakened the Incas came from Mexico as well as the men).

In contrast unless they get a bridgehead in the Caribbean, the English are going to be launching their invasion against a numerous enemy from ports in England. Not withstanding superior European technology, they are going to lose. After all, the Spanish did not have it all their own way and they were operating on the mainland from American ports.

The Caribbean is different in that the population of any one island was weaker than a mainland empire and once European diseases take hold it is all over for the natives. Once the English had built up there, they could like the Spanish then hit the mainland. Beyond that, and with reference to Riain's point on longbows, I await comment

[Condottiero]

Two more issues:
* Altitude and climate, the castillian were more apt to resist the high altitudes of the mexican plateau and of the andes and combination of high and low temperatures,

* Way of doing war, the way of fighting of the castillians (seeking to kill fast and quick to astound the enemy) and of aztecs (seeking to capture the enemy for sacrifices) was very different. But that of the english (seeking to capture noblemen to ask a ransom) and of aztecs would not have been so dissimilar. Without Mexico jumping for the incans would have been hard.

[David S Poepoe]

It has been suggested that the first English colony was Northern Ireland and the approach used here was mirrored in the New world. Beyond Nova Scotia which did mirror it, I can not comment.

I've heard that reference also. That the plantation system originated in Ireland.

[Magnificate]

Two words: Trade. Winds. When you set sail from Britain, you get blown over to North America. When you set sail from Spain, you get blown into the Carribbean. Where the explorers landed wasn't an accident, they were just taking the path of least resistance.
I’d suppose Columbus would still like to use Canaries as a jump-point to start his voyage through the Atlantic and so the route of the first voyage remains unchanged. After that things would be quite interesting – England having a claim on land “easily” reachable by Spain. Earlier colonial conflicts? Conflicts for Azores and Canaries?

If native nations prove to be more resistant to English Conquistadors, that mean they able to endure longer. But just how much longer? Considering cultural and demographical pressure from Europe, is there any chance on recognizable “native” culture surviving to XXth century?

Anyone interested in doing a rough timeline?

[Dan1988]

3. South and Central America have the kind of climates that are unappealing to British people. Seeing as they already had a significant population base, its more likely the English would just use them.

Explain to me then Bermuda, the British West Indies, British Honduras (aka Belize), and Africa.

If anything I think perfect conquistador would've been Sir Francis Drake.

[Michael B]

Explain to me then Bermuda, the British West Indies, British Honduras (aka Belize), and Africa.

If anything I think perfect conquistador would've been Sir Francis Drake.
Absolutely. He would have certainly been in the same class as Cortes and Pizarro.

[mojojojo]

Absolutely. He would have certainly been in the same class as Cortes and Pizarro.
Would he have been nicer to the indians?