Dominant Europe with earlier discovery of America?

We could spend hours debating how and why Europe came to be the dominant civilization (for lack of a better phrasing), economically, militarily, technologically, and culturally in the world. However, I'm sure we can all agree that their colonization of America and control of the trade associated with it.

I'm curious how much Europeans might prosper, relative to their success historically, if reliable trade with the Americas were developed earlier, and the natives were able to maintain some relative parity with the Europeans.

On the one hand, such a scenario posits better ship building and navigation techniques, earlier than historically. On the other hand, the Europeans won't be able to directly control the wealth and resources of America.

However, it seems to me that Europeans would still be well positioned to be the middle men of most of the trade routes for centuries, gaining influence in that fashion. Thoughts?

I suspect the only natives who don't end up directly ruled in this situation are those who live in OTL mexico, The Maya, and The Inca, and possibly the Mississippi river culture (who actually stand a lot to gain in the long run if they don't fall apart due to disease).

eliphas8 said:

I suspect the only natives who don't end up directly ruled in this situation are those who live in OTL mexico, The Maya, and The Inca, and possibly the Mississippi river culture (who actually stand a lot to gain in the long run if they don't fall apart due to disease).

Click to expand...

I heard recently climatic changes (?) may have done the Mississippians, or overuse of ressources... and their collapse back into a semi nomadic lifestyle was before the whiteys came, so it have naught to do with this.

I'm considering this question more in a global sense, rather than the local scope of how the Americas might be different themselves.

How much earlier are the Americas discovered? Just think of what the Blackdeath would do to the continent or if its really early a mass exodus of eastern Europeans fleeing the various nomadic invasions. Perhaps a World War as Christians and Muslims clashes in Europe, Asia, Africa and the New World?

Uruk said:

How much earlier are the Americas discovered? Just think of what the Blackdeath would do to the continent or if its really early a mass exodus of eastern Europeans fleeing the various nomadic invasions. Perhaps a World War as Christians and Muslims clashes in Europe, Asia, Africa and the New World?

Click to expand...

leif erikson brings news of the new world to continental europe?

then America will share Asia fate.


even without advantage of disease and before Industrial Revolution, Dutch managed to conquer Molucca and seize inter-asian trade, spain conquer philipines, and portuguese seize spice trade from Muslims in Indian Ocean.


in America, European ships would control caribbean. native state in Missisippi, Yucatan, Mexico and Amazon would have to deal with european for trade. they fate will range from conquered outright, to dominated by powerful trading fort.

PhilippeO said:

then America will share Asia fate.


even without advantage of disease and before Industrial Revolution, Dutch managed to conquer Molucca and seize inter-asian trade, spain conquer philipines, and portuguese seize spice trade from Muslims in Indian Ocean.


in America, European ships would control caribbean. native state in Missisippi, Yucatan, Mexico and Amazon would have to deal with european for trade. they fate will range from conquered outright, to dominated by powerful trading fort.

Click to expand...

It would seem that you agree with my initial premise: That Europe is well positioned to be the dominant region once the world economy becomes globalized.

Should the Americas experience the same colonial experience as the various asian nations, then that implies that the basic polities that existed pre-contact remain somewhat intact, allowing for substantial continuity both during European domination and afterward.

PoeFacedKilla said:

leif erikson brings news of the new world to continental europe?

Click to expand...

I'm not too concerned with the specifics, though I appreciate their importances. Erikson and Co is as goody a point as any.

My general interest is in the conditions surrounding contact, both during and after. For example, if Europeans discover America during the 15/16th centuries, odds are that the natives effectively get wiped out, regardless of which Europeans discover them, leading to something vaguely similar to our history (where the western hemisphere is dominated by societies ultimately European in origin), where as an earlier contact, regardless of who's doing it, would likely lead to the a contrary dynamic.

DominusNovus said:

I'm not too concerned with the specifics, though I appreciate their importances. Erikson and Co is as goody a point as any.

My general interest is in the conditions surrounding contact, both during and after. For example, if Europeans discover America during the 15/16th centuries, odds are that the natives effectively get wiped out, regardless of which Europeans discover them, leading to something vaguely similar to our history (where the western hemisphere is dominated by societies ultimately European in origin), where as an earlier contact, regardless of who's doing it, would likely lead to the a contrary dynamic.

Click to expand...

hmm... i'm not sure because its not like small pox is the only disease europeans have that n. americans don't; and plus their were large sized native populations (enough to found states) up until before the ACW, they didn't die of disease they died of gun shots and freezing to death.

PoeFacedKilla said:

hmm... i'm not sure because its not like small pox is the only disease europeans have that n. americans don't; and plus their were large sized native populations (enough to found states) up until before the ACW, they didn't die of disease they died of gun shots and freezing to death.

Click to expand...

But states in the sense the US uses the term within its borders, not in the sense of polities capable of competing with the white man long term.

I'm not sure an earlier colonization changes that - not to mention that if we have *Cortez in the 14th century, the Mexica(n) empire doesn't exist, for instance.

The population crash from epidemics in America upon European discovery is inevitable, the main difference to the native population would be if the discovery takes place hundreds of years prior to OTL, they may have time to rebound in population before Europeans develop the technology to conquer them and colonize their lands. Although if Europeans don't have that technology, I'm not sure how they would get there and start trading in the first place.

The situation isn't really comparable to Asia unless you somehow manage to get rid of that terrible disease toll.

Of course, you could always have a more out-there scenario where Amerindians domesticate many animals thousands of years prior to contact, and when contact happens there's a two-way death wave of disease. Now that would be interesting.

DominusNovus said:

We could spend hours debating how and why Europe came to be the dominant civilization (for lack of a better phrasing), economically, militarily, technologically, and culturally in the world. However, I'm sure we can all agree that their colonization of America and control of the trade associated with it.

I'm curious how much Europeans might prosper, relative to their success historically, if reliable trade with the Americas were developed earlier, and the natives were able to maintain some relative parity with the Europeans.

On the one hand, such a scenario posits better ship building and navigation techniques, earlier than historically. On the other hand, the Europeans won't be able to directly control the wealth and resources of America.

However, it seems to me that Europeans would still be well positioned to be the middle men of most of the trade routes for centuries, gaining influence in that fashion. Thoughts?

Click to expand...

Actually, your best scenario is probably a successful vinland, which doesnt require any additional ship building tech to start with, but would lead to it.

There also would be very little trade, especially in the early days, as northern north america doesnt offer a lot thats rare in Europe. In fact, European dominance might be perceptibly reduced by this, as the new world states might well pick up European tech fast enough to prevent a european takeover. Admittedly, the aristocracies in several of these states will have european blood, and the trade language is likely to be germanic based (norse with a heavy admixture of hanseatic plattdeutsch, would be my guess, with bucket loads of algonquian loanwords, and a massively stripped down grammar).

DominusNovus said:

I'm not too concerned with the specifics, though I appreciate their importances. Erikson and Co is as goody a point as any.

My general interest is in the conditions surrounding contact, both during and after. For example, if Europeans discover America during the 15/16th centuries, odds are that the natives effectively get wiped out, regardless of which Europeans discover them, leading to something vaguely similar to our history (where the western hemisphere is dominated by societies ultimately European in origin), where as an earlier contact, regardless of who's doing it, would likely lead to the a contrary dynamic.

Click to expand...

I think you'd have to posit very early contact betwee old and new worlds to have a significantly different dynamic. I think you have to go back several thousand years, at least. The technological, soceital, and "scienfific" (to use the word losely) disparity between Iron Age civilizations in the Mediterranean basin, Middle East, and Asia and Mesoamerican/Andean Civilizations is just too great. Diffusion of technology, ideas, and cultural traits would go primarily from old world to the new - perhaps directed as much by conquest as in our time line. Perhaps earlier and more regular contact between the new world and less "advanced" hinterlands of the old world - such as the Norse, Polynesians, or sub-saharan Africans might do the trick.

Dathi THorfinnsson said:

Actually, your best scenario is probably a successful vinland, which doesnt require any additional ship building tech to start with, but would lead to it.

There also would be very little trade, especially in the early days, as northern north america doesnt offer a lot thats rare in Europe. In fact, European dominance might be perceptibly reduced by this, as the new world states might well pick up European tech fast enough to prevent a european takeover. Admittedly, the aristocracies in several of these states will have european blood, and the trade language is likely to be germanic based (norse with a heavy admixture of hanseatic plattdeutsch, would be my guess, with bucket loads of algonquian loanwords, and a massively stripped down grammar).

Click to expand...

I can see the point, but as you say North America offer little of value to Europe, so I don't think North German merchants would be especially active there, so I think the Low German influence would be minimal, as Norse would dominate the trade.
As for takeover seeing as much of Mississippi and the Amazon basins stayed depopulated centuries after the European disease hits and the local until Europeans colonised areas, I don't think the native states will survive north of Rio Grande.
In all likelyhood we will see a population much like the Whites in the Appalachia mostly European but with significant native blood. All in all I think we will see a split of America in zones.
North America will mostly be dominated by mostly European Norse, but the Deep South and Caribbean will be populated by Norse and Norsified natives both mixed race, the prairie states will also be mixed, but here we will likely see a more hybridised culture. In Mesoamerica the Mayans will survive (thanks to their decentral structure), while the other high cultures will see their upper classes replaced (and likely a big mixed population as today). The Andeans will likely only met the Norse several centuries after the Norse have discovered the new world, and they will have had centuries to get over the diseases, and their land isn't really one the Norse want, so I think they will survive. The land east of the Andean will stay depopulated until it's accidental discovered like Brazil were.
As for the American West Coast, as the people there mostly avoided the European diseases first hit, I put their chance chance at survival very low (simply because they will be hit as the Europeans discover them).

We could also posit simply that the Vikings end up transmitting enough to the natives (crop package, domestic animals (very important) and metal working) that by the time the Europeans come back in 5 centuries, the natives have been able to catch up by a significant degree.

Elfwine said:

But states in the sense the US uses the term within its borders, not in the sense of polities capable of competing with the white man long term.

Click to expand...

Actually I would disagree, the natives in southern and central America could be a powerful force if they where ever united enough to fight for control and it was entirely possible at several points that the Yucatan could have ended up an independent Mayan country and that the Inca could have established control over their own state (to this day they hold a majority in Bolivia). Its only specifically in the United States and Canada that they where so completely destroyed they could never function as a country again.

eliphas8 said:

Actually I would disagree, the natives in southern and central America could be a powerful force if they where ever united enough to fight for control and it was entirely possible at several points that the Yucatan could have ended up an independent Mayan country and that the Inca could have established control over their own state (to this day they hold a majority in Bolivia). Its only specifically in the United States and Canada that they where so completely destroyed they could never function as a country again.

Click to expand...

Southern and central America, maybe (I'm not familiar enough to argue one way or another so I'm willing to cede the point).

But as you said, in the US and Canada . . .