England Discovers America Early

[Geredis]

I've come up with the timeline below over the past few days while toying with a short story about an English trading vessel heading to Iceland in the mid 15th Century and being blown off course, and discovering America. My question is, just how feasible is this, and also, is a POD so far back really necessary, or could I tighten it up some, to...say the late 14th or early 15th centuries?

As for the timeline itself, which I've only gotten to 1370 so far...:

What if:
England started the colonization effort?

POD: March 3rd, 1260 AD

Premise: England is the first European power to conduct sustainable colonization efforts in the Americas. As such, it is she, and not Spain, that becomes the regional super-power of the 16th century, and she manages to keep that until the late 1830’s as her Empire collapses.

Timeline:

1260: Margaret of Scotland dies on March 3rd, barely five days old. A Scot by birth, she was betrothed to King Eirik II of Norway in OTL. As such, no Norse-Scottish alliance forms.

1297: William Wallace is slain in battle at Stirling Bridge. English reprisals against the Scottish are exceptionally harsh, and the will of the Scottish in light of English domination swear fealty to the English Crown of Edward IV. Those loyal to Robert the Bruce and other strong-willed rebels flee to Ireland.

1308: Edward II is slain while campaigning in Ireland against the exiled Scots. Edward III takes the thrown.

1320: Relations are opened between the Norwegians and English. Haakon V of Norway gives trading rights to the English. Norway cuts all ties to Sweden and France. Later that year, in September, Haakon dies of natural causes and Magnus IV of Sweden (Haakon’s disinherited infant son after the falling out between Sweden and Norway) does not come to the Norwegian thrown. The throne is vacated, and a noble council steps in amongst the chaos to rule Norway.

1320 – 1380: Trade between Norway and England prospers, especially the salted fish trade between Iceland and England.

1348 – 1359 (War of Normandy): Edward III wars with France due to French encroachment into Normandy. War. The war stalemates, and eventually, France recognizes English sovereignty over that territory and cedes it. The treaty, besides giving the land to England, keeps the French crown solely in the French line of the family, much to the chagrin of Edward, but he accepts it, since he mainly went after the land.

1360: Angered at home by the treaty Edward signed with the French, various nobles, especially those of Wales, Northumbria, and Wessex, rebel against the king.

1362: Edward suffers defeat after defeat from the nobility, and eventually is forced to the Tower of London. A six month siege ensues, during which Edward dies as dysentery passes through the garrison. English becomes the official language of the Kingdom. The Black Prince, after proving himself in the war with France, sides with the Nobles against his brother, John of Ghent. John stood firm against the nobles, and a civil war broke out.

1363 – 1369 (War of the Lions): John of Ghent defeats the Northumbrian nobility at the siege of York (May thru June, 1363). For the next four years, the Welsh nobility fight running battles throughout all Wales and western England, bleeding John of Ghent’s forces dry. The Castille sends a force to England at Ghent’s behest. The combined Castilian-English force pacifies Wales, with the last Welsh noble capitulating in 1366. The Black Prince, heads to Normandy and secures the aid of the Bretons, who land near Portsmouth on July 19, 1368. They march into eastern England and Edward, the Black Prince crowns himself King on Friday, August 13, 1368[1]. John, at Cardiff, does likewise on September 3. Norway, curiously silent these past years, meddles in English affairs, offering to mediate the dispute. John accepts the Norwegian olive branch, but Edward declines it and favors a total end to the issue through force of arms. In January 1369 a famine strikes London and the surrounding areas. Edward dies when those food shortages are exacerbated by John’s blockade of London and the siege of the second siege of the city’s fortifications.

1370: John of Ghent, now recognized as the only king of England, takes the name John II after spending the majority of 1369 securing food for southern England and repairing relations with Brittany and the nobility.
================================================== ======
The rest to be continued later on

[HueyLong]

Late 1830s? How do you get that?

Its an interesting premise, but an earlier discovery is not going to parallel Spain's efforts, and will not be as stupendously successful. Less tech advantage and an even less developed economy, as well as a much less developed area to exploit.

[Darkling]

Looks similiar to something I was dabbling with.

Except my POD was the maid of Norway surviving to marry Edward II.

Edward III of England, Scotland, Norway and Lord of Ireland went on to be quite the important figure on the continent.

[Thande]

Quite interesting so far.

Although a bit late if you're going for a 13th century POD, one thing that we've previously toyed with is the fact that Henry VII almost contracted Columbus in between the Spaniards rejecting him and then deciding to contract him again.

The main problem with simply replacing Spain's role in the Americas with some other power was that Spain and Portugal were in a unique situation. They had just completed their Reconquista and were fired up with crusading zeal, hence the rapid conquest of the Americas with conversion as a major objective. More staid England would have an emphasis on trade, just as with India in OTL, so (at least at first) most of the Indian states would remain intact and there would just be English trading posts and small Bombay-type colonies scattered across the Americas.

Later they might start encroaching and conquering the Indians due to attempting to stabilise or prevent war, or if other European powers were trying to butt in, but it wouldn't be as rapid and wouldn't have the same crusading component as the Spanish conquest of the Americas OTL.

[Grey Wolf]

Its definitely interesting; John of Gaunt would make a fascinating king

But I am confused about this bit

): Edward III wars with France due to French encroachment into Normandy. War. The war stalemates, and eventually, France recognizes English sovereignty over that territory and cedes it. The treaty, besides giving the land to England, keeps the French crown solely in the French line of the family, much to the chagrin of Edward, but he accepts it, since he mainly went after the land.

I don't think England has ANY claims left in Normandy by this time, but if you replace it with Aquitaine/Gascony which is what the OTL war was about it would make sense

For John to be king, you need the Black Prince dead (as you have) but also his sons dead, unless you want the civil war to continue in the name of...I'm not sure in 1370 but his eldest son Edward may be still be around; if not its Richard (II)

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

[Glen]

Originally Posted by Thande

Quite interesting so far.

Although a bit late if you're going for a 13th century POD, one thing that we've previously toyed with is the fact that Henry VII almost contracted Columbus in between the Spaniards rejecting him and then deciding to contract him again.

The main problem with simply replacing Spain's role in the Americas with some other power was that Spain and Portugal were in a unique situation. They had just completed their Reconquista and were fired up with crusading zeal, hence the rapid conquest of the Americas with conversion as a major objective. More staid England would have an emphasis on trade, just as with India in OTL, so (at least at first) most of the Indian states would remain intact and there would just be English trading posts and small Bombay-type colonies scattered across the Americas.

Later they might start encroaching and conquering the Indians due to attempting to stabilise or prevent war, or if other European powers were trying to butt in, but it wouldn't be as rapid and wouldn't have the same crusading component as the Spanish conquest of the Americas OTL.

That's pretty much how I'm playing England's efforts in North America in the 1493 timeline. Trade not assimilation.

[Jammy]

It is an interesting idea, was John married at this stage?

[Geredis]

As I've said above, in the initial post, this is very rough so far, and, from what I've found on various sources, it seems that all of the Black Prince's sons are dead by 1370, hence why Richard II, at only 10, becomes king in 1372 in OTL. Were any of his other sons still alive, I'm pretty sure they would have taken the place of Richard II.

I wasn't aware that by this time the English had largely left their old claims in Normandy to rot and had largely given up on that. I'll look into it some more, and go for certain with a conflict over Gascony and Aquitaine. Might actually make it more interesting, now I think of it, since there's a decent way at this point to allow the Spaniards and Bretons to fight in a secondary theatre...

Speaking of that, since the Reconquista was mentioned, assuming that the conflict between Brittany and Castille is mostly simply their forces being sent to south-west France to fight each other and tie up the other's men...how much would this slow the Requonquista? Could it also maybe ensure a survival of Granada for maybe 10-20 years beyond OTL?


Oh, as for the 1830's bit. My thoughts there were as follows, but subject to change as I actually get closer and closer to that date:

As in OTL, there is a long series of wars in Europe, which England gets dragged into. As such, she is required to levy harsh taxes, but recent events in England proper preclude an even heavier taxation on the home islands, and force even more of the debt upon her colonies. In the mid 1760's, just as the last war comes to a close, the American colonies rise up and rebel, but are put down rather easily, given that there simply isn't enough support for the rebellion despite a resentment of the taxes.

For the next ten-twenty years further partisan actions take place, and begrudgingly, England allows her colonies to go their seperate ways. In the north-east, Canadian England forms, consisting of whatever parts of Canada the British settle, as well as OTL's New England. From there, she also releases a southern conglomerate to balance out the northern section she forcibly gave up (in here, only New England and the like revolts, the South is content since they've more than enough money to go around from their cotton and tobacco trades). From there, the two infant nations sorta work together and form a union of sorts, much like Poland and Lithuania did, where each aided the other in all matters yet kept a large degree of autonomy in many issues. From here, they institute an early version of the Monroe Doctrine and, through internal trade, strengthen each other up to the point where Canadian England (I need a better name for this one) can compete with the British industrial might, while Virginia manages to dislodge the British monopoly on various textiles via an ability to out-produce Egypt and India.

From there, with Britain in a state of economic decline, it simply can't project itself as well, and with that waning power, the Sepoy Rebellion succeeds, and while the British try to subdue that, the Ottomans decide to force their way back into Egypt. Come Crimea, England joins Russia in an attempt ot regain Egypt, but looses, and from there, its a downward spiral that I'm still figuring the specifics of.

Regarding technology: I never said at all that they were going to succeed right from the start. Far from it. I recognize the issues of technology given they start about 40-70 years early in the colonization process. In short, I plan on having 3-4 failed colonies that held lots of promise, yet simply couldnt sustain themselves initially given their location. Think basically of Jamestown and its Starving Time, but without the miracle of tobacco or John Smith to put down an iron hand to ensure survival.

As for Grey Wolf's comment about the Black Prince's son Edward: From what I found (mostly by looking around online some, and moderate use of wikipedia) what I gathered was that Edward actually died young, but I couldn't get much more than that. Unless I'm looking at one of his other sons named Edward and not the one you refer to.

[mojojojo]

Originally Posted by Thande

Quite interesting so far.

Although a bit late if you're going for a 13th century POD, one thing that we've previously toyed with is the fact that Henry VII almost contracted Columbus in between the Spaniards rejecting him and then deciding to contract him again.

The main problem with simply replacing Spain's role in the Americas with some other power was that Spain and Portugal were in a unique situation. They had just completed their Reconquista and were fired up with crusading zeal, hence the rapid conquest of the Americas with conversion as a major objective. More staid England would have an emphasis on trade, just as with India in OTL, so (at least at first) most of the Indian states would remain intact and there would just be English trading posts and small Bombay-type colonies scattered across the Americas.

Later they might start encroaching and conquering the Indians due to attempting to stabilise or prevent war, or if other European powers were trying to butt in, but it wouldn't be as rapid and wouldn't have the same crusading component as the Spanish conquest of the Americas OTL.

so would things work out better for the natives? How, would you see them adapting to the English?How much of their culture would survive in the 1830's?

[Geredis]

Mainly, I plan on a rather stark contrast between the way the northern (ie Canadian and New England) colonies treat the natives, as compared to the southern ones (ie Virginia and the like).

Basically, in Canada and New England, due to their mercantile economy, and a lesser focus on farming or labor heavy tasks, the natives will be treated rather well and allowed to live as they wish, since anything the colonists do against them will loose them a captive market.

In the south, I don't see things being too different from how the Spaniards did things in Mexico, using forced local labor to manage the agrarian economy that the South becomes. Of course, as to how far south, south is in this case, the lower limit, for reference, is Virginia, with the upper limit being Delaware and southern Pennysylvania, at least initially so far.
==
Oh, and a quick question. Does Edward, the son of John of Gaunt, have any known sons that lasted to roughly 1430 or so?

[Thande]

Originally Posted by Geredis

Mainly, I plan on a rather stark contrast between the way the northern (ie Canadian and New England) colonies treat the natives, as compared to the southern ones (ie Virginia and the like).

Basically, in Canada and New England, due to their mercantile economy, and a lesser focus on farming or labor heavy tasks, the natives will be treated rather well and allowed to live as they wish, since anything the colonists do against them will loose them a captive market.

In the south, I don't see things being too different from how the Spaniards did things in Mexico, using forced local labor to manage the agrarian economy that the South becomes. Of course, as to how far south, south is in this case, the lower limit, for reference, is Virginia, with the upper limit being Delaware and southern Pennysylvania, at least initially so far.
==
Oh, and a quick question. Does Edward, the son of John of Gaunt, have any known sons that lasted to roughly 1430 or so?

Why would England go for the same territories as OTL? Those lands are basically worthless for commercial purposes at first, save for tobacco and cotton, which are only long-term enterprises.

Most people when considering a WI in which England is the first to colonise the Americas, assume that we'd go for Mexico, Peru and Colombia just as the Spaniards did. Although most probably we'd mainly trade with the Indian states rather than conquer them, it makes sense that we'd go for the most developed societies.

A "West India Company" would probably trade various new European goods and technologies to the Inca, for example, in exchange for their gold rather than taking it by conquest as the Spaniards did.

[Geredis]

Well, I'm working it out, but the discovery is happenstance, due to the trade with Norway.

In short, a storm blows a few ships off course, they make landfall in Greenland, and a few stories bring them south-west when the few settlements on the island make mention of a place that, in fable, the Norse sailed to, yet failed to do much with. In curiosity, they go in that direction.

Eventually, of course, they would continue creeping farther south, and come to there, where they take to the islands. There's plenty I'm STILL sorting through though, and this part is definately one of those things.

[Thande]

Originally Posted by Geredis

Well, I'm working it out, but the discovery is happenstance, due to the trade with Norway.

In short, a storm blows a few ships off course, they make landfall in Greenland, and curiosity brings them south-west when the few settlements on the island make mention of a place that, in fable, the Norse sailed to, yet failed to do much with. In curiosity, they go in that direction.

Eventually, of course, they would continue creeping farther south, and come to there, where they take to the islands. There's plenty I'm STILL sorting through though, and this part is definately one of those things.

Granted, but remember in OTL John Cabot discovered Newfoundland etc. for England as early as 1497. That doesn't mean we immediately went colonising them. There has to be some sort of obvious commercial advantage...

One reason behind the colonisation of what became the US in OTL was the fact that, at the time, it was thought that North America was much narrower than it is, and that it would only be about ten days' march from the east coast to the west coast. Therefore, there could be a corridor of English colonies across the continent, and from the other coast trade missions would be launched to China, Japan and so forth. Always about trade...

[Geredis]

Ah, that I wasn't familiar with, so I'll reconsider the positions of the colonies then for certain, but would such a storm and stories be enough to accidently discover the place and put a new landmass out in the west to be looked at in further?

[Thande]

Originally Posted by Geredis

Ah, that I wasn't familiar with, so I'll reconsider the positions of the colonies then for certain, but would such a storm and stories be enough to accidently discover the place and put a new landmass out in the west to be looked at in further?

Oh, absolutely. That's what happened in OTL with the Portuguese, more or less. Columbus would never have been chartered if there hadn't already been rumours of new lands sighted in the west (although they thought they were the East Indies, hence the urge to get to the profitable spice etc. trade there by an easier route - sailing west around the world - rather than the complicated rounding of Africa).

It's strange how much the economics of the 15th and 16th centuries dictated world history - looking at the eastern route in contrast: European ships sailing to the East Indies around Africa usually stopped in India, often on the way back from the East Indies. In thr 16th and 17th centuries, England tried to take the East Indies' (or rather the trade monopolies) off the Dutch and failed. As the English East India Company ships were stopping in Madras in India on the way back, some bright spark had the idea of opening up trade with the Indian states instead...and that's the whole reason for the British Raj.

It's also the main reason why the Dutch colonised South Africa and the Portuguese colonised Angola and Mozambique (although there were other reasons in the latter case) - to have outpost ports on the route from Europe to the Indies via Africa.

[Geredis]

Thank you again, Thande, on clearing that up.

But that still leaves Edward's sons...just who were they, and which ones if any are feasible to be minors in 1429?

[Thande]

Originally Posted by Geredis

Thank you again, Thande, on clearing that up.

But that still leaves Edward's sons...just who were they, and which ones if any are feasible to be minors in 1429?

Grey Wolf is the man to ask about that. He knows more about feudal nobility than anyone in the...um...world.

[Analytical Engine]

Originally Posted by Thande

Grey Wolf is the man to ask about that. He knows more about feudal nobility than anyone in the...um...world.

Being British, we are genetically predisposed to know about such things.

As well as wanting to conquer France.

[Grey Wolf]

Well, I don't know off the top of my head and all my sources are back at the flat (books) are unavailable to me these days (digital ones). What I do recall is that the Black Prince's eldest son died whilst Edward was governor of Aquitaine, and as far as I can see this is between 1363 and 1372

Thus, after 1372 Richard was heir, and this makes sense if it was Richard's interests that Edward was looking to promote OTL against John

Regarding Aquitaine/Gascony being good for dragging England into Castile, it did so twice in this period anyway - with John of Gaunt's claims to the kingdom, and with Edward's support for Pedro leading to the Battle of Najera

I'm afraid I don't understand the question asked with regard to 1429 ? Which Edward ?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

[Geredis]

Originally Posted by Grey Wolf

I'm afraid I don't understand the question asked with regard to 1429 ? Which Edward ?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

From my readings and the understanding of those readings, John of Gaunt had a son named Edward. What I'm asking is, just who were HIS sons?

Anyone in the Black Prince's line is either long since dead, or has been disinherited and, more or less, forgotten about.