WI a British Mexico and a British Peru?

The Pod is simple: in 1492, the Spanish Kings reject Colombus proposals (as Portugal had done before). He wanders through different Courts, and finally, in 1497, he arrives in England. At first the Court don't favour his proposals: King Henry VII has more urgent problems to deal with. But, when, in 1499, news from Da Gama's voyages reach England, the Court sees things with a different optic, and chooses to support this guy's propossal. Enormous profits may be ahead, and the cost of the expedition's failure is very low (in money, obviously).

But Colombus insists on following the route he would have follow if he had departed form Portugal or Spain. He sets off in 1500, stoping at Canary islands, or at the Azores, and arriving the same year in OTL La Hispaniola. (This is becaouse I wanted him to arribe where he did, not in the USA; may be you find a better way for him to do this)

Then what????

I'm interesting in this points:

1) What would be England's approach towards colonisation??? Bear in mind that this is 1500, not 1600, and that the English are soon going to find highly sofisticated civilizations, densly populated. Would the English approach towards them differ from the one Spain followed IOTL? How???

2) What are the effects of the sudden appearence of this amount wealth IN BRITAIN? (After they have got their hands on Mexico's treasures, if you think that's what will haven) One may be tempted to say something like: "Britain dominates Europe and the world, Yeah!!!!"; but remember that easily adquired gold (as oil in our days) may carry unwanted consequences. For example, England might be tempted to get herself involved in costly (and pointless) wars in the continent, which might consume all its wealth. Or, this could make the Crown richer and stronger, preventing the appearence of a powerfull Parliament in the XVII Century, and a Parliamentary Monarchy.

3) Any other points you can come up with.

Well, first off, I'm not sure if Britain would go about conquering American states. Spain had a surplus of soldiers left over after the Reconquista that were just itching for another fight, which Britain did not. I can see Britain making the Aztecs into a 'protectorate' and putting a puppet ruler on the throne, or perhaps just conquering outright. I doubt the Incas will be conquered, though, unless some other European power gets to them.

Hobelhouse said:

Well, first off, I'm not sure if Britain would go about conquering American states. Spain had a surplus of soldiers left over after the Reconquista that were just itching for another fight, which Britain did not. I can see Britain making the Aztecs into a 'protectorate' and putting a puppet ruler on the throne, or perhaps just conquering outright. I doubt the Incas will be conquered, though, unless some other European power gets to them.

Click to expand...

1492 is at the tail end of the War of the Roses; I suspect if anything the English King will have a surplus of soldiers.

What does it look like? I dont' know. the Tudors were centralizers, after all; the idea of giving vast estates in the New World wouldn't appeal to them. But giving them estates? Sure.

Part of me feels that Mexico ends up very similar to OTL, actually.

Admiral Brown said:

1) What would be England's approach towards colonisation??? Bear in mind that this is 1500, not 1600, and that the English are soon going to find highly sofisticated civilizations, densly populated. Would the English approach towards them differ from the one Spain followed IOTL? How???

Click to expand...

The English would probably think that they were in heaven (literally - now if they could find the pearly gates). If anything, although Britain might replicate a bit of the class system if they do colonize the area, part of me thinks that Mexico will turn out to be VERY different in TTL in the modern era - not just in language, of course.

Admiral Brown said:

2) What are the effects of the sudden appearence of this amount wealth IN BRITAIN? (After they have got their hands on Mexico's treasures, if you think that's what will haven) One may be tempted to say something like: "Britain dominates Europe and the world, Yeah!!!!"; but remember that easily adquired gold (as oil in our days) may carry unwanted consequences. For example, England might be tempted to get herself involved in costly (and pointless) wars in the continent, which might consume all its wealth. Or, this could make the Crown richer and stronger, preventing the appearence of a powerfull Parliament in the XVII Century, and a Parliamentary Monarchy.

Click to expand...

I would assume that that amount of wealth would probably be saved up for the future. I think that Parliament in the XVIIème century will still come out as strong as in OTL, because remember Parliament is so well entrenched in English society and in English government that no king or queen would want to ignore it. Thus, Parliament would want a say in how the new gold would be distributed.

Dan1988 said:

I would assume that that amount of wealth would probably be saved up for the future. I think that Parliament in the XVIIème century will still come out as strong as in OTL, because remember Parliament is so well entrenched in English society and in English government that no king or queen would want to ignore it. Thus, Parliament would want a say in how the new gold would be distributed.

Click to expand...

It can want a say, but so what? We're talking about a time when the king of England was able to lead his country into a new faith. Later, you have Stuarts ruling the countyr for years without Parliament. It's not the force it will be later on, and it won't be the force it was if the kings have tons of gold pouring in.

Ah, but still the King by convention had to summon Parliament. When the Stuarts decided not to summon Parliament, that created a constitutional crisis because it violated convention. I can still see Parliament getting stronger in TTL as in OTL, even with the gold.

Dan1988 said:

Ah, but still the King by convention had to summon Parliament. When the Stuarts decided not to summon Parliament, that created a constitutional crisis because it violated convention. I can still see Parliament getting stronger in TTL as in OTL, even with the gold.

Click to expand...

Sort of how like summoning the Cortes in Spain was a well established custom?

England tended to treat Native American populations differently then The Spanish. For example, The Spanish made slaves out of them, The English did not. The British colonizing Mexico and Peru also means large numbers of White English settlers. Mexico and Peru are predominantly Roman Catholic because they were colonized by Catholic Spain. If England colonizes them they will be predominantly Protestant.

All of these things will cause changes, some of them major changes, and could butterfly lots of things. For example, how might all this effect The American Revolution, The Louisiana Purchase, The Mexican American War, The United States Southwest, even issues like slavery and the American Civil War? A British Peru and especially a British Mexico could change lots of things.

Another thought I had is that Mexico in TTL could end up being very much like Canada. It also makes it more likely to have a much larger USA, one that encompasses not only all of OTL's United States, but Mexico and even Canada as well.

I think a British Mexico will change things far more than a British Peru, but if Mexico and Peru are British you can look for other Central and South American British colonies as well.

The Mists Of Time said:

England tended to treat Native American populations differently then The Spanish. For example, The Spanish made slaves out of them, The English did not. The British colonizing Mexico and Peru also means large numbers of White English settlers. Mexico and Peru are predominantly Roman Catholic because they were colonized by Catholic Spain. If England colonizes them they will be predominantly Protestant.

All of these things will cause changes, some of them major changes, and could butterfly lots of things. For example, how might all this effect The American Revolution, The Louisiana Purchase, The Mexican American War, The United States Southwest, even issues like slavery and the American Civil War? A British Peru and especially a British Mexico could change lots of things.

Another thought I had is that Mexico in TTL could end up being very much like Canada. It also makes it more likely to have a much larger USA, one that encompasses not only all of OTL's United States, but Mexico and even Canada as well.

I think a British Mexico will change things far more than a British Peru, but if Mexico and Peru are British you can look for other Central and South American British colonies as well.

Click to expand...

Please inform yourself just a bit. English did treat american natives in a different way, just killing them. Just look at the ethnic composition of Canada and that of Mexico.

Slavery of american natives was forbidden, that is why there are so many africans in the americas now. The laws of Burgos in 1510 were very clear, as the "relectios" of Francisco de Vitoria in 1530s and the conclussions of the Controversial of Valladolid where Charles V considered even retreating from the Americas. The problem was that there was a long distance between the tribunals in Spain and the encomenderos in the Americas and laws where not fully obeyed. However slavery of american natives as such was something that was strictly forbidden, and it was more severely punished to kill an amerindian than to kill an spaniard. There could be oppresion as in peninsular Spain, but that was all.

In fact in the 1555 controversial, american natives where acknowledged to have human nature and the same rights the rest of europeans, while even in the XVIII century there were english theologians that denied that amerindians had a soul.

Please look for information about the controversial of Valladolid, the Laws of Indias and about the School of Salamanca.

As for the situation of Mexico it would depend: if the mexicans were wiped out then you have another Canada, if not you have another Pakistan.

The Mists Of Time said:

England tended to treat Native American populations differently then The Spanish. For example, The Spanish made slaves out of them, The English did not. The British colonizing Mexico and Peru also means large numbers of White English settlers. Mexico and Peru are predominantly Roman Catholic because they were colonized by Catholic Spain. If England colonizes them they will be predominantly Protestant.

All of these things will cause changes, some of them major changes, and could butterfly lots of things. For example, how might all this effect The American Revolution, The Louisiana Purchase, The Mexican American War, The United States Southwest, even issues like slavery and the American Civil War? A British Peru and especially a British Mexico could change lots of things.

Click to expand...

Except it was Henry VIII that split from Rome, and here we are talking about Henry VII. The formation of the Anglican church was so uinlikely (over Henry's right to divorce, rather than any particular theological dispute) that it would probably be butterflied away. It would be English Catholics colonising the new world. Admittedly they might be less zealous about it, not having gone through the reconquista themselves (with the attendant Inquisition), but catholic none the less.

Another thought I had is that Mexico in TTL could end up being very much like Canada. It also makes it more likely to have a much larger USA, one that encompasses not only all of OTL's United States, but Mexico and even Canada as well.

Click to expand...

Who said there would even be a USA? Even if the 13 colonies were still established by England (unlikely in that colonists would be redirected south, so someone else would step in - Dutch? French?) the extra revenue from resource extraction (gold, silver) may make it unneccessary to tax trade to raise funds for the far-away crown. That may reduce the rumblings of revolutinary discontent.

I think the likely scenario is an English South-west 1/2 of North America, French North-East 1/2 with perhaps a Dutch colony or two on the eastern seaboard. Russians may keep their Pacific NW territory.

South America mostly English as they follow the gold down the Pacific coast. Perhaps a Spanish Brazil they found as they scouted down Africa's coast. Spainsh and Portugese would be more concentrated in N. Africa and the Orient than in OTL.

Condottiero said:

Please inform yourself just a bit. English did treat american natives in a different way, just killing them. Just look at the ethnic composition of Canada and that of Mexico.

Click to expand...

To be fair to the English, they were dealing with a different sets of american indians. The Aztecs and Inca had a huge population and an advanced urban culture. It made sense to conquer these civilizations and rule them.

The English were facing significantly smaller numbers, and with a significantly lower level of urbanization. It made sense in the English colonization of North America to settle vs. trying to rule the existing indian population. Think of the difference between the English colonization of New England vs. the colonization of Ireland.

clip bit about native slavery

Condottiero said:

As for the situation of Mexico it would depend: if the mexicans were wiped out then you have another Canada, if not you have another Pakistan.

Click to expand...

Not a big fan of English/British colonization efforts hmmm . . . Pakistan? How about India perhaps?

I don't think that the English Parliament would survive American Gold. If Henry VII or VIII finds they have access to huge amounts of mineral wealth, they will no longer need Parliament and will ignore it. See Spanish vis a vis Cortes.

The trouble with these England-does-a-Columbus WIs - Diamond, God rest his soul, used to love them - is Henry VII. The Tight-Fisted Tudor was rather wary about spending money on anything domestically, never mind high-flying schemes to colonise the Americas. He did fund John Cabot but that was more of a trade mission - if England discovers the Aztecs etc., we would more probably just establish trade colonies (at least at first - British India started out as trade posts, after all).

It might be more interesting if Richard III or another Yorkist was on the throne instead, someone more willing to spend money on crazy dreams like this. Even then, though, England just doesn't have the conquistador impulse that Spain (or rather individual Spaniards) had. Rumours of mysterious cities of gold will still bring adventurers in, but not so much the whole converting the heathen thing.

Matthais Corvinus said:

Not a big fan of English/British colonization efforts hmmm . . . Pakistan? How about India perhaps?

Click to expand...

Would any of the native religion survive like it did in India?

Thande said:

The trouble with these England-does-a-Columbus WIs - Diamond, God rest his soul, used to love them - is Henry VII. The Tight-Fisted Tudor was rather wary about spending money on anything domestically, never mind high-flying schemes to colonise the Americas. He did fund John Cabot but that was more of a trade mission - if England discovers the Aztecs etc., we would more probably just establish trade colonies (at least at first - British India started out as trade posts, after all).

....

Click to expand...

IIRC, even John Cabot's small expedition (one modest-sized ship) was funded mainly by some merchants from Bristol, while Henry VII issues legal documents giving Cabot's backers a monopoly on trade with any foreign ports that they might reach, and making Cabot governor of any newly discovered lands that he could claim. He didn't actually give any financial backing. After Cabot's first voyage found what was probably Newfoundland, a second, larger expedition was outfitted, and I believe that Henry contributed modestly to this one, but still not that much. Cabot's ship disappeared on that second voyage and the others were forced back to Europe by contrary winds.

Thande said:

The trouble with these England-does-a-Columbus WIs - Diamond, God rest his soul, used to love them - is Henry VII. The Tight-Fisted Tudor was rather wary about spending money on anything domestically, never mind high-flying schemes to colonise the Americas. He did fund John Cabot but that was more of a trade mission - if England discovers the Aztecs etc., we would more probably just establish trade colonies (at least at first - British India started out as trade posts, after all).

Click to expand...

Which is why I say that Parliament will still be strong in TTL as in OTL. This is exactly what I was thinking. Perhaps a few trade colonies here and there (such as OTL Veracruz, perhaps, but under a different name). IIRC a lot of the New England colonies lived off of trade - la Nouvelle-France certainly did in terms of the fur trade.

Dan1988 said:

Which is why I say that Parliament will still be strong in TTL as in OTL. This is exactly what I was thinking. Perhaps a few trade colonies here and there (such as OTL Veracruz, perhaps, but under a different name). IIRC a lot of the New England colonies lived off of trade - la Nouvelle-France certainly did in terms of the fur trade.

Click to expand...

Veracruz makes sense, but what does any of this have to do with Parliament?

Thande said:

The trouble with these England-does-a-Columbus WIs - Diamond, God rest his soul, used to love them - is Henry VII. The Tight-Fisted Tudor was rather wary about spending money on anything domestically, never mind high-flying schemes to colonise the Americas. He did fund John Cabot but that was more of a trade mission - if England discovers the Aztecs etc., we would more probably just establish trade colonies (at least at first - British India started out as trade posts, after all).

Click to expand...

But what of the lure of all that gold...? Cabot found cod in the ocean, not civilizations brimming with precious metals.

Surely a show of force to make the natives compliant and submit to protectorate tithes wouldn't be out of the question?

Thande said:

Veracruz makes sense, but what does any of this have to do with Parliament?

Click to expand...

Because I think that as in OTL, in TTL Parliament will get stronger, so much so that it comes to the point of "the monarch reigns but does not rule", as is the case now. If what you say about Henry VII is true, then a lot of the OTL domestic events will still happen in TTL.

Dutchie said:

Surely a show of force to make the natives compliant and submit to protectorate tithes wouldn't be out of the question?

Click to expand...

It doesn't work like that. You can't just do your show of force once and then take the soldiers home, because people have short memories.

Look at what happened in Bengal. The HEIC spends decades ingratiating itself with the Padishah and then the Nawab, then finally one of the Nawabs realises just how dependent he is becoming on the HEIC and moves against them - but it's too late and he is overthrown and replaced with a British puppet.

Although the Aztecs (etc.) and Tawantinsuya were less advanced than the Bengalis, I'd still expect more of a slow ingratiation than outright conquest or intimidation.

After all, it shouldn't take much to persuade people to trade when you're bringing all sorts of European innovations in exchange for all that gold.

Dutchie said:

But what of the lure of all that gold...? Cabot found cod in the ocean, not civilizations brimming with precious metals.

Click to expand...

It's Henry VII we're talking about. His primary concern was reconciliation after a pretty bloody War of the Roses. He was a fiscal conservative, for the most part - even gold won't change that.