Medieval America

WestVirginiaRebel · Feb 1, 2009

I know this has been done before, but what if America had been colonized in the late Middle Ages (say, the 1300s?) WI other Europeans had followd the Vikings across the Atlantic? Who would they be, and ho would the lure of the New World affect exploration, religious minorities and others seeking greater freedom, etc?

What and where would the colonies be, and what would they be called? What might such an America look like a hundred years later, during the Renaissance?

RGB · Feb 1, 2009

Did the Europeans have economic incentives and the technology to go west in 1300? Did they have the technology to stick around?

I mean, there was surely the population pressure, which resulted in the plagues and famines by the end of the century...so that's one positive factor. Any other ones to overcome all the obvious obstacles?

Chengar Qordath · Feb 1, 2009

RGB said:
Did the Europeans have economic incentives and the technology to go west in 1300? Did they have the technology to stick around?

I mean, there was surely the population pressure, which resulted in the plagues and famines by the end of the century...so that's one positive factor. Any other ones to overcome all the obvious obstacles?

The tech was certainly available for at least the Iceland-Greenland-Nova Scotia route considering that the Vikings did it centuries earlier; and so long as there are enough provisions and weather is good a proper Atlantic voyage is easily doable with 14th century technology (though IIRC a storm would be much more dangerous). The hop between West Africa and Brazil is also short enough that ship blown off course by a storm could end up there quite easily.

Economic incentives are somewhat problematic since that's what kept the Vikings from ever making a significant push to colonize the Americas OTL, but if the Europeans can find out about things like Aztec gold that would probably be enough to make somebody interested. Also, if the discovery is prior to the Black Death then as pointed out population pressure will also make colonization possible; with land running out people will be much more inclined to move to the Americas, especially if they learn how much land is available.

Seryozha1987 · Feb 1, 2009

The Vikings also had the whole failure to have advanced technology than the indigenous tribes they encountered. That's a very important factor about this time period. Africa, Europe, and the Americas were all pretty much at the same tech level prior to Europe's sudden explosion during the Renaissance, followed by their Euro-Wank over the whole world.

If European powers were able to get over their own home-squabbling and actually send a force west, they would encounter two things:

1. Vastly superior numbers; and
2. Vastly superior numbers with the same technology sans strategy and tactics as themselves.

Colonization wouldn't work unless the Europeans were very, very, very nice, and if that were the case, we would end up with a situation where the new world becomes populated with new mulatto tribes descended from the intermingling of the natives and Europeans.

Basically, we couldn't even call it colonization because of the amount of assimilation that would naturally occur.

Chengar Qordath · Feb 1, 2009

How exactly are stone and wood weapons equivalent technology to iron ones?

8Deer · Feb 1, 2009

How exactly are stone and wood weapons equivalent technology to iron ones?

They aren't, but the difference wouldn't be enough to give the Europeans a huge advantage.

Chengar Qordath · Feb 1, 2009

8Deer said:
They aren't, but the difference wouldn't be enough to give the Europeans a huge advantage.

The success anyone with ironworking had against people without it indicates otherwise; how often have civilizations without metalworking successfully resisted ones with fairly advanced iron weaponry? In some ways there might even be an advantage to launching the invasion of the Americas at an earlier time period, as European weapons and tactics won't be quite so focused on taking down heavily armored targets as they were in the early 1500's and thus might adapt better to the situation in the Americas. Early gunpowder weapons such as those used by Cortes weren't all that powerful or particularly common, and in any case non-gunpowder equivalents will make decent substitutes.

Logistics remain as big of a potential problem as OTL; while European tech is notably superior they are still at the end of a long supply chain and very much outnumbered. Also, at this point the Aztec Empire isn't a large dominant power that has thoroughly angered all of its neighbors, so someone replicating the success of Cortes would be problematic, especially given how much luck it took for Cortes to accomplish what did OTL. IMO the Europeans are likely to focus on trade with the mainland of the Americas until they have a large enough local population to mount a proper invasion, rather than smashing the Aztecs with a couple hundred mercenaries and the promise of gold as per OTL. Early conquest is likely to be focused on islands and other relatively isolated locations that Europeans can easily take and hold.

8Deer · Feb 1, 2009

The success anyone with ironworking had against people without it indicates otherwise; how often have civilizations without metalworking successfully resisted ones with fairly advanced iron weaponry?

I guess what I meant was that although their weapons technology was superior, without large amounts of soldiers, the Europeans and the Natives would be fairly evenly matched.

Early gunpowder weapons such as those used by Cortes weren't all that powerful or particularly common, and in any case non-gunpowder equivalents will make decent substitutes.

The main advantage of gunpowder over the Indians was the shock value and the fear they caused, not really the actual damage they dealt on the battlefield.

Disease would still destroy native populations and horses would still be effective. The main difference would be that their technology would be more evenly matched and logistics would be a huge problem.

Also, during this time period, who would be sending the explorers to the New World?

freodhoric · Feb 1, 2009

8Deer said:
They aren't, but the difference wouldn't be enough to give the Europeans a huge advantage.

I totally disagree, mostly on account of armor. Crossbows are good as well. English longbowmen were still powerful at this period, right? I doubt one could get many noblemen interested in such ventures, but either way i'm sure there would be mounted warriors, and horses could well be the most decisive advantage. Overconfidence would be the main enemy.

Maybe the Black Death itself could provide impetus for colonization?

8Deer · Feb 1, 2009

I think that the Europeans would win a few early victories and then when supplies started to run low and the Natives begin to adopt their technologies, they would get pushed back.

Chengar Qordath · Feb 1, 2009

8Deer said:
I think that the Europeans would win a few early victories and then when supplies started to run low and the Natives begin to adopt their technologies, they would get pushed back.

I think you vastly overestimate how easily the natives could adopt European technology.

8Deer · Feb 1, 2009

Why? They did it in OTL.

some kind of chimp · Feb 1, 2009

8Deer said:
Why? They did it in OTL.

And then they pushed the Europeans off the continent and ruled for themselves.

Oh, wait. No they didn't.

rcduggan · Feb 1, 2009

Chengar Qordath said:
I think you vastly overestimate how easily the natives could adopt European technology.

And how powerful the natives would be. Europeans coming on this time could potentially bring the Black Plague with them. It's ramifications in the Americas could be astounding.

Come to think of it, that may deserve its own thread. I'll start it soon.

8Deer · Feb 1, 2009

And then they pushed the Europeans off the continent and ruled for themselves.

Oh, wait. No they didn't.

Thats a little thing called the Renaissance happened in North America, but not in Europe. European technology became far more advanced than it had been and millenia ahead of some Native American tribes.

They would obviously have better technology, but not as much as in the 1500s, after the Renaissance.

Of course, they would still have the huge advantage of disease.

While they could still colonize North Amercia, it would be much much harder than if they did it a few centuries later.

Edit: Also, this depends entirely on where the Europeans are trying to colonize. While the more primative Indian tribes of North America would be extremely vulnerable to metal armour and weapons, the Aztecs and Mayans would far better because of their more advanced technology and huge numbers.

rcduggan · Feb 1, 2009

8Deer said:
Thats a little thing called the Renaissance happened in North America, but not in Europe. European technology became far more advanced than it had been and millenia ahead of some Native American tribes.

I am not sure why you are chalking European superiority up to a 15th-16th century cultural shift. It doesn't make very much sense to me.

Dave Howery · Feb 1, 2009

8Deer said:
I think that the Europeans would win a few early victories and then when supplies started to run low and the Natives begin to adopt their technologies, they would get pushed back.

and then the diseases brought by the Europeans kill off 90% of the natives...

robertp6165 · Feb 1, 2009

8Deer said:
I think that the Europeans would win a few early victories and then when supplies started to run low and the Natives begin to adopt their technologies, they would get pushed back.

Chengar Qordath said:
I think you vastly overestimate how easily the natives could adopt European technology.

8Deer said:
Why? They did it in OTL.

8Deer said:
Thats a little thing called the Renaissance happened in North America, but not in Europe. European technology became far more advanced than it had been and millenia ahead of some Native American tribes.

They would obviously have better technology, but not as much as in the 1500s, after the Renaissance.

The native Americans never really adopted European technology...they MADE USE of European technology they were able to trade for, or steal. But they never really produced these things for themselves, and unless they do that, they don't have a chance of successfully resisting the Europeans, even with pre-Renaissance levels of technology.

Even something as relatively simple and of such inestimable value as ironworking never, in the 400 years after the arrival of Columbus, diffused into the independent native American cultures. Instead, they continued to make stone tools and weapons right up to the end, and used them alongside whatever iron tools and weapons they managed to buy or steal from the Europeans.

So the process of adopting European technology must have been much more difficult than you are thinking it was. The tech gap between the two groups was just too large...and would have been so, even before the Renaissance...for the Native Americans to adapt.

SuttlersWagon · Feb 1, 2009

But and thats a huge but, giggity, with horses being introduced later, and a much smaller European colonization abroad (without the SPANISH INQUISITION) the Natives that eventually adapted the horse to their way of life with such skill would become almost the mongols of the plains. Thats assuming that the tribal warfare that happened still pushed Crow, Souix, Shoshone, etc. into the plains at an earlier date. Instead of the 150 yrs of them becoming consumate equestrians and then getting pummled by a gun toting army, they become skilled horsemen and are attacking other bow toting warriors in armor. Wich can be defeated...

8Deer · Feb 1, 2009

Ok, I guess I agree with that, with a few minor nitpicks

. I think my Indian pride got the best of me

.

Lets get back on topic, shall we? If the Europeans did get to North America in the 1300s, who would it be, where would they colonize and what would happen?

A problem I forsee is the limited information we have about pre-Colombian America.

Edit: Also, feelxfunk is right about the horses.