AHC/WI: High medieval colonization of the Americas

This scenario probably requires a very early POD to work, maybe the initial POD is that Muslims don't conquer Iberia at all, thus already creating the geopolitical situation we see from the late 13th century 6 centuries earlier.
The idea is to have an alt-high medieval Europe colonize the Americas during the period of massive demographic growth and before any diseases or famine-caused massive decline, the Americas would be an outlet for the exploding European population.

Given the temporal distance between the POD and the goal of the scenario, I think we shouldn't focus on the specifics but rather at the broad difference that such a scenario would involve, in 1100-1200 Europeans will not find the sizeable empires of the Incas and the Aztecs(I'm not applying chaos theory, I don't find it useful here) and will probably be less centralized themselves.

So the question is how to engineer such a scenario with an early POD? Here are some ideas:
  • No seriously contested European Atlantic front, meaning in a post 7th century context no Islam in Europe by the high medieval times, whether this happens by preventing the conquest or having a faster reconquest is probably not vital, but I imagine either scenario could work better than the other if considering other factors.
  • Quicker development of ocean-going naval technology, sure the Norse were able to reach Newfoundland around the early 11th century, but for it to be a more reliable contact in other places through different routes we need faster development on that front.
  • Strong enough interest in transatlantic colonialism, I believe this can be achieved not solely by economics, but also by other factors such as culture, politics and demographics. Maybe this can be achieved by vikings or viking-like entities taking over all of the British isles and after Christianization they keep this pioneering attitude, leading at least to the settlement of at least Northern New England and Atlantic Canada by 1200 or so.
  • The spark of first contact that we saw with Columbus could a more gradual phenomenon with the Norse colonization of North America.
  • In Southern Europe a Atlantic pioneering could be incited by Iberians and Italians fighting against a Maghrebi Berber and Arab islamic states and trying to circumvent transsaharan routes to West Africa(at least initially) or rather Italian, Byzantine or Arab control in West Asia and Red Sea.
  • No massive steppe empire like the Mongols, without the creation of a more accessible land route to Asian markets, there is a stronger push to look westwards.
  • Considering Vinland, having an already existing and sizeable European community there for centuries would incite more people to come given the better knowledge of the land and its exploitable resources.
Some guidelines/tips/ideas to keep in mind:
  • I'm not envisioning a stunted and slow European expansion in the Americas, it doesn't have to be like the Spanish that conquered millions of km2 and people in 80 years, at the same time I'm not looking at a limited coastal presence like in early modern Africa or a constant sludge like in 16th century North America throughout all the medieval era. The PODs clearly involves faster naval technical developments and relatively strong interest in oversea expansion, so the timeline should reflect that.
  • As for diseases, I think it's commonly accepted that there is to some extent an inherent difference in immunity between most Afro-Eurasia and most of the Americas by this point in time so I believe there shouldn't be a too big of a debate there, it's also important to note that the population decline in the Americas clearly would have taken very long to recover and I hope people's timelines or concepts reflect that instead of assuming it takes a century or less for the dense regions of the Americas to regain their population, it took Europe between a century or even 2 or 3 for some regions to retake their population, it shouldn't take less for a bigger population decline. On top of that it's important to note the effective isolation of many communities in North America insofar as many diseases are concerned, the diseases shouldn't spread like wildfire in many regions, so no English immediately spreading diseases in Mesoamerica in the 13th century from landing in Virginia or something akin to that.
  • If possible European settlements and colonization should be done in a decentralized fashion, this is more of a wish than a rule but I'd like to see something akin to Greek and Phoenician colonialism than OTL early modern colonialism, I believe there will be an easy time doing this in the middle ages with a different political structure, better demographic and climatic situation in most of Europe and with existing examples of Viking settlement in Iceland and Greenland and even the system of crusades in the Baltic and Levant.
  • Another concept I wanted to explore is an American contact without the Europeans really involving themselves with Subsaharan Africa or Asia for centuries, how would local economies play out without transatlantic slavery from the get go(if at all), what would happen eventually when direct contact with the rest Asia and Africa actually happens centuries after settlements in the Americas and in a context where decentralized colonialism in the Americas happens, how would independent polities in the Americas play into this?
  • A side question within this timeline is what would be the linguistic effects of a earlier settlement of the Americas? If we say the first settlements happen between 6(for Vinland) to 3 centuries(for most of the Atlantic Americas minus Mesoamerica and Patagonia) before OTL Columbus, how much more would the local languages diverge especially in the context of decentralized settlements?
As for PODs allowed, I'm envisioning sustained contact between non-Vinland and Europe to be established between 1100 and 1200 but honestly I allow any POD up to the late Bronze Age if you feel creative enough or you feel you need more time than just late antiquity and the early middle ages, which should be enough to be honest, but also if you like to play with other ideas instead of Norse and medieval-like Europeans. I'm personally not a fan of Roman colonization, given it plays out with a completely different political situation and, given the context of my idea, seems anachronistic.
Butterflies in the Americas should largely not be considered, general trends and periods of regional American histories should be taken as they are without chaos theory and only applying butterflies were direct changes through European contact happen(doesn't have to be direct contact itself).
 
I wonder if the administrative tech is really there to outfit, finance and organize such expeditions? Jamestown, for example, was a considerable undertaking, even if private. Would any medieval state, except perhaps Byzantium, have the ability to do it? And even then, most will fail or flounder for the first few years due to uncertainty about the terrain. Would a bunch of peasants dropped off (along with the small...military? detachment) be able to make a go of it?
 
I wonder if the administrative tech is really there to outfit, finance and organize such expeditions? Jamestown, for example, was a considerable undertaking, even if private. Would any medieval state, except perhaps Byzantium, have the ability to do it? And even then, most will fail or flounder for the first few years due to uncertainty about the terrain. Would a bunch of peasants dropped off (along with the small...military? detachment) be able to make a go of it?
I mean the Polynesian somehow did establish contact long enough to taken sweet potatoes and the local Andean word for it back to their homeland and spread it throughout Oceania, I imagine that condition should be better than during the little ice age in North America anyhow.

Also having the earlier presence of Vinlanders(let's say 2-3 centuries) would help with the southern pioneer having more knowledge of the land and climate.
 
You need the million and five sacks of constantinople to lead to an early conquest to provide the incentive to go west. Because trade with Islamic powers was still unthinkable to most western European powers. You also need it to happen relatively late into the hundred years war so that a good chunk of your likely colonizers actually have the necessary administrative resources and the power to pool those resources.

Which, unfortunately, I can't think of a good pod to lead to that relatively precise scenario
 
You need the million and five sacks of constantinople to lead to an early conquest to provide the incentive to go west. Because trade with Islamic powers was still unthinkable to most western European powers. You also need it to happen relatively late into the hundred years war so that a good chunk of your likely colonizers actually have the necessary administrative resources and the power to pool those resources.

Which, unfortunately, I can't think of a good pod to lead to that relatively precise scenario
Europeans traded with Islamic powers just fine, the problem was not that the problem was the fact the Italians had a monopoly on trade that the Iberians wanted to bypass.

Also I'm not sure why you put a time limit on the 100 HYW or "administrative resources", why can't they come before or why do you think they are needed at all? Did Norse people need them or Polynesians?
 
Europeans traded with Islamic powers just fine, the problem was not that the problem was the fact the Italians had a monopoly on trade that the Iberians wanted to bypass.

Also I'm not sure why you put a time limit on the 100 HYW or "administrative resources", why can't they come before or why do you think they are needed at all? Did Norse people need them or Polynesians?

The Norse failed without those resources and the Polynesians were doing a very different thing.
 
Europeans traded with Islamic powers just fine, the problem was not that the problem was the fact the Italians had a monopoly on trade that the Iberians wanted to bypass.

Also I'm not sure why you put a time limit on the 100 HYW or "administrative resources", why can't they come before or why do you think they are needed at all? Did Norse people need them or Polynesians?
It was a dual ottoman-Italian stranglehold, but because the ottomans were much stronger than said italians, I focus on them. And I don't think large scale, triangle trading, mesoamerican conquering colonialism is possible without a centralized state because such things involve enforcement of a very specific maritime order and a greater ability to make sure your military and court is loyal to the realm as a whole, not just whatever duchy or fiefdom. There's a difference between the Vikings and their failed settlement or the polynesians, and the european colonizers- the others (or at least the Vikings) were aiming to establish trade routes but generally self sufficient and independent communities. Europeans wanted empire
 
The Norse failed without those resources and the Polynesians were doing a very different thing.

The Norse failed, how so? The climate went against them as it did for the inhabitants of the region. The little Ice Age was likely more dramatic in North America than it was in Europe, with the cooling phase beginning in North America even earlier than in Eurasia. The decline of Cahokia for instance corresponds to the decline of contacts between the Nordic world and North American locales that they frequented. If the European states are too late in attempting to move west, they will be unable to take advantages of matters and their demographics will be unable to sustain long term contact, leading to isolation.

Anyway, the Nordic sphere is different than the Frankish and Visigothic civilization complexes atl. These will have the demographics for which to do so. Regarding governing, I am not sure that this is needed. It is not as if the conquest of Mexico occurred via the greatness of Spanish centrality. Spain was still a dual or triple monarchy.
 

Slan

Banned
No European kingdom during the High Middle Ages would've the necessary capital and centralization to foster such endeavor. And I'm not even talking about the tech.
 
Short of dramatically changing the state of naval technology in Europe the only way to do that is through island hopping and the only place where there is a chain of islands to make it happen is in the Northern Atlantic, one of the big reasons why the Norses were the ones who ended up making it to the Western Hemisphere.

To a large extent the weakest link in the chain of islands leading to Vinland was Greenland, during the Warm Period it was able to be more or less self-sufficient (in the few coves were they're was Norse settlement) but the Little Ice Age put an end of that. No Groenland able to serve as a relay point meant that the chain was broken and that Vinland eventually faded away.

IMO the best way to have it happen is to find a way to get the Vikings to move west earlier, in fact the earlier the better, so that when the Little Ice Age kick around you could have a Vinland vibrant enough for Groenland to be able to get by simply as a relay station.

Then once that's a thing you can have butterflies leading to non-scandinavian powers going deep into naval tech so has to not be dependant on the Norse route to the west.
 
@Gloss

Do you have any preferences for how Europe develops in this timeline? With a POD without the Islamic conquest of Iberia, this nullifies the rise of Charles I and his predecessor Pepin. This means perhaps a maintenance of Merovingian kingship and its alliance and special relation with the Papacy. The Gothic kingdom in Iberia will also be a behemoth. Another question is to what degree of power does the Papacy wield and what is his relation with the Islamic world? If there is peace and the Crusader impetus is averted, perhaps with much worse Eastern Imperial-Papal relations, the Papacy does not sponsor any sort of Latin incursion into the Mid East. This permits the European realms to interact with more innovative projects perhaps.

No European kingdom during the High Middle Ages would've the necessary capital and centralization to foster such endeavor. And I'm not even talking about the tech.

Which colonial expedition of Spain was requiring centralized processes? Also, how centralized was Spain compared to France in the relevant time period?
 
@Gloss

Do you have any preferences for how Europe develops in this timeline? With a POD without the Islamic conquest of Iberia, this nullifies the rise of Charles I and his predecessor Pepin. This means perhaps a maintenance of Merovingian kingship and its alliance and special relation with the Papacy. The Gothic kingdom in Iberia will also be a behemoth. Another question is to what degree of power does the Papacy wield and what is his relation with the Islamic world? If there is peace and the Crusader impetus is averted, perhaps with much worse Eastern Imperial-Papal relations, the Papacy does not sponsor any sort of Latin incursion into the Mid East. This permits the European realms to interact with more innovative projects perhaps.



Which colonial expedition of Spain was requiring centralized processes? Also, how centralized was Spain compared to France in the relevant time period?
to be fair charles was already on the rise before tours by 718 he had most power and by 731 he had killed many who opossed him with duke odo being the only real resistance against him the islamic raid helped him beacuse it weakend odo and gave him presitigue i still think Pepin or his child becomes king while sure they would not have the prestigue and aquitinane would be stronger i think it just delays them taking it .

"The Gothic kingdom in Iberia will also be a behemoth." depends visgothic spain in 711 was a sick corrupt country in the midst of civil war it would take time for it to recover maybe a dynastical change or some frankish lord taking the throne in terms of the crusades i dont see why heavy plows and the vikings improving trade and the little optimum would be affected by no islam in iberia so the social things that predated the crusades are still there they migth just manyfest in the continent or in africa
 
The Norse failed without those resources and the Polynesians were doing a very different thing.
Different how much? They were moving distances of like thousands of kms without islands in between in multiple occasions and going both ways and clearly establishing at least at some point some contacts with the locals in south America. Madagascar for other Austronesians also involved large distances.

A early colonization of Macaronesia could create a pioneering culture in the south just like the colonization of the Hebrides and Iceland did for the Norse or what the Polynesians did by first expanding into the islands closest to them after the great pause(not sure if that's the correct term, the period when the Polynesians didn't expand much after coming to Samoa, Fiji and Caledonia)
 
It was a dual ottoman-Italian stranglehold, but because the ottomans were much stronger than said italians, I focus on them. And I don't think large scale, triangle trading, mesoamerican conquering colonialism is possible without a centralized state because such things involve enforcement of a very specific maritime order and a greater ability to make sure your military and court is loyal to the realm as a whole, not just whatever duchy or fiefdom. There's a difference between the Vikings and their failed settlement or the polynesians, and the european colonizers- the others (or at least the Vikings) were aiming to establish trade routes but generally self sufficient and independent communities. Europeans wanted empire
Well I was not looking for Spanish-style rapid conquest(which I'm not sure would be possible without native empires as large as 2 the encountered by the Spanish) nor do I think the triangle trade was necessary anyhow, the Spaniards didn't particularly focus on it for a good while and virtually abandoned it compared to others.

Also again I'm not sure why colonialism requires a centralized state, did the participation of other Europeans in the Iberian reconquista require a centralized state that made sure the nobles goign off to Iberia were loyal to them? Did the Levantine crusades, the Baltic crusades, the Ostsiedlung requires such thing? Did the Greeks require an Hellenistic empire to settle as far as Southern Spain or Southern France? Did early modern Chinese require their virtually negligent state to be centralized(whether they were or not is unimportant, given the negligent bit) to settle in the Malay archipelago and gain prominence there?

I mean I guess Europeans wanted empire, but if so then why would they want empire at any point in time in every timeline possible? Surely we can change the type of colonization with such a far back pod.
 
No European kingdom during the High Middle Ages would've the necessary capital and centralization to foster such endeavor. And I'm not even talking about the tech.
The Spaniards had to pay around the same time the Granadans 12 times the amount Columbus had in total for them to leave Spain(and Columbus and a city put about 40% of the money themselves anyway), it's clear to me that such en-devours don't actually cost that much given the fact England was able to mount an expedition as well years afterwards as did the Portuguese and the French a generation afterwards. If we have a surviving Vinland we don't even really need to have a first contact gamble anyway.
 
Short of dramatically changing the state of naval technology in Europe the only way to do that is through island hopping and the only place where there is a chain of islands to make it happen is in the Northern Atlantic, one of the big reasons why the Norses were the ones who ended up making it to the Western Hemisphere.

To a large extent the weakest link in the chain of islands leading to Vinland was Greenland, during the Warm Period it was able to be more or less self-sufficient (in the few coves were they're was Norse settlement) but the Little Ice Age put an end of that. No Groenland able to serve as a relay point meant that the chain was broken and that Vinland eventually faded away.

IMO the best way to have it happen is to find a way to get the Vikings to move west earlier, in fact the earlier the better, so that when the Little Ice Age kick around you could have a Vinland vibrant enough for Groenland to be able to get by simply as a relay station.

Then once that's a thing you can have butterflies leading to non-scandinavian powers going deep into naval tech so has to not be dependant on the Norse route to the west.
Well earlier tech is a focal point so it should be used as a premise if one doesn't know how to get to it, although honestly it shouldn't be impossible IMHO.

Wouldn't a Vinland in 900 or even the OTL 1000 be early enough?
 
@Gloss

Do you have any preferences for how Europe develops in this timeline? With a POD without the Islamic conquest of Iberia, this nullifies the rise of Charles I and his predecessor Pepin. This means perhaps a maintenance of Merovingian kingship and its alliance and special relation with the Papacy. The Gothic kingdom in Iberia will also be a behemoth. Another question is to what degree of power does the Papacy wield and what is his relation with the Islamic world? If there is peace and the Crusader impetus is averted, perhaps with much worse Eastern Imperial-Papal relations, the Papacy does not sponsor any sort of Latin incursion into the Mid East. This permits the European realms to interact with more innovative projects perhaps.
I guess anything goes if it helps with the scenario, the bonus of a decentralized colonization would also be nice and I wonder if the papacy could be strong enough to organize such a thing, maybe papal involvement in such matters could start in an a scenario where the Franks are not hegemonical like you envsioned but where the papacy seeks naval support from Visigoths and Christianized Norse groups against Muslim raids and to remove Byzantine presence in Southern Italy or trying to remove trade dependence from the Near East or Byzantium.
 
Well earlier tech is a focal point so it should be used as a premise if one doesn't know how to get to it, although honestly it shouldn't be impossible IMHO.

Wouldn't a Vinland in 900 or even the OTL 1000 be early enough?
Yes but I would argue that you need to explain how the earlier tech came to be, especially with such a big gap compared to OTL. Hence successfull Vinland being the best source of butterflies.

1000 is too late, that was the whole point of my previous post. The Little Ice Age will kick off before Vinland is developed enough for Groenland to be able to thrive as just a relay station. 900 might do but the TL writer would need to put their thumb on the scales of destiny for it to work, so speak. I'd say 850 might better.
 
Top