Abubakri II of Mali arrives in South America

[nlspeed]

Wikipedia for easiness.

So, this guy sent out two huge fleets to see if there's land west of the Atlantic Ocean. The first fleet numbered 400 ships, according to Wikipedia (200 for men, 200 for supplies, is how I interpret it), though most other sources say just 200. The second fleet, according to Musa I, numbered 2000 ships. Is that even possible? Anyway, Abubakri II went along with this fleet, never to return, and Musa I became Mansa (you know, the one of Civilization IV, who spread a lot of gold around during his hajj, causing inflation and maybe supporting the Italian renaissance).

I found mention of people investigating a landing in 1312. Musa I became Mansa in 1311, which happened after Abubakri II hadn't returned for some time. I don't know when he left, which I can't find out either. A possible clue could be one ship of the first fleet, that returned to Mali from this voyage after the rest sailed into some kind of 'river in the ocean' (a hurricane or what have you, I guess) and promptly perished. But again, I can't find out the exact date of leaving and returning of this ship.

I have no idea how shipbuilding around this time looked in western Africa, but considering ships of forty feet long have apparently been excavated in western Africa, and considering the Niger is quite a large river (needing a ship to cross, usually)... But, as someone who knows nothing about the subject, even 200 ships seems like a huge amount. These numbers could be explained by using canoes or rafts, I suppose. So really, I have no idea what kind of ships we're talking about here.

There's some proof for Abubakri II succeeding; Columbus mentions a building that looks like a Mosque, natives mention some gold didn't come from their lands but from darker men (and indeed, some gold has been traced back to western Africa)... But the consensus says Abubakri II failed.

So what if Abubakri II succeeded? Well, I believe Africa (where Mali is, anyway) has more disease than Europe, but can that really be said? What about different diseases? Mali is also closer to the new world than Europe. So I suppose we can expect people to arrive faster and carrying more disease (though I'm unsure about the last point).

Is there a population base for this Mali to maintain settlements? How would the American natives be affected? Could this have such an impact that, by the time the late fifteenth century rolls around (yes yes, this is massively ignoring butterflies), natives have immunity against European diseases (though not against all diseases, I guess)? I doubt this can spread from the tip of Brazil to North America, even if this wasn't a rather depopulated place - which I think it is?

I know there were some tribes, but nothing like Tawantinsuyu or the various Mexican people. Word could spread to them - Tawantinsuyu had very limited contact with Mesoamerica, but there was some contact, I believe - but whether disease would spread to any of the better known people, I don't know. And besides, at this point of history (1311, 1312...), there's a kingdom of Cusco, no Tawantinsuyu (shortly after this period, the idea of expanding the borders comes up for the first time, but that's rather irrelevant as we can assume this region would develop mostly the same, I'd say).

So what would have happened, if this can happen at all? I would doubt it can, but it's not that long a distance, and, though the Vikings had a huge seafaring tradition unlike Mali, they prove one doesn't need something like Galleons to make the journey. Would lighter ships be thrown of course by the currents (there's a current passing northwards by the west coast of the old world)? Perhaps some North African people would have more success, come to think of it, but oh well.

 

[Michele]

I don't know enough to make a significant contribution, but - interesting.

 

[yourworstnightmare]

Could the natives be immune to European diseases? Maybe... But if you have disastrous epidemics in the New World in the 1300s, the butterflies will be immensive.

 

[PhilippeO]

even if Abubakri II succeeded, he still need find something valuable enough for Mali to continue trade with America. one outbreak of disease will not grant immunity. Malians need to have constant trade with America, for disease to spread in America. there are a lot of old world disease, one off expedition will not deliver them all.

 

[Gurroruo]

Its possible, but with a large armada like that you can only have a partial success.

"a river in the ocean" probably meant the currents that run from Spain to the Caribbean

The mosque building is a coincidence, because CC din't notice any worship so it probably wasn't a mosque.

gold, there were probably some ships that made it across traded and then got lost sailing back

The reason why scientists and historians don't believe that Abu Bakr succeeded is because this. Disease. If Abu was even partially successful then the natives would have been hit with disease yet they weren't and traces weren't found and because Abu didn't return he obviously ended up at the bottom of the sea

Also many of Africa's deadly diseases are elsewhere, but Mali does have plenty.

-------

If Abu Bakr makes it across, then it's a partial success with the majority of ships not making it.

Still, with disease and sword they could conquer some islands. But you don't ake women on expeditions like that, its considered bad luck. And the disease will wipe out the majority of the native women. Yet the ones that survive or are immune might be used to repopulate. Yet it would be slow. However following what 180 years when Christopher comes knocking they could have a decent population. But the Europeans are still ahead of the Africans. So you'll see a military expedition defeat them and then guess what enslave them. And now the Spanish have a nice little slave population, a larger presence due to having to use military might, and a stronger military in the region. All in all things go better for Spain.

 

[Gurroruo]

Could the natives be immune to European diseases? Maybe... But if you have disastrous epidemics in the New World in the 1300s, the butterflies will be immensive.

The plague hit Europe in full force, not so much Africa

 

[KarneeKarnay]

I think this could work, but you have to deal with African tribes lack on naval tradition. Expand on that, in fact it wouldn't take much. Once they start sailing just make it so they understand that diseases are directly linked to living conditions and food. This was already a popular notion as early on as Rome, but the exact correlations were off. (When the black death came people thought it spread by smell. Because it hit the poor areas hard and they smelled bad due to poor sanitation. Not that the sanitation itself was the cause.) If you can do this, then you have the right conditions for a successful voyage from Africa to South America.

 

[Umbral]

Could the natives be immune to European diseases? Maybe... But if you have disastrous epidemics in the New World in the 1300s, the butterflies will be immensive.

If I may for a moment rant at a pet peeve of mine?

No-one would be get immunity. We've had these diseases on this side of the Atlantic for ten thousand years, and we are still not immune.

The word you are looking for is "resistant". And the answer, sadly, is still mostly no. These diseases were still killers in the Old World, with regular epidemics. And we'd had them for a long time, and had more varied immune systems to start with. London had Black Death epidemics in the 1600s, and today the number of people with a genetic high resistance is around 10-15 %.

On a different subject, the "river in the sea" it is interesting to notice that the Amazon has such an enormous water load that it carries on into the ocean, and you can in fact sail in freshwater before you sight land.

Currents and winds from Mail would be very good for reaching South America. The Amazon at the time was a densly populated urban or village based civilization. Sadly, I suspect they'd suffer badly from diseases form Africa.

There is even a little gyre that can be used to get back, the equatorial counter current. Winds are less accomodating. And it is quite easy to hit the doldrums from Mali.

 

[Gurroruo]

Currents and winds from Mail would be very good for reaching South America. The Amazon at the time was a densly populated urban or village based civilization. Sadly, I suspect they'd suffer badly from diseases form Africa.

That's probably what they meant by river in the sea

 

[telynk]

If I may for a moment rant at a pet peeve of mine?

I've got a little rant of my own in response.

No-one would be get immunity. We've had these diseases on this side of the Atlantic for ten thousand years, and we are still not immune.

On the contrary, most of the adult population of most Western countries are immune to many epidemic diseases due to vaccination. This immunity isn't genetic, it's acquired, but it is still a form of immunity. And this same form of acquired immunity was largely (IMO) what protected European colonizers from the epidemic diseases that wiped out native populations in the New World.

The word you are looking for is "resistant". And the answer, sadly, is still mostly no. These diseases were still killers in the Old World, with regular epidemics. And we'd had them for a long time, and had more varied immune systems to start with. London had Black Death epidemics in the 1600s, and today the number of people with a genetic high resistance is around 10-15 %.

While I agree with you that genetic resistance to disease is not going to be a significant factor in protecting New World natives from epidemics, that doesn't mean that there couldn't be other factors which could dramatically reduce the death rates which could result from an earlier exposure to certain diseases. We saw a HUGE difference in the death rates between European colonizers and New World natives when exposed to certain diseases (smallpox being the most conspicuous example). And I think the two factors that best explain that are (1) acquired immunity and (2) what I will call cultural resistance. I will explain both and explain why I think being exposed to disease but not colonization a century and a half in advance of European contact could prevent the same scale of epidemics as we saw OTL.

(1) Acquired immunity is the idea that if you've had chicken pox as a kid you won't get it as an adult. From what I've read, while there are many exceptions to the rule with regards to chicken pox, the chances of a smallpox survivor contracting the disease a second time are much smaller. In the time periods we are talking about (late medieval/renaissance), most urban European adults had had smallpox as children and thus were immune as adults. This meant that adults were unlikely to carry smallpox to the New World, which explains the fact that the first smallpox epidemics among the Hurons corresponded with the arrival of the first children in New France.

The fact that smallpox was a "childhood disease" in Europe meant that when an outbreak came, it was mostly children who got sick. Most of these children would have had parents who were well to take care of them, and any who died could be replaced fairly quickly. On the other hand, in the New World upon the arrival of the Europeans, we were faced with a situation in which no one had had the disease as a child and therefore no one was immune. Thus everyone got sick at once, there were very few people well enough to take care of the sick, and enough adults died that populations could not be replenished within a generation.

This was also exacerbated by the fact that disease exposure was happening at the same time as the arrival of the conquistadors and other colonizers. Thus, by the time populations started to recover, much political control had already been lost, preventing further recovery. IF an expedition from Africa succeeds at spreading disease to the New World but does not succeed at returning to Africa, then we could have a situation where diseases are introduced to the New World a century and a half before colonization begins. I believe that that century and a half is long enough for smallpox to become an endemic "childhood disease" in urban New World populations.

Of course smallpox would arrive first as an epidemic, making everyone sick at once and leading to high death rates. But after that first wave, the survivors would all be immune, and would respond to the devastation by increasing birth rates to repopulate their nations. Maybe 5 years later you'd see another wave of smallpox, but this time it would only infect children, meaning that there would be immune adults to take care of the sick, and that high birth rates could replace children who died fairly quickly. After a couple of generations of high birth rates, the population could have recovered, and adults in urban areas could end up being immune.

The one problem with this scenario is that it depends on New World populations being large enough to sustain smallpox as an endemic disease. In small, isolated, populations, smallpox will infect everyone and then the disease will be temporarily eradicated once the survivors recover. If this isolated population goes for more than a generation without contact with another population where smallpox is endemic, any acquired immunity will become less and less significant. In large cities, or in networks of small cities connected by frequently-used trade routes, you will see the disease surviving as it takes years to spread through the entire population, so that by the time all of one generation are immune, there is a new generation for the disease to infect. For smallpox to become a "childhood disease" you need at least one area in the New World with a large enough and well-enough connected population for the disease to become endemic - I think the best candidate in the New World is Mesoamerica.

So if smallpox, introduced from Africa, can spread to Mesoamerica and become endemic there, then all societies which trade with Mesoamerica will see regular outbreaks of smallpox, and thus will have a large amount of acquired immunity when the Europeans show up. Smallpox isn't the only disease for which this can happen, but there are many other diseases (such as influenza) where acquired immunity isn't a significant factor because the disease mutates too fast.

(2) Cutural resistance is the social/cultural ideas which help reduce death from disease. They can include factors such as the practice of variolation, the practice of quarantining, the ability for doctors to recognize and identify diseases, the practice of good sanitation practices, etc. Many of these social/cultural factors were lacking in many New World societies due to lack of exposure to disease, and many of these factors can be encouraged by exposure to disease. However, the introduction of cultural resistance is a much more complicated phenomenon than acquired immunity, so it is harder to outline a scenario whereby a New World culture gains the cultural practice of recognizing disease and quarantining those who are affected. But I do think that a century and a half of exposure to disease coupled with the devastating upheaval of the initial epidemics could be enough to create the required cultural change.

I actually be really interested in reading a TL in which Abubakri's expedition from Mali succeeds at introducing disease to the New World but fails at returning to Africa because the Old World would be more or less insulated from non-meteorological butterflies while the New World would be dramatically changed by the cultural upheaval that the epidemics would cause. Then seeing how Euorpean contact would play out with these different New World cultures would be interesting to say the least...

 

[Umbral]

On the contrary, most of the adult population of most Western countries are immune to many epidemic diseases due to vaccination.

While true, thats not really relevant, unless you can get variolation over from India somehow.

We saw a HUGE difference in the death rates between European colonizers and New World natives when exposed to certain diseases (smallpox being the most conspicuous example). And I think the two factors that best explain that are (1) acquired immunity and (2) what I will call cultural resistance.

No, the reason is that pathogens vary in virulence. Most diseases have a lethality of around 25-30 % in a virgin soil epidemic. Smallpox can sometimes get over 95 %. Generally less, but over 50 % would not be unusual.

Unless you mean that there was a difference in lethality between Europeans and natives. However, the mortality of smallpox in europeans was 30-35 %. More than most diseases in a virgin soil.

(1) Acquired immunity is the idea that if you've had chicken pox as a kid you won't get it as an adult. From what I've read, while there are many exceptions to the rule with regards to chicken pox, the chances of a smallpox survivor contracting the disease a second time are much smaller. In the time periods we are talking about (late medieval/renaissance), most urban European adults had had smallpox as children and thus were immune as adults. This meant that adults were unlikely to carry smallpox to the New World, which explains the fact that the first smallpox epidemics among the Hurons corresponded with the arrival of the first children in New France.

Fundamentally, that is the general idea we base it on when we produce vaccines. (Of course, when I did it we generally produced fragments, rather than inerts.) However, Smallpox have several versions, minor, major and cowpox for example. That complicates things.

The fact that smallpox was a "childhood disease" in Europe meant that when an outbreak came, it was mostly children who got sick. Most of these children would have had parents who were well to take care of them, and any who died could be replaced fairly quickly. On the other hand, in the New World upon the arrival of the Europeans, we were faced with a situation in which no one had had the disease as a child and therefore no one was immune. Thus everyone got sick at once, there were very few people well enough to take care of the sick, and enough adults died that populations could not be replenished within a generation.

This was also exacerbated by the fact that disease exposure was happening at the same time as the arrival of the conquistadors and other colonizers. Thus, by the time populations started to recover, much political control had already been lost, preventing further recovery. IF an expedition from Africa succeeds at spreading disease to the New World but does not succeed at returning to Africa, then we could have a situation where diseases are introduced to the New World a century and a half before colonization begins. I believe that that century and a half is long enough for smallpox to become an endemic "childhood disease" in urban New World populations.

Of course smallpox would arrive first as an epidemic, making everyone sick at once and leading to high death rates. But after that first wave, the survivors would all be immune, and would respond to the devastation by increasing birth rates to repopulate their nations. Maybe 5 years later you'd see another wave of smallpox, but this time it would only infect children, meaning that there would be immune adults to take care of the sick, and that high birth rates could replace children who died fairly quickly. After a couple of generations of high birth rates, the population could have recovered, and adults in urban areas could end up being immune.

The one problem with this scenario is that it depends on New World populations being large enough to sustain smallpox as an endemic disease. In small, isolated, populations, smallpox will infect everyone and then the disease will be temporarily eradicated once the survivors recover. If this isolated population goes for more than a generation without contact with another population where smallpox is endemic, any acquired immunity will become less and less significant. In large cities, or in networks of small cities connected by frequently-used trade routes, you will see the disease surviving as it takes years to spread through the entire population, so that by the time all of one generation are immune, there is a new generation for the disease to infect. For smallpox to become a "childhood disease" you need at least one area in the New World with a large enough and well-enough connected population for the disease to become endemic - I think the best candidate in the New World is Mesoamerica.

So if smallpox, introduced from Africa, can spread to Mesoamerica and become endemic there, then all societies which trade with Mesoamerica will see regular outbreaks of smallpox, and thus will have a large amount of acquired immunity when the Europeans show up. Smallpox isn't the only disease for which this can happen, but there are many other diseases (such as influenza) where acquired immunity isn't a significant factor because the disease mutates too fast.

It is an interesting scenario. I had never thought about how the impact of several virgin soil diseases would leave few people able to care for the sick.

However, you are still going to have a higher mortality for smallpox than you did in the old world. So maybe 40-45 %, plus 2-3 % blinded and the rest scarred. What is more, you have to deal with a host of other diseases, eatch one kiling a significant percentage of the infected. If you had only smallpox to deal with, that might be doable. Or get some epidemic going from mutated cowpox or Valeria Minor, so you had Smallpox seriously blunted.

 

[Montanian]

Ivan Van Sertima has a book on possible African voyages back and forth to South America that came out before the Egyptian mummies were found to have cocaine and nicotine usage indicators, years of it, showing a reliable trade was going on for a long time. Van Sertima makes particularly interesting points in tobacco's history, native to North America, and in use in the Eastern Med countries such as Turkey some centuries before the official tobacco trade began in 1600's Virginia.

He has a chapter on Mali's voyages and thinks they did have huge merchant fleets at that time so the numbers aren't absurd (nor ships the size and complexity of Spanish Galleons but far simpler ships like everyone else used and built with local materials.)

Spanish explorers along the South American coast reported seeing sizable villages of African and many of the Olmec and Toltec images in the Mayan Civilization are clearly of Africans in facial features, hair, pigmentation, and apparel/jewelry, preceding the Mali voyages by centuries. The currents and winds are quite favorable.

So assume 10,000-100,000 Mali arrive between the two voyages and the second voyage Van Sertima describes as a colonization expedition so women, children, livestock (cattle, goats, ?), tools, seeds, weapons (heavy laminated horn bows, swords, axes, etc. so comparable or marginally better than the locals in the Americas had), and the advantage of already being organized, trained, and used to working together (unlike the random dregs assembled as available by the Spanish, English, and French later on for pirates, conquistadors, treasure hunters, contract laborers, sailors, etc.). There are many millions of people already living in the Americas, the sources Charles Mann cites in 1491 put it as high as 90 million but they are scattered with the biggest cities in the 10-20,000+ residents so it would be hard to overrun or outmatch the Mali colony (unless few ships actually succeed in landing and are scattered across hundreds of miles of coastline as likely happened OTL.) So more like William the Conqueror's invasion of England in 1066 or Kublai Khan's attempted naval invasion of Japan that the unusual storms destroyed.

The disease resistance is getting a jump start seems unlikely as a factor, and the physicians in the Americas were considerably ahead of the Europeans already in surgery, anatomy, anesthetic drug use, public sanitation, nutrition, etc. so more time to learn the Eurasian disesases and work out effective responses would be quite helpful to the Americas. And the Mali population, assuming most of the ships got through and had between 50-200 people per ship (oared as well as sail-powered), that's probably enough population to sustain city diseases (considering Havana in the 1500's had enough residents to sustain smallpox, measles, rubella, mumps, etc. to allow the small groups based in Havana to kill most of Mexico, Peru, and the American Southeast with these diseases.)

A much larger trade between Africa and South America for copper, emeralds, cocaine/coca leaves, coffee, corn, beans, squashes, peppers, tomatoes, potatoes, peanuts, melons, bananas, rubber, exotic birds and monkeys, livestock, iron tools and weapons, bronze, obsidian blades and mirrors, etc. would be almost certain. The people who built the ships to cross the Atlantic one way could certainly build replacements or repair their own to repeat the voyage home with wood, cloth, rope, glues, tars, leathers, ceramic storage and little metal. That trade would make Mali a prized and rich trading power worldwide so Eurasia would formally learn of the Americas through them (although not revealing your sources of supply is a classic traders' strategy that consistently baffles historians who expect them to announce their sources to all and in surviving writings.)

The Mali and their trading partners in the Americas would be able to buy cannons, crossbows, armor, horses, gunpowder, and early guns from the Muslim lands that were several hundred years ahead of the Europeans on many technologies at that point (the Chinese had already had whole armies equipped with a range of gunpowder weapons for centuries by this point while the Europeans were belatedly learning about enormous siege cannons.

So through trade between large enough Mali trading centers in the Americas in continual contact with their home country trading partners, the Spanish and Portuguese would have had a far more difficult time while the French and Dutch trading-based approaches would have been even more successful.