AH Challenge: European Society Collapses Before 1492

What do you mean by "European Society Collapses"?

No centralized government? Difficult to pull off, since any vaccuum will be quickly filled by warlords and council-run cities, which isn't much different from how the Medieval Ages were anyways.

Running around half-naked like cannibalistic savages? Again, difficult. A return to a nomadic lifestyle would be very difficult to pull off, and metalworking knowledge is hard to lose (but not impossible) once it's gained.
Well, my original intent was to have the population of Europe decimated, leading to the collapse of organized government all across Europe. However, I'm looking for any realistic cause for the downfall of European civilization, not necessarily one that kills off most of the population. Preferably, I'd like to see Europe conquered by foreign powers, but again, it's not necessary. [So no one gets the wrong idea, I'm not anti-European in real life. I'm actually an American of European ancestry (Italian plus a bunch of other countries).]

here's one idea i haven't seen so far, what about a new religion rising up in wake of the black death. this religion is heavily paganized in whatever way you want, but includes some hefty human sacrifice a la the aztecs.
while obviously not enough to bring down europe the ensuing religious war will rage over europe. the new pagans will sacrifice christians en masse whenever they get the chance, hunting down the clergy, killing off many or most of the "cultured" individuals. this in conjecture with something else like climate change or a new plaque or something like that should be enough.
That's a good one -- perhaps even some radical sect of Christianity might do the job.

A Grrenland melt might not necessarily raise sea levels by as much as a foot before cutting the gulf stream, the important bit is the constant introduction of freshwater into the system. This is also why a meteorite wouldn't help as you want a constant slow release over a few centuries (otherwise it'd just be a few bad winters in Europe).

You could handwave in a Magma Plume under Greenland (similar to the source of Yellowstone and Tibisti) since no knows for sure how they turn up, it doesn't even have to break the surface to get the effect we want.
I see your point about the impact maybe not doing enough constant melt. I'd rather not handwave anything if I can avoid it, though.

I'm not sure if Greenland impact would work that way. Given your determination on avoiding ASBs, you'd really have to do a lot of research, both about impact effect, and Golfstrom/climate effects.

That said, it's interesting idea.

EDIT/ Ah, already answered.

On a side note, we might be looking wrong way. Instead of hard factors, why not concentrate on some soft, cultural one?

EDIT/ Yeah, one like tbrookside mentions.
I don't doubt more research will be needed, but since my original idea of a deadlier form of the Black Plague fell through, I'm asking for any possibly realistic POD that might knock out the Europeans. Even if it's borderline ASB, I think it's better to throw the idea out there so it can be examined from multiple perspectives.
 
The impact POD may not be so far-fetched. I asked an expert on allexperts.com about the idea -- below is my question followed by the expert's response.

~~~~~

Question:

How much ice would need to melt and flow into North Atlantic to shut down the North Atlantic Current? What effect would the shutdown of the North Atlantic Current have on the world climate (and on Europe in particular)? How much would this raise sea level? Could the impact of an asteroid (a small one, not a big world-destroying one) in Greenland be a reasonable cause for the melt, as opposed to global warming?

I know the effect would be nothing like in the movies. I'm writing a story where European civilization collapses before Columbus sails to the Americas, and I need a scientifically plausible cause for the demise of European society but not other societies. Thanks!


~~~~~

Response:

I don't know how much ice would have to melt, the mathmatics are beyond me. The current could be disrupted by the influx of fresh water diluting the hypersaline water flowing south which would upset the Gulf Stream fed North Atlantic current which keeps N. Europe warm.

One look at a map of the world with an eye to the northern latititudes should tell you what would happen to N. Europe should the current be disrupted. Great Britain is on the same latitude as Hudson Bay. France is on the same latitude as the Dakota's and Montana. Norway and Findland...forget about it. Large areas of the most productive agricultural land in W. Europe would see massive temperature drops, and areas that usually have ice free ports year round would start to freeze up. Almost all of most populous areas of W. Europe are on the same latitude as Montana and S. Canada. There is a reason most of the Canadian population lives within 300 miles of the U.S. border. N. Canada turns into a deep freeze in winter. I have seen -30F below zero in the Montana flatlands in November.

I answered this same question for a screen writer about 7-8 years ago. The movie the Day After Tomorrow came out the next year. He sped the time line up from about 10,000 years to several weeks for dramatic impact. The big storms were a fiction too.

Assuming that all the ice caps melted, 80 meters (240 feet) is the accepted estimate in the rise of sea level. Greenland alone would account for only a modest 6.5m (20 foot) rise in seal level.
Antarctic is the monster with almost 30 million km3 of the worlds' glacial ice. It would result in a 73m (219 feet) rise.

A meteor impact would melt ice and break up the ice sheet speeding up the melting process, but that would be short term. In fact, the disruption of the current would lead to a plunge into a cooling cycle.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/

Your on the right track. I should think that the a meteor impact which could cause a rapid melting if only temporary surge of fresh water could cause a major albeit temporary disruption of the current, leading to a series of horrible winters, leading to ice bound ports, destruction of fishing fleetes (the Basques were fishing the New Foundland cod banks during this time feeding the insatiable hunger of Christian Europe for fish for their religious observances. (See Mark Kurlansky's Cod: The fish that changed the world for more background info)

This breakdown of systematic order could lead to a wave of chaos like that seen during the 100 years war and during the black death. Remember too that people would be forced inside for warmth as would their nemisis the rat, leading most likely to outbreaks of the Black Death and Scrub Typhus as refugees crowded into the cities as crops failed and live stock died. Religious zealotry would also take hold as opportunistic "prophets" spread the word of the second coming and end of days stuff like occurred during the times of plague. There might also be another incursion of nomadic invaders from Central Asia as they also migrated in search of warmer and more fertile grass lands on which to graze their horse herds.

There would be a domino effect of sorts that could last for a number of years.
Here is the article I referenced to the other writer published in the Atlantic Monthly on the disruption of the Atalantic current:

http://williamcalvin.com/1990s/1998AtlanticClimate.htm

~~~~~

So what does everyone think?
 
Back to the Mongol conquest idea - IIRC the Mongols turned back after having conquered Eastern parts of Germany, Hungary, and the Balcans, since the Ogedei Khan died and all the commanders (who were descendants of the Genghis Khan line) had to turn back from their conquest in order to vote for a new Khan. As several candidates were found, a stalemate ensured that the nobility (Genghiside prices) concentrated on outmaneuvering each other instead of continuing conquests.

So a POD may be that Ogedei lives a few years longer.
 

Maur

Banned
On a second though, it (the soft way) looks more ASBish than the spontaneously mutating black death into something completely different...

It's because you got to change really huge underlying changes in society, like development of manorial economy, subsequent fragmentation of political control, enserfing of the population, urbanisation... just one Lothar less or more doesn't make for centralized Europe, it's not a coincidence that pretty much all of Europe was fragmented at some (rather long) point.

From all what was suggested here and in the other thread, i think either small ice age (well, if you think of reasonable cause) or early low-intensity contact between OW and NW are the only really good (ie: not stretching things too much) choices.


here's one idea i haven't seen so far, what about a new religion rising up in wake of the black death. this religion is heavily paganized in whatever way you want, but includes some hefty human sacrifice a la the aztecs.
while obviously not enough to bring down europe the ensuing religious war will rage over europe. the new pagans will sacrifice christians en masse whenever they get the chance, hunting down the clergy, killing off many or most of the "cultured" individuals. this in conjecture with something else like climate change or a new plaque or something like that should be enough.
That is basically applied handwavium. Why, how, no, not one prophet, Great Man History is soo previous century, and also OTL disagrees. ;)
 
You seem to prefer conquest over disaster.
I think that can be done, and it needn't be with a single stretchy defeat; Europe was in a defensive role for so long that you can easily just make it a little bit less lucky for a long time, and there you are:

Consider the year 1000. What you mean by "European society" took place in Byzantium on the one hand, and on relatively narrow margin on the West of the continent on the other hand.

First let us alienate West and East earlier and more thoroughly than in OTL.
Have the Great Schism take place centuries early (that is pretty easy, Greek and Latin Christianity had appreciable differences and disagreements almost from the very beginning).
Then let religious wars ensue between Western and Eastern Christianity, just like the crusaders did later on IOTL. That would weaken Byzantium significantly, no matter the result, and makes it more sensitive to the never-ending assaults from the East; so Constantinople will fall much earlier than IOTL (check).


Turning to the extreme West, the only typical "European" entity we find on the Iberian Peninsula is the small kingdom of Leon, struggling for self-maintainance.
Even if it survives because of the advantages of the landscape, it won't be able to hold up "European Civilization" without friendly contact with a larger entity.


Now look at France and Germany. France is hold at bay by the Almoravids from Spain, although the Pyrenees provides some shelter. But if once the Moors manage to foray and establish a foothold North of the Mountains ...
Germany's position is even more fragile. Although it has more military potential at that time, it has hostile pagan peoples settling all along its Eastern border, and is practically in a permant state of war.

But here's again the key to all downfall: Discord.
Let France and Germany engange in annoying, stubborn, and lossy feuds, right after the partition of the Frankish Empire is a good starting point.
Not at a point where a signifcant number of French and German knights have gone to struggle with the Greek heretics, Germany has some trouble with its South border, and French is just dealing with a feud at the border of Britanny, just then a Moorish assault severely strikes France; tragically, as if controlled by some malicious superior mind, the Danes, the Vends and Bohemians and other Slavonic peoples attack and exploit the temporary weekness of their Christian neighbors ... (double check).


Not turn to Italy. Italy is tricky. It is for sure the peak of Christian civilization of that time, after Constantinople. It is hard to find a way to wipe out all of the wealthy and easy-to-defend cities. But we already had the conflict with Constantinople as a starting point, it has to face naval assaults from Spain and North Africa, let's add insurgent Langobards, troubling both Germany and the Pope - you'll find a way.


So what's left? Mmmmm .... right, the British Isles. Here the Danes have shown IOTL that they can handle that.

I think we're done now. Of course, a lot of elements of the "Occident" will live on under this scenario, but the large line is broken. Europe is now vastly dominated by Muslim and traditionally Pagan communities, and the remaining states are weak and cannot maintain too high a culture.

(Big check.)
 
On a second though, it (the soft way) looks more ASBish than the spontaneously mutating black death into something completely different...

It's because you got to change really huge underlying changes in society, like development of manorial economy, subsequent fragmentation of political control, enserfing of the population, urbanisation... just one Lothar less or more doesn't make for centralized Europe, it's not a coincidence that pretty much all of Europe was fragmented at some (rather long) point.

I know what you're saying. I think the problem is that as far as saving the New World goes, Europe was already vastly technologically superior to the Aztec and Inca civilizations at the dawn of the Iron Age. We don't just have to keep Europe from developing gunpowder; we've got to keep their ships on their coasts. And I thought that a strong continental state might be the best way to kill both those birds with one stone. That state might nudge the Viking expansion to take the path of least resistance and head down the Russian river network in even greater numbers than before, and might keep the center of gravity of the European trade network centered on the Med and out of the North Sea. If Europe still fragments at some point, maybe you've bought the New World a couple of centuries more during which they can independently get their metallurgy a bit farther along and then they at least have a fighting chance.

A continental-scale disaster gets the job done the best, you're right, but there may be more subtle ways to get it done.
 
On a second though, it (the soft way) looks more ASBish than the spontaneously mutating black death into something completely different...

It's because you got to change really huge underlying changes in society, like development of manorial economy, subsequent fragmentation of political control, enserfing of the population, urbanisation... just one Lothar less or more doesn't make for centralized Europe, it's not a coincidence that pretty much all of Europe was fragmented at some (rather long) point.

From all what was suggested here and in the other thread, i think either small ice age (well, if you think of reasonable cause) or early low-intensity contact between OW and NW are the only really good (ie: not stretching things too much) choices.

That is basically applied handwavium. Why, how, no, not one prophet, Great Man History is soo previous century, and also OTL disagrees.

Hey, my original Black Death mutation idea didn't look so ASB when I didn't know anything about it.

BTW, where does "handwavium" fall on the periodic table? :p

You seem to prefer conquest over disaster.
I think that can be done, and it needn't be with a single stretchy defeat; Europe was in a defensive role for so long that you can easily just make it a little bit less lucky for a long time, and there you are:

Consider the year 1000. What you mean by "European society" took place in Byzantium on the one hand, and on relatively narrow margin on the West of the continent on the other hand.

First let us alienate West and East earlier and more thoroughly than in OTL.
Have the Great Schism take place centuries early (that is pretty easy, Greek and Latin Christianity had appreciable differences and disagreements almost from the very beginning).
Then let religious wars ensue between Western and Eastern Christianity, just like the crusaders did later on IOTL. That would weaken Byzantium significantly, no matter the result, and makes it more sensitive to the never-ending assaults from the East; so Constantinople will fall much earlier than IOTL (check).

Turning to the extreme West, the only typical "European" entity we find on the Iberian Peninsula is the small kingdom of Leon, struggling for self-maintainance.
Even if it survives because of the advantages of the landscape, it won't be able to hold up "European Civilization" without friendly contact with a larger entity.

Now look at France and Germany. France is hold at bay by the Almoravids from Spain, although the Pyrenees provides some shelter. But if once the Moors manage to foray and establish a foothold North of the Mountains ...
Germany's position is even more fragile. Although it has more military potential at that time, it has hostile pagan peoples settling all along its Eastern border, and is practically in a permant state of war.

But here's again the key to all downfall: Discord.
Let France and Germany engange in annoying, stubborn, and lossy feuds, right after the partition of the Frankish Empire is a good starting point.
Not at a point where a signifcant number of French and German knights have gone to struggle with the Greek heretics, Germany has some trouble with its South border, and French is just dealing with a feud at the border of Britanny, just then a Moorish assault severely strikes France; tragically, as if controlled by some malicious superior mind, the Danes, the Vends and Bohemians and other Slavonic peoples attack and exploit the temporary weekness of their Christian neighbors ... (double check).

Not turn to Italy. Italy is tricky. It is for sure the peak of Christian civilization of that time, after Constantinople. It is hard to find a way to wipe out all of the wealthy and easy-to-defend cities. But we already had the conflict with Constantinople as a starting point, it has to face naval assaults from Spain and North Africa, let's add insurgent Langobards, troubling both Germany and the Pope - you'll find a way.

So what's left? Mmmmm .... right, the British Isles. Here the Danes have shown IOTL that they can handle that.

I think we're done now. Of course, a lot of elements of the "Occident" will live on under this scenario, but the large line is broken. Europe is now vastly dominated by Muslim and traditionally Pagan communities, and the remaining states are weak and cannot maintain too high a culture.

(Big check.)

Well, either disaster or conquest are good, but in truth I prefer disaster followed by conquest.

So your POD is an earlier Great Schism centuries before the OTL one in 1054. According to an article in my old friend Wikipedia, there are various points of conflict between eastern and western Christianity prior to 1054 that one could choose as PODs. From there I see how Constantinople could fall early. I also see how all the fighting in France and Germany could lead to their takeover by foreign, non-Christian powers, and how I could finagle the conquest of Italy and Britain. Christian Europe gets gradually picked apart by Muslims and pagans and there goes Western civilization. I like the scenario you put forth, but it kind of seems like there are a whole lot of little things that need to go wrong for it to come together. However, I may just not be able to see the link from one crucial event to the next. Thanks for your input -- your idea definitely makes the cut.

I know what you're saying. I think the problem is that as far as saving the New World goes, Europe was already vastly technologically superior to the Aztec and Inca civilizations at the dawn of the Iron Age. We don't just have to keep Europe from developing gunpowder; we've got to keep their ships on their coasts. And I thought that a strong continental state might be the best way to kill both those birds with one stone. That state might nudge the Viking expansion to take the path of least resistance and head down the Russian river network in even greater numbers than before, and might keep the center of gravity of the European trade network centered on the Med and out of the North Sea. If Europe still fragments at some point, maybe you've bought the New World a couple of centuries more during which they can independently get their metallurgy a bit farther along and then they at least have a fighting chance.

A continental-scale disaster gets the job done the best, you're right, but there may be more subtle ways to get it done.

I thought the Chinese invented gunpowder, and from China it spread westward into the Middle East and Europe. Did the Europeans invent it independently? I believe I see your point about keeping Europe land-bound, or at least focused on the Mediterranean to avoid the Vikings. With regard to giving the New World a fighting chance, I liked the idea that Valdemar put forth in a previous thread of mine:

If you want some native [American] states to survive, you need more interaction with Europe, it would be best if they gained contact with primary trading countries, and even better if this happen after the diseases had hit them for a few decades. The solution could be a earlier North European colonisation of Easten North America, and the first contact was with the Hanse or Dutch. It would mean a spread of Euroasians crops and animals, but from a group of people whom wouldn't thrieve in Central America or the Andeans, so they wouldn't conquer them.

So suppose a group of northern Europeans fleeing the collapse of Europe sails (inadvertently) to North America and establishes contact with the native Americans. If this limited contact with the New World occurred around the time of the Black Death (~1350), and the collapse of Europe delays further contact with the Old World until at least 1700 or so, the Aztecs and Incas have some time to recover from foreign diseases and adopt New World technologies like metalworking and firearms (the latter of which Europeans had only recently acquired). I figure acquiring European metalworking techniques gives the New World a better head start than having to develop them independently, which might never have occurred.

Back to the Mongol conquest idea - IIRC the Mongols turned back after having conquered Eastern parts of Germany, Hungary, and the Balcans, since the Ogedei Khan died and all the commanders (who were descendants of the Genghis Khan line) had to turn back from their conquest in order to vote for a new Khan. As several candidates were found, a stalemate ensured that the nobility (Genghiside prices) concentrated on outmaneuvering each other instead of continuing conquests.

So a POD may be that Ogedei lives a few years longer.

I can't deny that it's an excellent POD, but I discovered that there actually is a trilogy of AH books, The Years of Longdirk by Ken Hood, which involves a POD where Ogedei doesn't die in 1241 and goes on to conquer Europe. Unfortunately, the TL goes ASB from there on, with demons and magic and all that nonsense. So I suppose that if I were to use a similar POD, I wouldn't be rehashing Hood's TL, since I'd keep it out of ASB territory. I can envision at least one problem right off the bat, though, at least in terms of the main goals for my TL. If Europe is conquered before the 14th century, I'm not sure I would be able introduce European firearms to the New World early on. I think if anything could give the Aztecs and Incas a chance to withstand New World conquistadors, it's guns.
 
I like that idea a lot; trouble is, there are no volcanoes in Greenland. There are some in Iceland, but I don't know if there's enough ice on Iceland to melt to screw up the North Atlantic current.

You've never heard of Laki? Its eruption in 1783 was so bad that it not only ruined Iceland for several decades, but helped to hasten the French Revolution because of all the sulphur it spewed in the air that was equivalent to a 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption every three days. So its possible.
 
You've never heard of Laki? Its eruption in 1783 was so bad that it not only ruined Iceland for several decades, but helped to hasten the French Revolution because of all the sulphur it spewed in the air that was equivalent to a 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption every three days. So its possible.

Well, we were talking about a volcano melting Greenland glaciers. Laki is in Iceland and so its eruption wouldn't melt much ice; however, as you say, it would give off sulfur and volcanic dust which would cloud Europe. Unfortunately, I think those sorts of volcanic dust cloud tend to circle around the Earth, negatively affecting other areas as well. But it's certainly something to consider while we're trying to hone our search for just the right POD.
 

Maur

Banned
Hey, my original Black Death mutation idea didn't look so ASB when I didn't know anything about it.

BTW, where does "handwavium" fall on the periodic table? :p
And i still think it looks less ASB than some of the new ideas (well, some variants of BD at leasts)

There are two theories. One, somewhere between Helium and Hydrogen, second, atomic number 1492 ;)


I also see how all the fighting in France and Germany could lead to their takeover by foreign, non-Christian powers, and how I could finagle the conquest of Italy and Britain. Christian Europe gets gradually picked apart by Muslims and pagans and there goes Western civilization.
I'd rather say "there goes the Christianity as number one world religion...

Of course, one could say that Islam is more unfriendly to progress. And probably would be right, yet it doesn't change the fact that the strip of land from Northern Italy to Flanders is heavily urbanized, central Europe still is heavily influenced by the west... and it requires changing a lot of little (and not so little) things, as you said.


On another side not, to give the NW a chance to withstand the initial shock (which is the only important thing, and only one possible - NW doesn't have a chance to catch up, ever, IMO, without contact) perhaps we need only to get rid of Spain... say, Leon and Castille never unite, Moors are more united, tons of possibilities.


I believe I see your point about keeping Europe land-bound
That is either very hard or relatively easy depending on what do you mean by-land bound. It is possible to make every large European power interested in land struggle, it isn't possible to prevent, short of total collapse, Europeans from finding new world sooner or later. Arguably, both Portuguese and Atlantic coast fishermen already knew of New World by the time of Columbus. It's just that the Spanish had the manpower, and will.


So suppose a group of northern Europeans fleeing the collapse of Europe sails (inadvertently) to North America and establishes contact with the native Americans. If this limited contact with the New World occurred around the time of the Black Death (~1350), and the collapse of Europe delays further contact with the Old World until at least 1700 or so, the Aztecs and Incas have some time to recover from foreign diseases and adopt New World technologies like metalworking and firearms (the latter of which Europeans had only recently acquired). I figure acquiring European metalworking techniques gives the New World a better head start than having to develop them independently, which might never have occurred.
The problem i see is that such group immediately stops developing and actually might starts regressing, due to low numbers. Similar thing that hapenned to Tasmanians. Another problem is that this group will end nowhere near Mexico, not to mention Peru (heh, neither Aztecs nor Incas empires existed at that time, IIRC). So, we have US or Canada east coast most likely.

That said, it could matter.

I can't deny that it's an excellent POD, but I discovered that there actually is a trilogy of AH books, The Years of Longdirk by Ken Hood, which involves a POD where Ogedei doesn't die in 1241 and goes on to conquer Europe. Unfortunately, the TL goes ASB from there on, with demons and magic and all that nonsense. So I suppose that if I were to use a similar POD, I wouldn't be rehashing Hood's TL, since I'd keep it out of ASB territory. I can envision at least one problem right off the bat, though, at least in terms of the main goals for my TL. If Europe is conquered before the 14th century, I'm not sure I would be able introduce European firearms to the New World early on. I think if anything could give the Aztecs and Incas a chance to withstand New World conquistadors, it's guns.
I actually don't think so (about the guns). What is more important is surviving initial shock (by disease and culture), metalworking (not only about weapons), general knowledge (about pretty much everything from education, to power generation, well, everything), more modern political system (Aztecs were kind of Assyrians at best, and Incas like Egypt), domesticated animals.

About Mongols, what if Song China actually repulses them and they go directly west like the Huns? Two birds with one stone - you save the most progressive Chinese dynasty, and instead of short and weak Mongol effort at Europe, you get the best Mongol leaders assaulting Europe for decades. With Genghis Khan himself, who was really into totally eradicating agricultural civilizations (arguably, it doesn't work that well in Europe due to the fact it's not hydraulic agriculture, and that the primordial vegetation there is forest, but still, you could see population losses easily surpassing that of the plague, especially in the more densely populated areas, which are the most important to progress, after all)
 
I'd rather say "there goes the Christianity as number one world religion...

Of course, one could say that Islam is more unfriendly to progress. And probably would be right, yet it doesn't change the fact that the strip of land from Northern Italy to Flanders is heavily urbanized, central Europe still is heavily influenced by the west... and it requires changing a lot of little (and not so little) things, as you said.

On another side not, to give the NW a chance to withstand the initial shock (which is the only important thing, and only one possible - NW doesn't have a chance to catch up, ever, IMO, without contact) perhaps we need only to get rid of Spain... say, Leon and Castille never unite, Moors are more united, tons of possibilities.

I agree that Christianity would no longer be the most popular religion. I guess I exaggerated when I said Western civilization goes bye-bye. Rather, I would think it'd be dominated by Muslims and pagans rather than the native Europeans.

The nation that represented the biggest initial threat to the New World in OTL was indeed Spain, as they conquered both the Aztecs and the Incas. Several of the scenarios suggested so far could knock Spain down a few notches and keep them away from the Americas.

That is either very hard or relatively easy depending on what do you mean by-land bound. It is possible to make every large European power interested in land struggle, it isn't possible to prevent, short of total collapse, Europeans from finding new world sooner or later. Arguably, both Portuguese and Atlantic coast fishermen already knew of New World by the time of Columbus. It's just that the Spanish had the manpower, and will.

By land-bound, I just meant having a much weaker navy relative to land forces than in OTL. European contact with the Americas (albeit brief) had already been made Leif Erikson way back in the 1000. I wouldn't be surprised if other contacts had been made between then and Columbus's 1492 voyage. But like you said, it's not so much about knowing of the Americas, but rather the wherewithal to colonize the Americas.

The problem i see is that such group immediately stops developing and actually might starts regressing, due to low numbers. Similar thing that hapenned to Tasmanians. Another problem is that this group will end nowhere near Mexico, not to mention Peru (heh, neither Aztecs nor Incas empires existed at that time, IIRC). So, we have US or Canada east coast most likely.

That said, it could matter.

The northern European refugees (how ever many there are) might well stop developing. I had intended a Pilgrim-type contact, where there is a peaceful interaction between the native Americans and the settlers. Were the Pilgrims only capable of surviving due to later influxes of people and supplies from Europe, or were they self-sufficient? The settlers don't necessarily have to establish a powerful colony; their primary role in the story is to provide the Americas with low-level contact with the Old World. Even if they regress, they are still technologically centuries ahead of the native Americans. I'm thinking that over the decades and centuries, they could steadily expand outward from their landing site, heading westward and later northward. They won't like to go south too far because of their fair skin.

While diseases are exchanged between the NW natives and the OW settlers, so are technology and agriculture. Though the settlers themselves don't make direct contact with the Aztecs or Incas, I figure that their diseases and technology will spread across the Americas much faster, reaching the Aztecs perhaps in a few decades and the Incas (via the Aztecs) a few decades later. I would think that native Americas would see the advantages of firearms over bows and arrows when hunting or warring, and this might accelerate adoption of metalworking, if simply to produce more guns and ammo. I don't know if tradition or fear of the new technology would interfere with this though.

As for where the settlers might land, if they head straight across the Atlantic, they'll reach Newfoundland. The further north, the colder it will be and thus the harder to set up a successful colony. However, these people are hardy northerners to begin with, so it won't be quite so bad if they're a little far north. Would it be better to have them drift southward and land in New England or the Mid-Atlantic instead? These are desperate folks, simply trying to escape Europe before the catastrophe there wipes them out. So their navigating skills might not be the best, meaning they could land anywhere in the Americas that's suitable for the story. Should I have them leave in advance of the Black Death reaching them so they don't bring it with them to the New World, or would it be better to bring it with so that the native Americans are exposed and can recover from it before the Old World invades in force?

The Aztec Empire was formed in 1325, predating the Black Death. The Incas first appeared in the early 1200s, although their empire wasn't established until 1438. I am assuming that butterflies in Europe won't change the Americas enough to prevent the rise of both civilizations.

I thought of an interesting wrinkle I might throw in. If I do go with the 1350 European-American contact, what do you think of the idea that the Europeans to make the contact are Jewish? I'm not certain how many fair-skinned northern European Jews there were back then, but I envisioned a Jewish Canada evolving and got all excited. Somehow, I think Jews would be nicer to and coexist more peacefully with the native Americans than the Christians did in OTL, since Jews have been persecuted as scapegoats for so long. (DISCLAIMER: I seek not to anger anyone over religious matters; personally, I adhere to no religion.) One thing Jews wouldn't introduce to the Americas is pigs, though. If this idea is too unrealistic, let me know.

I actually don't think so (about the guns). What is more important is surviving initial shock (by disease and culture), metalworking (not only about weapons), general knowledge (about pretty much everything from education, to power generation, well, everything), more modern political system (Aztecs were kind of Assyrians at best, and Incas like Egypt), domesticated animals.

Hmm. I see your point about how much more beneficial to the Americas the other things the OW settlers might bring with them are. I suppose the longer the contact with the settlers, the more information would be shared and the more educated the native Americans would become in European technology, agriculture, politics, etc. (Especially if the settlers remain friendly with the natives, as I'm hoping Jews might.) Incidentally, what sort of new politics might the settlers be bringing with them? Feudalism? The NW already has the concept of monarchy, and as AFAIK, most people of medieval Europe were unfamiliar with Greco-Roman style democracy.

About Mongols, what if Song China actually repulses them and they go directly west like the Huns? Two birds with one stone - you save the most progressive Chinese dynasty, and instead of short and weak Mongol effort at Europe, you get the best Mongol leaders assaulting Europe for decades. With Genghis Khan himself, who was really into totally eradicating agricultural civilizations (arguably, it doesn't work that well in Europe due to the fact it's not hydraulic agriculture, and that the primordial vegetation there is forest, but still, you could see population losses easily surpassing that of the plague, especially in the more densely populated areas, which are the most important to progress, after all)
I like the Mongol idea you have there, but how exactly could Song China hold off the Mongols? Good old Genghis died before the Mongols reached the Song; instead it was Kublai who conquered them in 1279. Do you suppose the death of Kublai Khan would be enough to prevent the Mongols from taking over the Song, or would the Song had fallen to the apparently superior might of the Mongols anyway? Even if Kublai died, wouldn't the Mongols still want to get rid of Song China first instead of Europe, since the Song are right in their backyard?

Another problem is timing. The Mongols attacked Europe before the Song, so the response to increased Song resistance wouldn't likely be to attack Europe again (it seems to me, anyway). I could try to do it the other way, with a different result in Europe producing a different result in Song China. Ogedei died in 1241 in the middle of the European campaign. If I go with a POD in which he lives long enough to take all of Europe, then I see two possibilities with regard to the Song: (1) the Mongols are spread too thin to conquer the Song, or (2) with Europe conquered, the Mongols are able to concentrate more of their army on the Song, wiping them out faster than in OTL. I see the second as more likely, but again I'm no expert. Eventually, with an empire as big as theirs, the Mongols would probably still fall apart as in OTL, if not when Kublai dies then sometime not long after, allowing other civilizations to seize their land.


Another of the many things that concern me about this TL is when the Chinese stopped Zheng He's overseas exploration and focused on internal affairs, officially cutting off contact with the outside world for a long while. I'm not certain, but I think this isolationism slowed the development of Chinese civilization compared to the Europeans. Do you suppose that even with this isolationism occurring as in OTL, the absence of the Europeans and Americans who cooperated to castrate China would permit China to remain a superpower to the present day?

In any case, pushing the POD back in time from 1347 and having the Song dynasty survive could prevent the isolationism and give China an even better head start. Hopefully not too much of a boost, though. A Chinese-dominated world would be very interesting, but I'm looking for more of a balance between China and the Muslim civilizations.

~~~~~

Having the Mongols conquer Europe seems like the obvious solution to my problem, but for some reason it doesn't sit right with me. If Ogedei had not kicked the bucket in 1241, it is indeed likely that the Mongols would have taken Europe? Check out the assessment by antisocrates from another thread:

What if Ogedei had survived longer than he did OTL, and the Mongol invasion of Europe continued?
Hmmm, certainly if the army had not turned back then Eastern Europe would have faced a sacking of its lifetime. Possibly as far as Northern Italy and the Low Land countries.
Probably, though, not to the extent some people think. The army that was there was pretty much at its limit. Any further push into Europe would've been counterproductive (due both to the nature of the terrain and the issue of foraging adequately) and the Mongols did realize that. That is why theres's a strong evidence that they planned a satrapy around Russia and Hungary, with Hungary as their forward base for further European conquest, even if Hungary itself was barely adequate for the Mongol armies as constituted then. However, if nothing else but Ogadei's death is PODed, then other events would soon overtake the Mongols, and Europe would remain a sideshow. Frankly, Mongol scouts found Europe rather poor compared to the Middle East, not to mention China. The bulk of modern Mongol military would be kept in China in their decades-long struggle to conquer the South Song dynasty. The troops that remained were heavily dilluted with Turks and other Central Asian nomads, and mainly fought in the initial Mongol style, rather than the more mature later proto-Yuan combined arms style. The Golden Khans fought in the traditional style, with very little influence from the combined arms style of later Mongol warfare that conquered China. A steppe army in the 13th century had no chance to conquer Europe, not with its dense population and multitude of castles and forests. The logistics just wasn't there. The only possible way to conquer Europe would've been if Kublai and his father decided to conquer Europe instead and shifted the entire Mongol operation to Russia-- and turn Russia into Europe's Jin Empire, the place where the Mongols recruited manpower and wealth to pursue a logistic persisting strategy of conquest of Europe a la Wales or South Song. Like how Kublai's father adjusted to the realities of south China (death trap for cavalry warfare), Mongol system, like the Romans, would add auxillaries to suit the occasion. Other than this, the Mongol invasion would've been ephemeral, though it'd have caused helluva damage.
So what's the likelihood of the Mongols shifting operations to Russia? Doesn't seem likely, but I want to hear from those who know better than me.

EDIT: There's another interesting thread on the matter here.
 
Last edited:
I'm still asking anyone knowledgeable in astronomy, meteorology, or medical science to please give their feedback on how scientifically plausible the increased UV radiation idea is. Thanks in advance.

Increased UV radiation is certainly possible, it varies in a usual 11 year cycle anyway. The sun's output won't significantly change until it starts burning hydrogen and turns into a red giant, however, and that would be bad for everyone. What you could do is have the Earth's Magnetosphere be weakened, and that happens when the poles flip and that happens relatively often. This is actually a considerable problem, since when it happens the Magnetic protection of the Earth will disappear and we'll be getting the full brunt of the Sun's radiation. It will probably return after a few years (Mars' didn't, but ours probably will) but it will still be nasty.

The problem is that it isn't a good way to kill off the white folk. The angle of the radiation is steeper at the equator than north or south of it, meaning that the radiation will be weakened by the time it reaches the surface. It's a theorized reason as to why whites have pale skin anyway (We have less melatonin since we need less and evolved away from the darker skins. There are exceptions to this, but it's a general rule of thumb that the further north/south of the equator, the lighter skinned the inhabitants.

This type of thing would affect everything. Plants, animals, and people all over the Earth would be seeing increased cancer rates and a lot of death resulting from it. Some would survive better than others, but you couldn't say that Europe would bear the worst of it.
 
Increased UV radiation is certainly possible, it varies in a usual 11 year cycle anyway. The sun's output won't significantly change until it starts burning hydrogen and turns into a red giant, however, and that would be bad for everyone. What you could do is have the Earth's Magnetosphere be weakened, and that happens when the poles flip and that happens relatively often. This is actually a considerable problem, since when it happens the Magnetic protection of the Earth will disappear and we'll be getting the full brunt of the Sun's radiation. It will probably return after a few years (Mars' didn't, but ours probably will) but it will still be nasty.

The problem is that it isn't a good way to kill off the white folk. The angle of the radiation is steeper at the equator than north or south of it, meaning that the radiation will be weakened by the time it reaches the surface. It's a theorized reason as to why whites have pale skin anyway (We have less melatonin since we need less and evolved away from the darker skins. There are exceptions to this, but it's a general rule of thumb that the further north/south of the equator, the lighter skinned the inhabitants.

This type of thing would affect everything. Plants, animals, and people all over the Earth would be seeing increased cancer rates and a lot of death resulting from it. Some would survive better than others, but you couldn't say that Europe would bear the worst of it.

I had suspected there would be some serious scientific problems with the UV idea. Alas, it's going in the circular file, with the deadlier Black Death idea. I appreciate your input. :)

~~~~~

Just a general question I'd like some opinions on: Is the idea of a meteor impact in Greenland ASB? True, meteors are alien in that they come from space, but meteor impacts happen in reality all the time, from little ones that burn up in the atmosphere to big ones which cause mass extinctions. This meteor would be big enough to reach the surface but not nearly so big as the one which killed off the non-avian dinosaurs. It would be relatively small, just massive enough to melt enough ice to temporarily disrupt the North Atlantic Current. It doesn't seem very ASB to me, but what does everyone think?
 

Maur

Banned
I agree that Christianity would no longer be the most popular religion. I guess I exaggerated when I said Western civilization goes bye-bye. Rather, I would think it'd be dominated by Muslims and pagans rather than the native Europeans.
Hey, pagans are native Europeans, too! :mad:;)

The northern European refugees (how ever many there are) might well stop developing. I had intended a Pilgrim-type contact, where there is a peaceful interaction between the native Americans and the settlers. Were the Pilgrims only capable of surviving due to later influxes of people and supplies from Europe, or were they self-sufficient? The settlers don't necessarily have to establish a powerful colony; their primary role in the story is to provide the Americas with low-level contact with the Old World. Even if they regress, they are still technologically centuries ahead of the native Americans. I'm thinking that over the decades and centuries, they could steadily expand outward from their landing site, heading westward and later northward. They won't like to go south too far because of their fair skin.
I assume that they were suffiecent in the sense that they wouldn't die off if cut off from Europe, maybe, as they were very different case from Chesapeake colonial goods colonies (which would most likely perish), but they had to import industrial goods for really long time. Their population was nowhere near enough to preserve knowledge, you need enough population free from other jobs (like, agriculture and basic manufacturing) that makes sizeable "engineering/scientist" population. After two generation, without available iron ore, there might be no one that knows enough to start it up again. And most likely they just blend into Natives.

Now, if they don't start with 100 or something people but few tens of thousands, it probably wouldn't lose that much of technology, and could survive the initial hardship with relatively little loss. There is a problem of moving that large population, i'm sure you see it yourself. Although it's incredibly cool scenario.

That's why i said i think it would take continious long-term contact. Perhaps, you could have Scandinavians not lose link to North America? That way they would absorb knowledge from the south (whatever it is now, Muslim, depopulated...), and NW settlements maintain the much-needed link.

On a side note, it reminds me of that LeGuin book that had slowly dying off off-world population on largely barbarian world. Parts of Rocannon series, i think.

While diseases are exchanged between the NW natives and the OW settlers, so are technology and agriculture. Though the settlers themselves don't make direct contact with the Aztecs or Incas, I figure that their diseases and technology will spread across the Americas much faster, reaching the Aztecs perhaps in a few decades and the Incas (via the Aztecs) a few decades later. I would think that native Americas would see the advantages of firearms over bows and arrows when hunting or warring, and this might accelerate adoption of metalworking, if simply to produce more guns and ammo. I don't know if tradition or fear of the new technology would interfere with this though.
Really, our European refugees firearms are vastly inferior to their own bows ;). And require a lot more industrial effort that would be best directed elsewhere. No needs for cannons, as there are no castles, no need for guns as there is benefit for trained archers (all that forests full of game!) and not of large armies. Not to mention it's suddenly a lot more expensive without industrial infrastructure. Bows aren't. Gunpowder itself might not be lost, as i guess it's useful in mining? Metalworking is generally very advantageous, in civilian aplications.

I'm not sure about disease spreading. I'd like to see trade links for that. Granted, i guess Europeans have sea travel technology much, much better than natives, and it enables them to start really good coastal trade. Although it's still a long way from Pennsylvania (that's my guess where the main settlement will be, south enough for warm climate, and north enough for few diseases) to Mexico. Not to mention Peru... It'd take a century or something, IMO.

It's interesting question if/how fast natives are going to adapt. I doubt it would be fear that'd prevent them, rather some structural difficulty, it's not like picking up metalsmithing is a question of stealing blueprints, rather it needs to be teached. So i guess it requires some sort of cooperation or subjugation of refugees coupled with really bright native leader (think Peter the Great of Russia, or Japanese Meiji Emperor)

As for where the settlers might land, if they head straight across the Atlantic, they'll reach Newfoundland. The further north, the colder it will be and thus the harder to set up a successful colony. However, these people are hardy northerners to begin with, so it won't be quite so bad if they're a little far north. Would it be better to have them drift southward and land in New England or the Mid-Atlantic instead? These are desperate folks, simply trying to escape Europe before the catastrophe there wipes them out. So their navigating skills might not be the best, meaning they could land anywhere in the Americas that's suitable for the story. Should I have them leave in advance of the Black Death reaching them so they don't bring it with them to the New World, or would it be better to bring it with so that the native Americans are exposed and can recover from it before the Old World invades in force?
Yes, Newfoundland it is (hey, the name probably stays the same :)), but i think their power center will shift southwards gradually. They might be northerners, but i doubt they prefer that to milder climate.

No idea about the plague, though. Was it important part of the disease exchange? And it depends what type of scenario back in Europe we're talking about.

The Aztec Empire was formed in 1325, predating the Black Death. The Incas first appeared in the early 1200s, although their empire wasn't established until 1438. I am assuming that butterflies in Europe won't change the Americas enough to prevent the rise of both civilizations.
Oh, Aztecs that early? Well, 20 years only :)
I meant Incan Empire, yes. I remembered it being relatively recent in Columbus time. On a side note, Mayas could be in different stage, they had a habit of sinusoidal history.

I thought of an interesting wrinkle I might throw in. If I do go with the 1350 European-American contact, what do you think of the idea that the Europeans to make the contact are Jewish? I'm not certain how many fair-skinned northern European Jews there were back then, but I envisioned a Jewish Canada evolving and got all excited. Somehow, I think Jews would be nicer to and coexist more peacefully with the native Americans than the Christians did in OTL, since Jews have been persecuted as scapegoats for so long. (DISCLAIMER: I seek not to anger anyone over religious matters; personally, I adhere to no religion.) One thing Jews wouldn't introduce to the Americas is pigs, though. If this idea is too unrealistic, let me know.
Heh. Well, Jews didn't have really good record treating their neighbours in ancient times, and i doubt being persecuted actually gives you empathy, on group level at least. On the contrary, sad as it is. Personally i prefer geopolitical to psychological explanations of large scale history. How are you planning Jews to make the trek?


Hmm. I see your point about how much more beneficial to the Americas the other things the OW settlers might bring with them are. I suppose the longer the contact with the settlers, the more information would be shared and the more educated the native Americans would become in European technology, agriculture, politics, etc. (Especially if the settlers remain friendly with the natives, as I'm hoping Jews might.) Incidentally, what sort of new politics might the settlers be bringing with them? Feudalism? The NW already has the concept of monarchy, and as AFAIK, most people of medieval Europe were unfamiliar with Greco-Roman style democracy.
I agree, i just wrote above it requires cooperation (or natives being more powerful than settlers, at least demographically=potentially after some uniting happens).

I see that situation similar to that of Germania between Roman conquest of Gaul and post-Commodus times. Germania got cultural diffusion which basically transformed it from mudhut-living dirt poor area (and still more advanced than NW in quite a few aspects!) to much more sophisticated, populated and powerful place that could threaten Roman Empire. There are two sources, one is Tacitus and another one i don't remember and you can see tremendous change inbetween them (during that timeframe).

So yes, it takes time. I'd give it a century before a trade link is established with Mexico (and i don't want to guess how much time it would take to reach Peru - it could be five centuries, even), another one and you have US natives catching up mostly, and another two-three (that's four-five after the land) with Mexico being mostly upgraded - i gave it 3 centuries because with that distance diffusion is going to be slow. And i'm being generous there.

That's with large scale settlement, that tens of thousands i spoke about before. With Leif Eriksson style, i'd add a century or two before actual NW colony is populous enough that it starts to make an impact.

Which means... assuming Viking colony of 1000 (i don't remember the date), its 1700, and plague settlement it's 1800. Yeah, you need to nerf Spaniards and Europe in general, or rewind to Phoenicians or something :D

About the politics... it's hard to pinpoint and i might be wrong anyway. It's not as easily grasped, as say, metalworking, and i don't have that much knowledge about it, but you know, Italians had insurance companies by 1500 and banks even earlier (ok, that's not Scandinavians... throw some Flemish or proto-Hanseatic trader folk into the refugee fleet then), schooling institutions like universities or monasteries, guild system... not politics, although politics too, since you got more power distribution in European population than in Inca (and, i guess, in Mexico too), and i think it's good for sophistication and progress. Granted, NA natives tribal stage could be similar, but... oh, it's really complicated :D

Say, it's too decentralized and not powerful enough state. And while totalitarianism Egypt style is powerful, it's bad for different reasons. But yeah, that's not scientific knowledge, but my (un)educated guess.

I like the Mongol idea you have there, but how exactly could Song China hold off the Mongols? Good old Genghis died before the Mongols reached the Song; instead it was Kublai who conquered them in 1279. Do you suppose the death of Kublai Khan would be enough to prevent the Mongols from taking over the Song, or would the Song had fallen to the apparently superior might of the Mongols anyway? Even if Kublai died, wouldn't the Mongols still want to get rid of Song China first instead of Europe, since the Song are right in their backyard?
Damn, i have no idea. I just don't know enough about internal situation of Song China to even guess. Including the reasons of it's collapse.

But, one thing, i wasn't talking about Southern Song, but Northern Song. Which means, there is POD regarding Jurchens. Or, it's Jurchens that defeat Mongols. Anyway, i guess it's worth exploring.

(on a side note i agree that whole Eurasia under one rule is unconvenient in long run)

Another of the many things that concern me about this TL is when the Chinese stopped Zheng He's overseas exploration and focused on internal affairs, officially cutting off contact with the outside world for a long while. I'm not certain, but I think this isolationism slowed the development of Chinese civilization compared to the Europeans. Do you suppose that even with this isolationism occurring as in OTL, the absence of the Europeans and Americans who cooperated to castrate China would permit China to remain a superpower to the present day?
Oh, that depends if there are Muslims who do the same ;)

And i'm not sure if it was outside influence that actually prevented Chinese from anything, rather than internal factors. And btw, wasn't Zheng really a explorer and not a diplomat? Again, it's not like i know that much about that, but i didn't have that impression it was sudden change and one decision thing that transformed China... but perhaps you should start another thread about that, as i doubt anyone is still reading my huge post ;)

Which leads us to...

In any case, pushing the POD back in time from 1347 and having the Song dynasty survive could prevent the isolationism and give China an even better head start. Hopefully not too much of a boost, though. A Chinese-dominated world would be very interesting, but I'm looking for more of a balance between China and the Muslim civilizations.
I just realized it's another problem. Look at the recent Baghdad WI thread, it has some interesting things regarding Muslims in that time. It might require a POD - although not necessairly, as you're reshaping a lot of things already, so while southern Muslim world stays as in OTL, northern (ie: area formerly known as Christian Europe), obviously does not. And might lead the progress, even though slower, due to ATL events, than OTL. Which is what you want, anyway.

But yeah, if you give China too much of a boost, we're all fucked :D


Having the Mongols conquer Europe seems like the obvious solution to my problem, but for some reason it doesn't sit right with me. If Ogedei had not kicked the bucket in 1241, it is indeed likely that the Mongols would have taken Europe? Check out the assessment by antisocrates from another thread:
Yes, i'm not all that enthusiastic about Mongols warring in western Europe with only slight changes. That's why i suggested something so Mongols have basically no choice than turn west in force after Northern Song or Jin defeat them.

On a side note, keeping China split into Southern Song and Jin is quite interesting too. And doable, i think.
 
Hey, pagans are native Europeans, too! :mad:;)

Sorry, I meant the Europeans native to the lands that the pagans are taking over. As in pagan Slavonic people of eastern Europe taking over Christian-held Germany, for instance. I have no bias against pagans in particular; if anything, their religions make about as much sense as Christianity or any other religion.

I assume that they were suffiecent in the sense that they wouldn't die off if cut off from Europe, maybe, as they were very different case from Chesapeake colonial goods colonies (which would most likely perish), but they had to import industrial goods for really long time. Their population was nowhere near enough to preserve knowledge, you need enough population free from other jobs (like, agriculture and basic manufacturing) that makes sizeable "engineering/scientist" population. After two generation, without available iron ore, there might be no one that knows enough to start it up again. And most likely they just blend into Natives.

Now, if they don't start with 100 or something people but few tens of thousands, it probably wouldn't lose that much of technology, and could survive the initial hardship with relatively little loss. There is a problem of moving that large population, i'm sure you see it yourself. Although it's incredibly cool scenario.

That's why i said i think it would take continious long-term contact. Perhaps, you could have Scandinavians not lose link to North America? That way they would absorb knowledge from the south (whatever it is now, Muslim, depopulated...), and NW settlements maintain the much-needed link.

On a side note, it reminds me of that LeGuin book that had slowly dying off off-world population on largely barbarian world. Parts of Rocannon series, i think.

I like the idea of there being a continuous link between Scandinavia and Newfoundland. What initiates the connection could be a group of Norwegians fleeing the plague or Muslim invaders from the south, or even simply a wayward fishing boat. By 1300, Norway already had claimed the southern tip of Greenland, so it wouldn't be a big leap for them to reach Newfoundland around 1350 (I'm sticking with the mid-1300s as a POD for now, so I can hit Europe while they're down with the plague). From then on there could be intermittent contact between Norwegian (and perhaps Danish, Swedish, Scottish, British, Irish, etc.) traders and native Americans, allowing ever more advanced Old World diseases, technology, and knowledge to spread southward throughout the New World (along with agricultural techniques, crops, and domesticated animals).

One thing though: if I have this continuous link from the conquering Muslims in Europe to the Americas, wouldn't the Muslims learn of this link and go a-hunting? Or might the Muslims (as they are from a much warmer climate) be deterred by the cold weather up north and deem the trip not worth it? Perhaps the Old Worlders might retain for a long while the misconception that Newfoundland is just another frozen island like Greenland and Iceland (similar to how the British in OTL initially thought Virginia was just an island), providing little motivation to explore and conquer. Eventually, the Old Worlders will figure out that they're dealing with an entire continent and decide to explore some more, but hopefully by this point, at least the Aztecs will have acquired the Old World tech and done something with it.

I'm not sure this is at all realistic.

Really, our European refugees firearms are vastly inferior to their own bows ;). And require a lot more industrial effort that would be best directed elsewhere. No needs for cannons, as there are no castles, no need for guns as there is benefit for trained archers (all that forests full of game!) and not of large armies. Not to mention it's suddenly a lot more expensive without industrial infrastructure. Bows aren't. Gunpowder itself might not be lost, as i guess it's useful in mining? Metalworking is generally very advantageous, in civilian aplications.

I'm not sure about disease spreading. I'd like to see trade links for that. Granted, i guess Europeans have sea travel technology much, much better than natives, and it enables them to start really good coastal trade. Although it's still a long way from Pennsylvania (that's my guess where the main settlement will be, south enough for warm climate, and north enough for few diseases) to Mexico. Not to mention Peru... It'd take a century or something, IMO.

It's interesting question if/how fast natives are going to adapt. I doubt it would be fear that'd prevent them, rather some structural difficulty, it's not like picking up metalsmithing is a question of stealing blueprints, rather it needs to be teached. So i guess it requires some sort of cooperation or subjugation of refugees coupled with really bright native leader (think Peter the Great of Russia, or Japanese Meiji Emperor)

Ah, yes, old guns were pretty crappy. I concede the point.

I'm concerned that the more the Old Worlders explore in the North Atlantic, the more of the Americas they'll discover and the faster they'll come to conquer. The New World civilizations need as much time as is possible to catch up. Is it plausible to keep contact with the New World limited to the Newfoundland area for centuries until a Columbus-type voyage takes place? I'm hoping that the OW technology and other goodies can make it down to the Aztecs from Newfoundland via land-based trade between native American tribes. The first taste of it that the Aztecs get might compel them to expand their empire northward, reducing the distance to Newfoundland. If I can't limit OW settlement to the Newfoundland coast, how can I keep the spread of OWers south along the Atlantic coast of North America from escalating into an even earlier OW colonization of the Americas than in OTL?

One big problem I see is how to get the knowledge down to the Aztecs, though. I assume that goods and diseases travel a lot faster than education. Maybe the Aztecs could send a Lewis and Clark style expedition north to gather technology and information from the Old World traders and bring it back to Tenochtitlan. I'm sure there's some native American pioneer who could lead the way in adopting and developing OW tech. Eventually, the Aztecs should become self-sufficient, able to mine coal for fuel and iron for weapons and other useful metal things. They could pass this knowledge onto the Incas, whose society could advance like the Aztecs, but end up behind in the race due to the later start.

Funny you should mention Meiji -- I was hoping to have the Aztec Empire undergo a Meiji-type restoration sometime before the big world war I talked about in the previous thread on this TL. That way, they could catch up somewhat to the Old World civilizations.

Yes, Newfoundland it is (hey, the name probably stays the same :)), but i think their power center will shift southwards gradually. They might be northerners, but i doubt they prefer that to milder climate.

No idea about the plague, though. Was it important part of the disease exchange? And it depends what type of scenario back in Europe we're talking about.

Again, I'm concerned about the spread of OWers south into the Americas. The idea of having fair-skinned northern Europeans be the first to reach the New World came from Valdemar:

If you want some native states to survive, you need more interaction with Europe, it would be best if they gained contact with primary trading countries, and even better if this happen after the diseases had hit them for a few decades. The solution could be a earlier North European colonisation of Easten North America, and the first contact was with the Hanse or Dutch. It would mean a spread of Euroasians crops and animals, but from a group of people whom wouldn't thrieve in Central America or the Andeans, so they wouldn't conquer them.

I thought that their dislike of heat and sunburn was a great way to keep them from spreading too far south and stomping on the Aztecs. If I've just got the Norwegians colonizing the coast of North America, then the Aztecs are relatively safe, not just because the Norwegians like higher latitudes, but also because with the Muslims sitting on Europe, Norway doesn't have the resources to colonize extensively. The problem is if southerners like the Muslims begin colonizing the Americas too early (perhaps even earlier than the Europeans did in OTL). So how do I prevent this?

It's strange (at least to me), but in OTL it doesn't appear that the bubonic plague reached the Americas until the 1850s at the earliest. I would have thought with all the repeated outbreaks in the Old World that the plague would have struck America much earlier than that. I suppose even if it hit the New World, it'd not be much worse than the smallpox and measles were in OTL. I think the idea is to have the OW diseases hit the NWers early so that they have time to recover before the OWers come at them in force. Maybe the diseases could be staggered so they don't all hit one place at the same time.

Oh, Aztecs that early? Well, 20 years only :)
I meant Incan Empire, yes. I remembered it being relatively recent in Columbus time. On a side note, Mayas could be in different stage, they had a habit of sinusoidal history.

I was thinking the Aztecs would likely dominate the Maya, as they would other native American peoples under their growing empire. But I'm open to change.

Heh. Well, Jews didn't have really good record treating their neighbours in ancient times, and i doubt being persecuted actually gives you empathy, on group level at least. On the contrary, sad as it is. Personally i prefer geopolitical to psychological explanations of large scale history. How are you planning Jews to make the trek?

I know, the Jews killed Jesus, but it would have been centuries since then. In any case, it looks like the Jewish Canada idea isn't going to work out. I still intend to give the Jews their own colony in the New World though, but much later. After all, they deserve some land of their own, for all they've been through.

I agree, i just wrote above it requires cooperation (or natives being more powerful than settlers, at least demographically=potentially after some uniting happens).

I see that situation similar to that of Germania between Roman conquest of Gaul and post-Commodus times. Germania got cultural diffusion which basically transformed it from mudhut-living dirt poor area (and still more advanced than NW in quite a few aspects!) to much more sophisticated, populated and powerful place that could threaten Roman Empire. There are two sources, one is Tacitus and another one i don't remember and you can see tremendous change inbetween them (during that timeframe).

So yes, it takes time. I'd give it a century before a trade link is established with Mexico (and i don't want to guess how much time it would take to reach Peru - it could be five centuries, even), another one and you have US natives catching up mostly, and another two-three (that's four-five after the land) with Mexico being mostly upgraded - i gave it 3 centuries because with that distance diffusion is going to be slow. And i'm being generous there.

That's with large scale settlement, that tens of thousands i spoke about before. With Leif Eriksson style, i'd add a century or two before actual NW colony is populous enough that it starts to make an impact.

Which means... assuming Viking colony of 1000 (i don't remember the date), its 1700, and plague settlement it's 1800. Yeah, you need to nerf Spaniards and Europe in general, or rewind to Phoenicians or something :D

About the politics... it's hard to pinpoint and i might be wrong anyway. It's not as easily grasped, as say, metalworking, and i don't have that much knowledge about it, but you know, Italians had insurance companies by 1500 and banks even earlier (ok, that's not Scandinavians... throw some Flemish or proto-Hanseatic trader folk into the refugee fleet then), schooling institutions like universities or monasteries, guild system... not politics, although politics too, since you got more power distribution in European population than in Inca (and, i guess, in Mexico too), and i think it's good for sophistication and progress. Granted, NA natives tribal stage could be similar, but... oh, it's really complicated :D

Say, it's too decentralized and not powerful enough state. And while totalitarianism Egypt style is powerful, it's bad for different reasons. But yeah, that's not scientific knowledge, but my (un)educated guess.

A common enemy is indeed a good way to unite people who otherwise wouldn't get along. So unfriendly OW colonists can be somewhat beneficial to the NWers in that regard, forcing them to work together and advance their collective society to fend off the outsiders. Whether the NWers decide to unite or not is debatable. In OTL, the native North American tribes did form some alliances, but mostly they took on the Americans on their own. In this TL, though, the native North American tribes have a much bigger, more powerful tribe in the Aztecs to ally with. Depending upon each tribe's opinion of the Aztecs, this could either result in them allying with the Aztecs, remaining neutral, or allying with the OWers. I'm hoping for an Aztec-allied North Mexican Confederation of native Americans controlling what in OTL is the central US, but I don't know if I can realistically accomplish this.

If I go with the Leif Ericson (or however it's spelled) POD in 1000, this significantly pre-dates both the Aztec and Inca empires. They might even be butterflied away, which is bad for my TL. If I stay with a 1350 POD, the Aztecs have just formed an empire, and the Incas are already settled in the Andes and free to start their own empire as in OTL. Unfortunately, this significantly cuts down the lead time the Americas have before the OW comes to spoil the fun. I think the quickest way to set the Aztecs off on a more progressive track by giving them OW tech is not to wait until an OW colony is fully established in the Americas. Trade and communication between tribes can at least bring word of the OW traders and their strange new technology to the Aztecs in less than a century after my POD (I would think).

But using your estimated lengths of time, the Aztecs don't begin trade with the OW until 1450 at the earliest and don't have a decently advanced civilization (as in good enough to at least hold off an OW invasion army) until around 1800. This isn't too unreasonable, but shifting everything ahead another ~150 years so that the colony has time to grow means the Aztecs probably won't have a chance. There's no way the Old World would have held off on extensively colonizing the New World until 1950, even with the delay due to the demise of the Europeans (the exact length of which is still up in the air).

Politics isn't my area of expertise (not much having to do with this TL is), but couldn't the political sophistication of the Aztecs and Incas advance along with technological progress? As I see it, the general trend in the advancement of civilization is: more scientific study > greater technology and better education > more liberal society > more democratic government. This is probably a gross oversimplification and wrong, but it sort of makes sense to me. I'd like ask anyone with more political knowledge to please add some input and tell me if I'm completely off here.

Damn, i have no idea. I just don't know enough about internal situation of Song China to even guess. Including the reasons of it's collapse.

But, one thing, i wasn't talking about Southern Song, but Northern Song. Which means, there is POD regarding Jurchens. Or, it's Jurchens that defeat Mongols. Anyway, i guess it's worth exploring.

(on a side note i agree that whole Eurasia under one rule is unconvenient in long run)


If I understand correctly, China was a running sore to the Mongols, as it was so close to the Mongols' base of operations. They would put as much effort as possible into neutralizing that threat. I think an even more resistant China (be it Jin or Song) would simply means the Mongols would pull troops from other theaters just to crush the Chinese. Even if China manages to force a stalemale, I'd think the Mongols would be so depleted from the effort that Europe would be way beyond their capacity (or desire) to conquer. Anyway, I think China will do rather well in this TL even if the POD is around 1350, after the Mongol's conquest of China and subsequent fragmentation.

Oh, that depends if there are Muslims who do the same ;)

And i'm not sure if it was outside influence that actually prevented Chinese from anything, rather than internal factors. And btw, wasn't Zheng really a explorer and not a diplomat? Again, it's not like i know that much about that, but i didn't have that impression it was sudden change and one decision thing that transformed China... but perhaps you should start another thread about that, as i doubt anyone is still reading my huge post ;)

Which leads us to...

I was thinking that China would have more time to fortify itself against foreign threats if there were no Europeans, so that when the Muslims come, the Chinese aren't quite so vulnerable. Zheng He was an explorer, not a diplomat. The Hongxi Emperor cut off Zheng He's explorations in 1424 to put more resouces into domestic growth, which was beneficial to China on the whole. I might be thinking of something else regarding the isolationism.

I just realized it's another problem. Look at the recent Baghdad WI thread, it has some interesting things regarding Muslims in that time. It might require a POD - although not necessairly, as you're reshaping a lot of things already, so while southern Muslim world stays as in OTL, northern (ie: area formerly known as Christian Europe), obviously does not. And might lead the progress, even though slower, due to ATL events, than OTL. Which is what you want, anyway.

But yeah, if you give China too much of a boost, we're all fucked :D

I'm admittedly talking out of my ass here, but when I thought about who would dominate the world in the absence of Europeans, I figured that both Chinese and Muslim civilizations stood a pretty even chance. I like the idea of them competing for dominance on a global level in my TL. So to do this, I have a fine line to walk here, keeping the progress of both the Far East and Middle East roughly on par with one another. Given my appalling lack of history knowledge, this has been a challenge to say the least. I feel like I'm getting bogged down in so many details that I'll never be able to write the damn thing. On the bright side, though, I'm learning quite a bit.

Yes, i'm not all that enthusiastic about Mongols warring in western Europe with only slight changes. That's why i suggested something so Mongols have basically no choice than turn west in force after Northern Song or Jin defeat them.

On a side note, keeping China split into Southern Song and Jin is quite interesting too. And doable, i think.

It may be interesting, but would the lack of unity impede Chinese progress? I guess if they fought each other, it might improve their technology of war, but I don't know if it would benefit either in the long run. Another problem this TL has is how to initiate an Industrial Revolution without Europeans. I'm hoping either a progressive China and/or whichever Muslim civilization takes over Europe could start one, even if it's much later than in OTL. One of Valdemar's assessments from the previous thread is pertinent:

The primary problems are a non-European industrial revolution, it happen in Europe for good reasons, the lack of wood, rich coal ores (alternative "fuel" to wood) close to the rich iron ore, a explosive urban population thanks to food surpluses and the social and economical structure came together to create the industrial revolution, and I don't see them happen in the Middle East, through in longer terms North China has a chance for the same.

I have to do more research into the global distribution of natural resources, but North China sounds like a neat spot to start an industrial revolution. So much to do, so little time....
 
The impact idea may be a scientifically plausible cause for the destruction of the Europe while sparing other civilizations. One question for everyone, though: Is the use of meteor strikes considered ASB?

Below are two followup questions I had for the geology expert I talked to previously. (The first question and response are in a post further up this thread.)

My question:


Where in Greenland would be the best location for a meteor impact so as to allow meltwater to drain off and interfere with the North Atlantic Current? I was thinking somewhere along the eastern coast, but I don't know exactly where. The Scoresby Sund is the biggest fjord in the world, so hitting an ice dam there might be good, if perhaps a little too coincidental. I know you don't have the specific numbers, and the damage would depend on the size of the meteor (which can change as needed), so I'm just looking for an educated guess.

Rather than a continual melting as is occurring now with global warming, the impact would produce a relatively brief flood of meltwater. If this were to interfere with the thermohaline circulation, would it result in an unstoppable chain reaction type effect, shutting down the North Atlantic Current? Is it possible for the current to be disrupted or slowed temporarily (say for a few years) before restoring itself? The Calvin article states that "local failures can occur without catastrophe," but I don't know what would be the relative scale of a failure caused by impact meltwater. I assume if the NAC shuts down entirely, we might have a situation similar to the Younger Dryas, and I don't want that to happen.

If the NAC is disrupted briefly (maybe a few years to a decade), I know this will have a significant impact on northern and western Europe, but what about further inland? Would eastern Europe (including European Russia) and southern Europe also have similarly bad winters? I'm also concerned about the potential effects of this situation outside of Europe. Would other areas of the world be significantly affected if the NAC disruption is only brief? Basically, I'm trying to reach a happy medium in which Europe is crippled by abnormally cold weather but in which other areas of the world are relatively unaffected.

Expert's response:

North East or Central. The drainage of Greenland appears to to to the east, but a large impact would really stir things up. Looking at the diagrams in the article, it looks like a large influx of fresh water from the large fiord would disrupt the hypersaline south bound loop between Greenland and Iceland. So that would work I think. The placement isn't that important as an impact would melt ice and the runnoff would go to the south and east. An impact in the central part of the continent would be in the area of the thickest ice so you'd expect a larger volume of melt water cascading to the east.

See here for a nice thickness map:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet

The thickest ice is just west of the large fiord and almost central to the continent.

I think greater Europe would be affected that is the Ukraine and parts of eastern Russia, but that would not be on the scale of Europe with such a dense population. I should think N. America and the tropics would not be affected much if at all except the cascade effect on the global economy...what would we do without french cheese and wine and german bier!!??

Certainly the effects would last a generation or more before anything like the Younger Dryas kicked in. We are talking hundreds to thousands of years here. The impact would probably be pretty rapid as the ports froze up and the weather- the mean annual temperatures plunged in the Western European countries. Ireland and England started seeing perenial ice fields forming in the highlands as does Spain and S. France. Glaciers started to advance in the Alps, Norway and Scandinavia. Project what you see in N. Canada to the same latitudes in Europe. the impact on Great Britain, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands (no more tulips!) and Belgians (a return to the dark ages for the monks which might help their production of belgian ales if they can get grain!) The North Sea and Baltic would become ice bound not fully breaking up after winter.
The ice hazard and conditions would impact oil and gas production in the N. Sea and raise the cost of production, like in the Barent Straits, curtailing the funds from oil production when Great Britain, Norway and others need it the most. Civil unrest in Great Britain would escalate as a lower and middle class used to being taken care of by the socialist system rebels due to soaring heating and food costs. The ice would do what the Nazi submarines failed to do in WWII, cut off the islands from the rest of the world.

I think you's see the European Union break up as those less impacted would not want to bear the burden of those hardest hit. Old nationalism would raise its head. Weakened authority might see opportunistic factions..radical Muslims in France and Spain...take advantage.

The rest of the world might see lower oil prices if the demand in Europe was curtailed by crisis.
You cold see factions in W.Russia, Poland sabotage pipelines for delivery to oil and gas to W. Europe as panic gripped those areas and fear that they shouldn't be sending "their" oil and gas away when they might indeed need it themselves.

I generally thing you can find your happy medium, since no one really knows the rapidity such events would take. I am sure you can find ways that Europe becomes isolated. The US might have to start actually producing a lot of stuff at home rather than importing it. Or we shift the trade to Asia or revert to isolationism as politics at home force our government to pull back from Europe as things cascade out of control.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My question:

Actually, in my story, I intend for the meteor to hit Greenland during the medieval era, perhaps around the time of the Black Death for maximum damage to Europe. I'm guessing that European society way back then would be even more susceptible to collapse than today. You said that eastern Europe would get bad winters too, if perhaps not as bad as western and northern Europe. As for southern Europe, though, I was thinking that the Mediterranean would help to moderate the climate, meaning Italy, Spain, and the Balkans wouldn't experience as bad winters as northern Europe. Is this wrong?

I understand that it would take a long time for the world to fully feel the effects of the onset of a Younger Dryas-type climate change. What I'm trying to avoid is having this meteor impact disrupt the North Atlantic Current so much that it eventually leads to the world plunging into another ice age. What I'd like is for the impact meltwater to temporarily interfere with the North Atlantic Current, perhaps for a few years, long enough for several really bad winters to cripple Europe. After this though, I'd like the North Atlantic Current to stabilize once again rather than shutting down. Can all this be accomplished by an appropriately-sized meteor impact in northeast or central Greenland? Or is it a case of I can't have one without the other? That is to say, is it realistic to wreck Europe with a temporary disruption of the North Atlantic Current, and also have the current re-stabilize itself after a few years?

Expert's response:

Actually, I think society in Medieval times would withstand it better than today since most people were on a subsistence level anyway. The plague killed of over 1/3 of the population in some areas but life went on.

The local Dukes or Barons would have suffered as their income waned but society based on feudalism would not change much.

As to Spain and the other Mediteranean countries, I think they would cool off too. According to the article, the cooler northern latitude winds are warmed by the warm surface waters from the tropics and looking at the latitude of "sunny" Italy, I see that it is at 45 degrees north. The same as central Maine. I lived in Maine as a kid. We had two months of summer and one of fall and spring and 8 months of winter...well not that bad but pretty bad. Spain would be like Michigan and Wisconsin. Without the effects of the warming winds, I could see the Med getting pretty frigid come wintertime.

I wouldn't over think it. You could have a meteor hit, or even a major prolonged volcanic eruption in Iceland, Sicily or Italy that casts a volcanic pall over the northern latitudes. Or combine the meteor strike with the resulting ejecta causing a prolonged "nuclear" winter. The meltwater disruption and the ash or ejecta pall would cause a rapid short term climate collapse that would clear itself up in few years. If the pall were confined to the northern latitudes by the jet stream the Med might not suffer as much. That would work.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

So if no one has any objections about the plausibility of the method of wrecking Europe and nowhere else, I believe I might go with the meteor impact concept. My intended POD is around 1350, during the Black Death, for the maximum devastation to Europe, but I'm flexible on the date.

Unfortunately, the second crucial part of my TL, having the Aztecs (and Incas, if possible) advance far enough so as to be able to ward off Old World conquerors, is looking flimsier by the minute. I would be grateful for any assistance on this matter.
 
Last edited:

Maur

Banned
Well, it's what i was afraid of. Too bad, i really liked the impact idea.


I did some calculations (although i might be mistaken by few orders of magnitude - i did it without aid, not even pen and paper) and it seems that energy required to melt half of Greenland ice - and that's directly applied energy, not counting any losses, concentration - is 80E9 megatons of TNT, which, incidentally, is few orders of magnitude more than Jurassic extinction event, and most likely will destroy most of life on Earth.

Yeah, H2O takes a lot of energy to melt. Back to drawing board it seems.


EDIT/ Actually, it could wipe out all multicellural life on Earth :D
 
Well, it's what i was afraid of. Too bad, i really liked the impact idea.


I did some calculations (although i might be mistaken by few orders of magnitude - i did it without aid, not even pen and paper) and it seems that energy required to melt half of Greenland ice - and that's directly applied energy, not counting any losses, concentration - is 80E9 megatons of TNT, which, incidentally, is few orders of magnitude more than Jurassic extinction event, and most likely will destroy most of life on Earth.

Yeah, H2O takes a lot of energy to melt. Back to drawing board it seems.


EDIT/ Actually, it could wipe out all multicellural life on Earth :D

No, no, no -- the impact idea is indeed scientifically plausible. So I am going with it, unless someone manages to shoot it down. I don't need to melt half the ice on Greenland, just a little bit to mess up the North Atlantic Current for a few years. So it only takes a small meteor to do the job, not a dino-killer. Incidentally, I'd like to credit Nugax for inspiring this idea; I just tweaked his suggestion from a volcano to a meteor impact.

The trouble I have is with saving the Aztecs and Incas. I may start a new thread on that, as the topic strays a bit from the original purpose of this thread.
 
Last edited:
Top