AHC: Ireland, Scotland or Wales lead the age of discovery a la Portugal

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
That's the challenge, have the Celtic fringe be the leaders in establishing sustained European trans-oceanic navigation, either round Africa, or to the Americas (at all latitudes) or both.
 
This is a very tall order. For various reasons, none of these nations had much of a merchant marine during the middle ages, making it difficult for them to take the lead in transatlantic settlement and exploration. Ireland and Wales never really formed lasting national kingdoms, leaving Scotland as the only possible option. Scotland had the advantage of being relatively close to Canada, New England and Nova Scotia, but the misfortune of being constantly threatened by a stronger power to the South (England).

If Scotland was every going to get a head start on the new world exploration, it would probably under James IV. James IV was intelligent, inquisitive, and generally a good organizer. He built up the Scottish navy almost from scratch in order to bring rebellious isles to heel, and, just as importantly invested in building port facilities to continue the expansion of his navy. If Henry VII had been distracted, broke, or otherwise disinclined, James IV MIGHT have been able to secure the services of Giovanni Cabutto (John Cabot) to explore the New World, and lay claim to Newfoundland and other parts of North America for Scotland.

If Scotland was vastly more successful during their invasion of England, and, say, forced England to pay tribute, Scotland would be in a good position to stake a claim to the New World. Relations with France would be cordial enough for them not to interfere (and France would soon be distracted by religious strife). Between 1515 and 1559 (while Europe outside the Iberian Peninsula was completely distracted by the Italian Wars), Scotland would have its window to expand in North America. Newfoundland and Nova Scotia would seem like obvious targets because of the nearby fishing grounds, and climate being comparably similar to Scotland's.

Expansion in South America would be unlikely for several reasons. Spain dominated that territory from the start, and Scotland was a co-belligerent of Spain's enemy, France.
 

archaeogeek

Banned
Scotland remaining independent might help.

If Glyndwr's rebellion worked out, you have wales in control of Bristol and England split (although the majority of the population was in Mortimer's part of it), so it could help. But this is a tall order.
 
Last edited:
Inspired by this thread: https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=164653

Margaret of Scotland lives longer and succeeds her father Alexander III instead of her daughter Margaret, Maid of Norway. She and her husband Eric II of Norway move to Scotland and have heirs, while the Norwegian kingdom is put under the administration of Eric's brother Haakon. So, Scotland keeps the independence under the Faihair dynasty, with a personal union with Norway, and the English occupation is avoided.

However, when Eric dies and his son becomes king the Norwegians refuse to continue to be ruled from abroad, and recognize Haakon or his son as their king. The Scotish monarch also refuse to give up his claim to Norway, and a succession war starts. Somehow the Scotish monarch manages to secure loyalty to him him in Orkney, Shetland or even the Faroe or Iceland. This forces the Scotish to create a Navy in order to attack the supporters of the Norwegian king and/or protect their loyalist forces there.

In the end of the conflict the kingdoms are divided, but the islands are kept by Scotland, that needs to keep warships and a merchant Navy to connect them to the mainland. This creates a stronger maritime tradition there, and eventually some Scotish captain sails from Iceland in order to find those settlements of Greenland and try to discover the lost territories of Vinland.
 

Thande

Donor
Scotland could conceivably have done it, but at this point Wales was part of England and Ireland was a bunch of minor feuding states under varying degrees of English influence. The only way to get a connection would be to have a navigator FROM Wales or Ireland do it on behalf of some other country, like how the Genoese Columbus sailed for Portugal in OTL.
 
About Ireland, how about St. Brendan's voyage (if it actually happened) being replicated and leading to dribs and drabs of Irish migration to the New World?

Obviously we're not talking state-sponsored voyages of discovery, but maybe some kind of Celtic Volkswandring (sp?).

Perhaps the last wave of emigration is prompted by the Norman invasion?
 
Your POD could even be later...

...Suspicions exist that mediaeval Breton and British fishermen may have discovered the Grand Banks fishery before Cabot ever came near the New Found Land. With the Church controlling the Greenland fishery, they'd have every reason to keep it a Guild mystery...
 
One option would be to have the Scottish have a good navy by 1500s and explore and settle in the Maritimes. They can also recruit explorers, mercenaries and settlers from Ireland and thus having Ireland participate.
 
like how the Genoese Columbus sailed for Portugal in OTL.

Sailed for Spain :p. My word man, have you lost it?

Anyway, Scottish discovery of the New World wouldn't have been as dramatic as when the Spanish did it, I don't think. Scotland doesn't have the same manpower or population, or as great a means to conquer. However we could see a larger scale survival of the Natives in this scenario. If Scotland discovers Hudson Bay, the St Lawrence and subsequently the Great Lakes, we could see a Scottish dominance in that area while South of that the Spanish or Portuguese remain in charge.
 
A couple of things I'd note:

1) Scotland did actually make a brief attempt to seize and settle Acadia.

2) That happened at about the time of mass-migration by southwestern Scots to Ulster.

So, slightly random thought, but England stays Catholic = no Plantations = population pressure on the southwest leads Scots to migrate to America instead? If the French don't get their first, we might just about see Scottish Maritimes, though I doubt they could attract everybody who settled Ulster IOTL.

Honestly, though, we haven't the population and resources to lead anything.
 
Well, population isn't a problem: there are hundreds of millions of people across the world of Scots descent today. Tens of thousands emigrated to Europe in the absense of any better options during the C17th. There's always been land hunger in Scotland (because much of the country is so damned inhospitable), so getting the people together to settle the New World isn't the problem. The problem is one of political willpower, and resources.

Keep James IV alive, and keep him from getting entangled in wars against England, and you have the perfect Renaissance prince to lead a Scottish exploration of the New World. A man who can cobble together the funding to build the biggest warship in the world of it's time can surely get together enough money to send an explorer or two to Nova Scotia. Nova Scotia could be fairly easily settled. It's got all the things a Scots settlement needs: fish, wood, hunting.

What's quite interesting is that there would probably be a more 'mixed race' settlement under Scottish rule. While there are plenty of people willing to leave Scotland, they will probably be arriving much more slowly and in smaller numbers than they would from a country with plenty of money for trans-Atlantic voyages. Scottish Nova Scotia will be more mestizo than white. You can expect Scottish fur-trappers to take M'iqmaq and Beothuk wives, given that most of the initial Scottish settlement will be male-dominated. Other than that, there might be one or two towns of more than a thousand people.

Depending how far you want these settlements to process, you could push small colonies down the coast. It's unlikely that any major towns would be founded, it's more likely to be an informal percolation of individuals down the Eastern Seaboard, who will come in contact with other European explorers. Much like Scottish penetration of the Cherokee nation in the C18th. In fact, it's quite likely that the Scots traders in question will assimilate to the natives, given their small numbers.

It's doubtful that the 'formal' Scottish colonies would be particularly big; they're likely to include Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, maybe New Brunswick, with extremely loose protectorates over the native tribes inland.

If they offend the natives, it's doubful that any Scots settlement would be able to resist a sustained native attack. Any place where Scottish traders aren't welcome will soon enough chase them out. For the brief while that Scotland has a monopoly on furs and tobacco, though, it'll be happy times for the Exchequer in Edinburgh.
 
Portugal didn't have either, but it didn't stop them.;)

Didn't about a third of the Portuguese migrate to Brazil in the 18th Century?

If the same happens with the Scottish(to the Maritimes), then we have a really good number. If the Scottish had like 1million inhabitants in 1700, then there would be like 300.000 people going to the colonies. And once there, they could continue the expansion of the colonies by themselves, fighthing the Natives and settling new areas.
 
Top