Alternate North American colonizers?

[Cicero the Younger]

I'm looking for a way to justify Marco Polo, Columbus, Leif Ericcson, the Irish monk that found Iceland types from a *religious* point of view.

Marco Polo knew perfectly well that there were people where he was going. He wasn't an explorer, he was a trader.

Columbus thought he was going where one group of people was, and only by accident ended up in a place where other people were. Once news of the land he did find came back to Spain, more expeditions were sent for both financial and religious purposes.

Leif Ericson knew North America was there because Bjarni Herjolfsson had stumbled across it by accident and brought the news back.

New lands are usually found by accident. The important thing is what happens next. Of course a theocratic regime isn't going to send out explorers in the vague hope that there's another land out there they can convert. But Spain didn't send Columbus out in the vague hope that America would be there, either. His voyage was daring and trailblazing, and people at the time knew it, but he didn't set out solely for the purpose of being a trailblazer. He wasn't exploring for the pure "liberal" sake of exploration. Spain wanted a better way to trade with the Far East, and he thought he'd come up with one.

Once the new lands are found, a theocratic regime isn't going to refrain from colonizing it because of some bizarre liberal/conservative dichotomy that says that exploration is a liberal venture. If their big thing is converting heathens, and they've just learned that there's a vast new land over the horizon with fresh heathens to convert, they're going to do it.

Edit:
Oh, and by the way:

Yes yes, religion is the cause of the greatest # of deaths in the world, and also the greatest excuse for plundering (see Conquistadore and 'White mans Burden')

Saying that dismissively doesn't make it less true. If you sincerely believe that God wants you to murder me and take my things, then that's exactly what you'll try to do. And you won't hold back just because I live far away and traveling to where I am to get me is a "liberal" thing to do. You may be stopped by any number of factors, but you're not going to disobey your deity because you think that staying home is the appropriate "conservative" option.

 

[Cuāuhtemōc]

Ireland at this point could be available. Nothing like a large scale migration of Irishmen to North America but small colonies and trading posts would be pretty nice.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Uh, yes. I don't think it's the reaching America part thats the problem, and certainly early Ming vessels and probably other Asian vessels could have, after all it's Heyerdahl showed that pretty much even the ancient Egyptians _could_ have reached America. it's much, much more a matter of why would they? Create an incentive for those Asian powers to sail east and they could have. But there was none.

I could bring up Zheng He, as people always do; and I know that he was pretty much just cruising along the coastline in well-known routes. But I haven't seen any evidence that Asian vessels couldn't, physically, get to America, though correct me if I'm wrong.

I think there is an opportunity for the Japanese, and they were going the right way with the Red Seal ships (built admittedly with European help), which could and did reach the Americas. As mentioned earlier, California was up for grabs at that stage. All that is really necessary would be to create a compelling reason for the Japanese (or the Chinese or Koreans, or Koxinga's pirates, or whoever) to do so, and that's the hard part IMO, more than deficiencies in nautical technology.

It's not enough to have vessels that can reach America if everything imaginable goes right, you have to be able to reach America reliably. That wasn't possible for Europeans before when it happened, and it seems unlikely that an Asian state would have, beyond the total lack of motivation you mentioned, the real ability to maintain a colony over such a massive distance.

 

[Workable Goblin]

I dig that about what's called "colonies" versus not, that's very funny, I never considered that! It reminds me of the "none dare call it treason" line.

You could add the Greeks in as well. I mean, that's what "colony" originally meant: A bunch of people from one city traveled somewhere else around the Med, often somewhere where the conditions were not *terribly* dissimilar to North America in the 1600s IOTL, and found a city for trading and settlement purposes. Maybe there wasn't enough land at the old city, maybe the new city is located at some favorable position on the trade routes, whatever. The new city would then be associated with the old city--it would be its "colony"--for some time. So yeah. Colonizing Europe.

 

[Tobit]

You could add the Greeks in as well. I mean, that's what "colony" originally meant: A bunch of people from one city traveled somewhere else around the Med, often somewhere where the conditions were not *terribly* dissimilar to North America in the 1600s IOTL, and found a city for trading and settlement purposes. Maybe there wasn't enough land at the old city, maybe the new city is located at some favorable position on the trade routes, whatever. The new city would then be associated with the old city--it would be its "colony"--for some time. So yeah. Colonizing Europe.

Florence during the 1500's and 1400's had many colonies scattered through Europe. These were banking colonies, but they still considered themselves Florentine and loyal to the Duke. Unless there was revolution back in Florence and the colonials returned to Florence to raise armies against whoever they disagreed with.

 

[Cuāuhtemōc]

Though colonies in the New World would be in a whole different ball-game, it doesn't have the population to send large numbers of people abroad.

 

[Workable Goblin]

Florence during the 1500's and 1400's had many colonies scattered through Europe. These were banking colonies, but they still considered themselves Florentine and loyal to the Duke. Unless there was revolution back in Florence and the colonials returned to Florence to raise armies against whoever they disagreed with.

I don't think that's really colonization; colonization requires that the colonists take hold of a certain area of land for their own purposes, ruled only by their home state or by themselves (migration into relatively empty areas and displacement of the native population is colonization), even if there is no "home" state), and with a reasonably large population, at least several hundred people. If the Florentines were colonizing Europe, then the Jews tried to colonize half of Eurasia!

 

[Tobit]

I don't think that's really colonization; colonization requires that the colonists take hold of a certain area of land for their own purposes, ruled only by their home state or by themselves (migration into relatively empty areas and displacement of the native population is colonization), even if there is no "home" state), and with a reasonably large population, at least several hundred people. If the Florentines were colonizing Europe, then the Jews tried to colonize half of Eurasia!

That may be true for you. But colony is the term the Florentines used.

 

[Jester]

Thats more a diaspora.

 

[sansahansan]

Marco Polo knew perfectly well that there were people where he was going. He wasn't an explorer, he was a trader.

Yes, but not how to get there. But absolutely, motivated by money.

... more expeditions were sent for both financial and religious purposes.

precisely my point!

Leif Ericson knew North America was there because Bjarni Herjolfsson had stumbled across it by accident and brought the news back.

Accidentaly discovery, quite right. As you say...

New lands are usually found by accident. The important thing is what happens next. Of course a theocratic regime isn't going to send out explorers in the vague hope that there's another land out there they can convert.

Yes, no theocracy we know of... but that's what I'm trying to conceive, is a religious based drive to send explorers out into the unkown - not even necessarily to convert, but find

But Spain didn't send Columbus out in the vague hope that America would be there, either. His voyage was daring and trailblazing, and people at the time knew it, but he didn't set out solely for the purpose of being a trailblazer. He wasn't exploring for the pure "liberal" sake of exploration.

I'm not sure how exploration can be conducted for 'liberal' sake, but I'd prefer to avoid any politically charged semantic discussion regarding what is, or is not, liberal... (too many foamy mouthed fanatics out there)
Regardless, Columbus was also monetarily motivated (which I'd thought was my point)

Once the new lands are found, a theocratic regime isn't going to refrain from colonizing it because of some bizarre liberal/conservative dichotomy that says that exploration is a liberal venture. If their big thing is converting heathens, and they've just learned that there's a vast new land over the horizon with fresh heathens to convert, they're going to do it.

Well, yeah. As repeatedly demonstrated in our TL.
Now, in an alternate TL however, could there be a theocratic regime that would a) fanatically explore as a form of worship and b) equally fanatically NOT colonize as it would contradict some core beliefs of their system?

Edit:
Oh, and by the way:

Saying that dismissively doesn't make it less true. If you sincerely believe that God wants you to murder me and take my things, then that's exactly what you'll try to do. And you won't hold back just because I live far away and traveling to where I am to get me is a "liberal" thing to do. You may be stopped by any number of factors, but you're not going to disobey your deity because you think that staying home is the appropriate "conservative" option.

1) I'm certainly not jonesing to murder and steal...
2) Other than that, and my confusion around your repeated use of 'liberal', I do tend to agree with your statement as it pertains to the belief system you outlined albeit scantily.

You stated a belief in god that drives one to murder and steal (or is a reasonable facsimile of an excuse)- irregardless of distance (and/or presumably of politics).
So yes, that belief will cause you try and travel to somewhere, kill the people there, and take their stuff.
not disagreeing with that

However, I'm looking for a cause of some sort that would create a religious belief system incorporating the following:
1) Fanatic frantic exploration and constant seeking of 'new lands'
2) Fanatic frantic expansion of core population to found colonies in the wake of the explorers.
3) A strong motivation to peace and not armed conflict with natives of new lands unless required for self-defense, in which case genocide is acceptable (within the religious beliefs)
4) A strong driving core belief in converting the world to the faith by outbreeding and outpopulating everyone else


Liberal vs Conservative hasn't a place there - it just is the way it is, presumably due to being a theocracy, etc.


However, now that I've explained myself, I'll take the topic off this thread so we don't hijack it I think it's a reasonable discussion all on its own, and quite distinctly different from the OT.


Whom I hope has had an interesting read, if nothing else

 

[Cicero the Younger]

I'm not sure how exploration can be conducted for 'liberal' sake, but I'd prefer to avoid any politically charged semantic discussion regarding what is, or is not, liberal... (too many foamy mouthed fanatics out there)

You're the one that said exploration was a liberal venture that was incompatible with the conservatism of theocracy. To be precise, you said:

I cannot square the natural conservatism of theocracy with the liberalism needed to 'boldy go where no man has gone before',

I wouldn't have introduced those terms, but once they were introduced, I think it was justifiable for me to repeat them in order to refute the claim.

1) I'm certainly not jonesing to murder and steal...

*Sigh* It was just an example, and that was a non-specific "you", as in "one", as in "anybody".

However, now that I've explained myself, I'll take the topic off this thread so we don't hijack it I think it's a reasonable discussion all on its own, and quite distinctly different from the OT.

Fair enough. I'll join you in the new thread.

 

[tormsen]

It's not enough to have vessels that can reach America if everything imaginable goes right, you have to be able to reach America reliably. That wasn't possible for Europeans before when it happened, and it seems unlikely that an Asian state would have, beyond the total lack of motivation you mentioned, the real ability to maintain a colony over such a massive distance.

I see your point, and I don't necessarily disagree, but I question your last point. Why wouldn't they have been able to maintain a colony over the massive distance, if they had for whatever reason wanted to? It didn't take all that long, considering, for Europeans to go from not being able to sail across the Atlatnic, to crossing regularly to and fro across the Pacific. Therefore, all I'm saying is that if there was a motivation to maintain a colony on the Americas, that it wouldn't necessarily have been impossible from a technologically point of view.

Wasn't there a case of some Japanese fishermen managing to find themselves blown all the way to California in the 19th century. It probably happened earlier in history too, though with little to no trace on the historical record. Deliberate attempts would yield much more success.

 

[Cicero the Younger]

It's not enough to have vessels that can reach America if everything imaginable goes right, you have to be able to reach America reliably. That wasn't possible for Europeans before when it happened, and it seems unlikely that an Asian state would have, beyond the total lack of motivation you mentioned, the real ability to maintain a colony over such a massive distance.

We're not talking about ancient Asians with tiny fishing junks. We're talking about the Age of Discovery, and Asia was not in a vacuum. Already in the 1500s Portuguese missionaries and traders had been active in Japan. At the very beginning of the 1600s William Adams turned up and became respected enough to have Tokugawa's ear and be made a samurai. And he knew ships. He could have taught the shogunate how to build ships every bit as good as the ones the English had, and had more experts brought in from England or the Netherlands. It's only because the shogunate made the conscious decision to expel foreigners and forbid the Japanese to travel that this didn't happen. Simply take away that decision, and the rest of it becomes easy.

 

[mbanghar]

Morocco: Usually only considered when trying to figure out a way to have Grenada or the Ottoman Empire colonize the Americas, Morocco was a sophisticated and advanced state that probably could have done so on its own.

Okay I read this a few days ago, and I must say this idea has really intrigued me. I really didn't know a whole lot about Morocco. The very little I did had to do with the late 18th century and relations with the then fledgling United States.

That said after searching what I can on the internet I thought an interesting timeline might be Morocco attempting to colonize the Americas under al-Mansur sometime in the area of 1590-1610. Some of the issues about ship building could be solved through the Anglo-Moroccan Alliance. The English did trade naval grade timber to Moroccans, and al-Mansur demanded oars, carpenters and shipwrights amongst other things to help the English support Don Antonio's claim to the Portuguese throne.

A scenario I somewhat can envision from my limited research into this area of history is al-Mansur and Elisabeth coming to agreement that would allow English ship builders and timber to come into Morocco. Perhaps the Anglo-Moroccan campaign would be successful in placing Don Antonio on the Portuguese throne. This would open the possibility of Cueta returning to Moroccan hands. Al-Mansur then might listen to his advisors advice about the Sudan campaign, and instead focus the religious motivations towards conversion of a new population known to exsist in the Americas. This might also allow al-Mansur to sort out the dynastic succession issues that brought the Saadi dynasty to an end by sending one of his sons to the West as a colonizer. For colonies to really work probably has to take place in the early to late 1590s, and al-Mansur probably needs to survive another decade past 1603.

Would it be plausible for al-Mansur to look west instead of south to satisfy his expansionist goals? I am not sure, but I think it would be interesting. The other thoughts I saw about Morocco are useful ideas. Thoughts?

 

[adrianodatreviso]

Italian unification earlier

Hmm... if an Italian state managed to unify enough, could there be Italian colonization of the New World?

Yes, if:
a)italian unification in the 14th-15th century
b)strong central power
c)wealth middle class
d)good relations with Pope
e)some international conditions have to be favorable to Italy, i.e. Ottomans weaker

 

[Wendell]

Yes, if:
a)italian unification in the 14th-15th century
b)strong central power
c)wealth middle class
d)good relations with Pope
e)some international conditions have to be favorable to Italy, i.e. Ottomans weaker

The Pope may not even have to be in Italy with the right POD.