America discovered earlier

Native tribes have extra time to recover after the introduction of European plagues and it's more likely that the native American empires survive in some fashion.
 
Perhaps some crazy Moorish sailor, fearing that the Crusades might sever the Islamic world in two, and making the same miscalculations as Columbus, convinces his leaders to back an expedition? This would be particularly interesting if it coincided with the Vinland colony... Christian Vikings of the New World raiding Islamic colonies, anyone?
 

Mrstrategy

Banned
Perhaps some crazy Moorish sailor, fearing that the Crusades might sever the Islamic world in two, and making the same miscalculations as Columbus, convinces his leaders to back an expedition? This would be particularly interesting if it coincided with the Vinland colony... Christian Vikings of the New World raiding Islamic colonies, anyone?
Anyone wants to write a timeline?
 

jahenders

Banned
Native tribes have extra time to recover after the introduction of European plagues and it's more likely that the native American empires survive in some fashion.

Going 100+ years earlier helps in two main ways:
1) It gives the natives more time to recover before Europe is going to be ready to settle/explore/conquer to any degree
2) There's also slightly less disparity in technology as the Europeans (might not be Spanish) would have few, if any, arquebuses or cannon that could go ashore; the armor would likely be lighter, and the ships would be somewhat less capable.

Taken together, these put the natives at considerably less disadvantage.
 
Going 100+ years earlier helps in two main ways:
1) It gives the natives more time to recover before Europe is going to be ready to settle/explore/conquer to any degree
2) There's also slightly less disparity in technology as the Europeans (might not be Spanish) would have few, if any, arquebuses or cannon that could go ashore; the armor would likely be lighter, and the ships would be somewhat less capable.

Taken together, these put the natives at considerably less disadvantage.

Politics are different then to, Granada is still around and I am not sure how the Iberian powers looked at each other but the marriage alliance was not in place yet. Also as you said tech and development was 100 years earlier.
 
So 12,100 bce rather than 12,000 bce? As I've always believed external forces trigger development rather than "people+place+time=modern society", I would imagine the first Americans wouldn't look significantly different than IOTL when Columbus and his ilk invaded.
 

jahenders

Banned
Politics are different then to, Granada is still around and I am not sure how the Iberian powers looked at each other but the marriage alliance was not in place yet. Also as you said tech and development was 100 years earlier.

Quite true. If Europeans went to, and started colonizing, the Americas in 1392 or so, the backers might have been Venice, Milan or other Italian states. Alternately it could be Scandinavians (under the Kalmar Union) or France or Britain (after the Caroline War portion of the 100 years war).
 
Quite true. If Europeans went to, and started colonizing, the Americas in 1392 or so, the backers might have been Venice, Milan or other Italian states. Alternately it could be Scandinavians (under the Kalmar Union) or France or Britain (after the Caroline War portion of the 100 years war).
Each of which would come with its own immensely interesting set of butterflies. But are the Italian states really plausible?
 

jahenders

Banned
Each of which would come with its own immensely interesting set of butterflies. But are the Italian states really plausible?

I think so. They were the financiers of the time and could have funded some daring expedition(s). Once they saw the opportunity for profit, they'd happily invest more in follow-ons. Anyway, that could lead to the first colonies.

The physically (and militarily) larger powers would soon get involved, but you could certainly have some substantial colonies controlled from those Italian states. The Spanish, Portuguese, et al would likely hem them in and grab the big areas. However, the Italians could have some substantial colonies that were 'protectable' enough to be secure and enduring domains -- Cuba, Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Florida, and maybe the Yucatan. They could also make some early stops around the Carribbean coasts and Northern South America.

If things shaped up this way, it would lead to an earlier introduction of disease and technology to the natives, but on a smaller, slower scale. Thus, when the Spanish et al started coming in greater numbers, the natives would likely be more resistant and knowledgeable.
 
I think so. They were the financiers of the time and could have funded some daring expedition(s). Once they saw the opportunity for profit, they'd happily invest more in follow-ons. Anyway, that could lead to the first colonies.
I'm not convinced, until the XVIth century, the Italian cities get plenty of money through the "normal" spice routes.

It's only after 1453. the fall of Constantinople and the expulsion of Genoese merchants from Ottoman territory that the search began in earnest for an alternative route.
 
I'm not convinced, until the XVIth century, the Italian cities get plenty of money through the "normal" spice routes.

It's only after 1453. the fall of Constantinople and the expulsion of Genoese merchants from Ottoman territory that the search began in earnest for an alternative route.

I agree but there has to be some other earlier crisis that could be used to temporarily cut Europe off from the spice routes.
 
I agree but there has to be some other earlier crisis that could be used to temporarily cut Europe off from the spice routes.
I'm not saying it's impossible, just saying it has to be quite big to disrupt the routes permanently.

You had three routes as it was:
  • Through the Caucasus, ending in the Black Sea
  • Through Persia ending in Lebanon
  • Through the Red Sea ending in Alexandria
The first one was mostly Genoese, the second one was mixed and the last was exclusively Venetian.

Writing this, is there really a need to disrupt the whole routes? You only had a handful a cities doing the trading. Let's say Venice gets amazing diplomatic skills and manages to convince the Ottomans to evict the Genoese from Lebanon. Then you have to find something to close of the Black Sea. For example, steppe invasion in the Caucasus, the Ottomans making an active effort to close those ports or too much piracy.

It nows means Venice is in total monopoly over the last leg of the route. It means a lot of money is now idle and that those people want to get back their spice trade.

Who are the big maritime players at that time?

Portuguese and Spanish are in no way able to do anything as they're fighting each other. England I don't know but I don't think so and Antweerp, I would say they don't have the technology.

So we need a nation facing West with high seafaring tech. Some place like Normandy. Normandy traders were making long distance trade with Guinea quite regularly in the 2nd half of the XVth century (I don't have sources in English but I can find them in French if interested). That means they knew how to travel on the ocean. If those merchants and sailors are backed by Genoese money, they could go explore straight west. That would be quite interesting to them as they wouldn't have the whole Priester John thing going on and map making was way less advanced at that time as well. So it would be believable for them to go west.

There, they would probably find the pelts which, while not spices, are still lucrative and would give an impetus to keep exploring.
 
Quite true. If Europeans went to, and started colonizing, the Americas in 1392 or so, the backers might have been Venice, Milan or other Italian states. Alternately it could be Scandinavians (under the Kalmar Union) or France or Britain (after the Caroline War portion of the 100 years war).
The Kalmar Union was created in 1397 and, in my opinion, they had some internal issues to resolve as well as having the Hanseatic League as a competitor. At this point they were more focused on the Baltic and I am doubtful that they could pull off colonization in the Americas. Just my two cents...
 

Yun-shuno

Banned
How do y'all think natives would fair against knights and longbowmen?

Given there are no guns yet in this scenario would the natives be on a bit more even footing militarily?
 
How do y'all think natives would fair against knights and longbowmen?

Given there are no guns yet in this scenario would the natives be on a bit more even footing militarily?

There were other things that doomed the natives more than the guns. They were the germs, the steel, horses and the logistic organization of the Europeans.
Of all these, the Europeans were less evlved only at the latest one. The natives will be killed with same efficacy by long swords, longbows and lances.
 
If this is the 14th century, Europe can pack a few hand cannons. They'd produce the same effect later firearms did--smoke, noise, and terror. They still have steel armour, horses, and swords, and crossbows will be highly effective--I believe Cortes used crossbows, albeit more advanced, later ones.

The biggest thing is bringing all this to the New World with the less advanced naval tech.
 
Top