America discovered earlier

Yun-shuno

Banned
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.
Surely with a smaller disease impact, and no firearms means the natives might just have a little easier life?
 
Surely with a smaller disease impact, and no firearms means the natives might just have a little easier life?

Why a smaller disease impact? Anything bigger than a Vinland-sized expedition is bringing over disease sooner or later. And I just said, anything 14th century or later will see Europeans packing hand cannons. They were used primarily OTL precisely because of the smoke and noise they made.

And anything North of Mexico will have Europeans and natives on basically the same footing in the 16th century and later, at least when the Europeans are on the offensive. Defensively Europeans will be a bit more disadvantaged thanks to the lack of artillery (medieval artillery just won't cut it) to defend their forts and settlements.
 

jahenders

Banned
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...

It would certainly take a shift in their focus and I doubt they could colonize on a large scale. However, they did have some significant seafaring capability and some of them (as the vikings) even had some history of going to some of those areas.

They might, for instance, put colonies in what's now Newfoundland, Labrador, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and maybe even Quebec and Maine. If these are sizable and stable enough, that might shift some later French/English settlement.
 

jahenders

Banned
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.

You raise a good point that they wouldn't necessarily be seeking an alternate route until disruption led them to. However, if some enterprising explorer put together a good enough proposal, some Italian bankers might take the risk. If they then get a decent return on investment and see opportunity for more, they might shift some focus that way.
 
It would certainly take a shift in their focus and I doubt they could colonize on a large scale. However, they did have some significant seafaring capability and some of them (as the vikings) even had some history of going to some of those areas.

They might, for instance, put colonies in what's now Newfoundland, Labrador, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and maybe even Quebec and Maine. If these are sizable and stable enough, that might shift some later French/English settlement.
Not doubting that Scandinavians had a significant seafaring ability but one may have to go back a bit to get a ruler from Denmark or Sweden to not focus on making the Baltic a lake of their own.

Interestingly enough, a friend of mine was working on a TL where Norway did not get hit as hard by the plague and was at the forefront of American colonization. Never got a chance to look at it to see the plausibility of it and I am not sure he even posted it online or even finished it.
 
Why does everyone think 100 years is enough time to recover from diseases? Perhaps just smallpox... but youre talking smallpox and everything else imaginable except perhaps syphilis already was already present. Plus the pressures of ecology changes and conquerers with still slightly better weapons. Hard to get busy repopulating when you're also fighting for your life and dealing with learning how to adjust to new ways of life with horses and white man coming in killing beavers and introducing invasive species taking good land, etc. I dont think 100 years changes much if the amount of white (and more importantly black) people come over as per otl. Remember malaria didnt exist in America, so as soon as Europeans and Africans bring it over you will see entire ecological zones become inhabitable which used to be considered paradise.
 
I think a long while ago we had a discussion about how fast there might be residual resistance after introduction of smallpox. The answers I got were discouraging. There's almost no way to spread it around fast enough and keep it at that level. Today people don't die because of vaccinations. Back then, even Europeans died at rates that would frighten us today despite having been exposed to the disease for probably centuries if not a millennium plus (depending on what the Antonine Plague was)
 
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?

I don't think it will make any difference, honestly. The initial expeditions that resulted in conquest were all over the place, quality and equipment wise. Medieval expeditions will be the same. Some professionals, some knights, most of the rest sailors or servants. The gap in equipment is still huge.

The major disadvantages earlier conquerors have are 1. worse ships more vulnerable to tricky navigation and also slower to make the crossing to Europe and...yeah, that's it really. I am sure they will carry early gonnes for forts and ships anyway.
 
It would certainly take a shift in their focus and I doubt they could colonize on a large scale. However, they did have some significant seafaring capability and some of them (as the vikings) even had some history of going to some of those areas.

They might, for instance, put colonies in what's now Newfoundland, Labrador, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and maybe even Quebec and Maine. If these are sizable and stable enough, that might shift some later French/English settlement.

It could also breath new life into the Greenland colony, and Scandinavia could in theory send a high proportion of settlers relative to population.

Why does everyone think 100 years is enough time to recover from diseases? Perhaps just smallpox... but youre talking smallpox and everything else imaginable except perhaps syphilis already was already present. Plus the pressures of ecology changes and conquerers with still slightly better weapons. Hard to get busy repopulating when you're also fighting for your life and dealing with learning how to adjust to new ways of life with horses and white man coming in killing beavers and introducing invasive species taking good land, etc. I dont think 100 years changes much if the amount of white (and more importantly black) people come over as per otl. Remember malaria didnt exist in America, so as soon as Europeans and Africans bring it over you will see entire ecological zones become inhabitable which used to be considered paradise.

It's not, as evidenced by the huge amount of epidemics that regularly killed 25%-50% of entire tribes into the 1700s and beyond. We probably can't even grasp the whole scale of it since records are so sparse for North America pre-1700 (and East Coast/New Mexico pre-1600). And I don't buy for a second it was just Europeans

Then the settled cultures in Mesoamerica/Andes, well, we're talking a plague worse than the Black Death in Europe, we're talking something that is utter apocalypse. And it'll keep coming back, again, and again, and again, and each time it'll be almost as bad until it isn't. And that's just smallpox!

I don't think it will make any difference, honestly. The initial expeditions that resulted in conquest were all over the place, quality and equipment wise. Medieval expeditions will be the same. Some professionals, some knights, most of the rest sailors or servants. The gap in equipment is still huge.

The major disadvantages earlier conquerors have are 1. worse ships more vulnerable to tricky navigation and also slower to make the crossing to Europe and...yeah, that's it really. I am sure they will carry early gonnes for forts and ships anyway.

Smaller than cannons, slightly less noisy, less likely to kill (compare being shot to being blown into bits). So still a disadvantage on the defensive when defending forts.
 
You should not underestimate the difference in political context. What was decisive in Pizarro's conquest of the Inca empire in the 1530's was that the Inca empire was then to en apart by a civil war. Without this, there may not have been a spanish conquest of the Inca empire.

Things may not have turned differently concerning the Aztec empire since its foundations were very fragile.
 
You should not underestimate the difference in political context. What was decisive in Pizarro's conquest of the Inca empire in the 1530's was that the Inca empire was then to en apart by a civil war. Without this, there may not have been a spanish conquest of the Inca empire.

Things may not have turned differently concerning the Aztec empire since its foundations were very fragile.

A civil war brought on by smallpox no less. But I agree the conquest of the Inca is basically ASB that somehow happened. It will be some very, very hard times for them and I think it's probably reasonable they don't end up much better than Peru did OTL.

Oh, and not to mention, if you get the Americas discovered early enough, you won't even have an Inca Empire, it could be the Chimu or another group instead or something.
 
Oh, and not to mention, if you get the Americas discovered early enough, you won't even have an Inca Empire, it could be the Chimu or another group instead or something.

Very much this. The Inca themselves were a very new thing. And we don't know what happened before them to nearly the same degree.

As for early guns: 15th c. ones were enough to let the Hussites do their thing over and over, and to force the English infantry out of their camp to be ridden down by the French at Castillon. So they weren't as good as 16th c. field guns but they were good enough for the job they were meant to do anyway.
 
You raise a good point that they wouldn't necessarily be seeking an alternate route until disruption led them to. However, if some enterprising explorer put together a good enough proposal, some Italian bankers might take the risk. If they then get a decent return on investment and see opportunity for more, they might shift some focus that way.
I mean, it's an off chance.

Maybe a merchant barred from the merchant guilds of Italy, seeking fortune elsewhere. Maybe someone who has been wronged before...

One night at a tavern, they speak with a bunch of Norman sailors and create the plan.

It COULD happen but I don't think it's likely.

They already get as high a return as they could hope through the spices in the "regular" system. If they want something different, they can get Guinea gold. I just don't see the economic motivation in going a-exploring. That's why the first steps of space travel were state sponsored after all :)
 
Can someone clarify what kinds of guns were used circa Columbus and Cortes days? Were they the kinds that literally you had a match that you lit and used to lite the fuse? And they mostly had to be mounted first on tripods correct? Seems like even if Europeans come a century earlier then the crossbow will be as effective as far as penetration, range, probably better aim by quite a bit, and certainly much quicker reloading and ability to shoot during rain and weather conditions. Is it accurate to say guns per se if they really are in the top three reasons why Europeans did so well it's a distant third behind germs by a far margin and steel as a second place.
 
Can someone clarify what kinds of guns were used circa Columbus and Cortes days? Were they the kinds that literally you had a match that you lit and used to lite the fuse? And they mostly had to be mounted first on tripods correct? Seems like even if Europeans come a century earlier then the crossbow will be as effective as far as penetration, range, probably better aim by quite a bit, and certainly much quicker reloading and ability to shoot during rain and weather conditions. Is it accurate to say guns per se if they really are in the top three reasons why Europeans did so well it's a distant third behind germs by a far margin and steel as a second place.

They were mostly matchlocks for sure. They didn't need tripods or forks, unlike early muskets, unless they were heavy enough and basically light artillery (those came with hooks on the stock, to brace against something wooden). Slow match is very finicky, yes, and expensive. That said arquebousses are actually decently hard-hitting, have very good range, reload faster than a lot of the heavier crossbows, and if the user is an expert can be quite accurate.

And as an added bonus, you could mix your own charges, cast your own balls, and later on, make your own cartridges without needing to lug arrows around.

I don't personally think that personal firearms were decisive in any real way. But they were pretty decent weapons.
 
Last edited:
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).
Would Venice really go for it? Venice is in her heyday in the eastern Mediterranean. There really isn't much of an impetus for them to attempt anything, nor do they really have the population to make any serious colonization efforts. A far more likely candidate is Aragon.
 
Can someone clarify what kinds of guns were used circa Columbus and Cortes days? Were they the kinds that literally you had a match that you lit and used to lite the fuse? And they mostly had to be mounted first on tripods correct? Seems like even if Europeans come a century earlier then the crossbow will be as effective as far as penetration, range, probably better aim by quite a bit, and certainly much quicker reloading and ability to shoot during rain and weather conditions. Is it accurate to say guns per se if they really are in the top three reasons why Europeans did so well it's a distant third behind germs by a far margin and steel as a second place.
Wasn't a large part of the importance of guns at this time in the New World the fear effect they created? A crossbow doesn't look or sound nearly as scary.
 
Wasn't a large part of the importance of guns at this time in the New World the fear effect they created? A crossbow doesn't look or sound nearly as scary.
True, the chronicles say it quite a lot, the shock and awe factor was quite important.

However, he shock and awe factor of the heavy cavalry charge was also VERY important and way more decisive in actual battles.
A fully armored knight was 700KG with his horse, so you got the equivalent of a small car charging you at 40km/h, while screaming and waving a sword around. It's scary even if you're used to it.

Now imagine you have NEVER seen something like that before and it's accompanied by devices that create thunder and explode your friends from afar.

We have to remember the conquistadores were basically shock troups. Very brutal, blood thirsty and furiously fanatical shock troups, preceded by plagues their world had never seen before.
 
Wasn't a large part of the importance of guns at this time in the New World the fear effect they created? A crossbow doesn't look or sound nearly as scary.

That's why they were used in Europe to begin with despite their inferiority to crossbows in most aspects. So anything in or after the 14th century will still see Europeans bringing guns over.
 
Top