America Settled Early

WI John Cabot's expeditions in the 1490s are followed up by an English colony in America, a century or so ahead of Jamestown?

Any thoughts on how the 16C goes?
 
Well this would be good news for the Native Americans. With less of a technological gap and less support from the Home Isles when the area is first settled there will have to be more co-operation and less "bugger off this is our land now".
 
that depends, does france also colonize north america early?
if so then probably the same as otl only with more casualties, if not then the british own north america before anyone else has a chance to really get a settlement going.
 
Was there any great rush to encourage settlement of Virginia a century later?

Okay, there are a couple things I think were different:

1) Tobacco. I don't think here's anything equivalent in the north. Maybe furs, but European demand was sated by the Russians at that point.

2) Going off the fur issue, there's less shipping in Europe overall, and less capability to engage in translantic crossings. So it'll be a bit more dangerous, and more expensive.

3) Experience. Jamestown came after several attempts to colonize the New World, which all failed.
 
European demand for Fur wasn't be sated by the Russians. The Fur trade was incredibly profitably precisely because the Russians and the Hansa were price gouging an an different supply source and a bit of competition was desperately needed.
 
Okay, there are a couple things I think were different:

1) Tobacco. I don't think here's anything equivalent in the north. Maybe furs, but European demand was sated by the Russians at that point.

What about naval supplies? It's an interesting option for Atlantic states that want to break their dependency on the Baltic trade.
 
What about naval supplies? It's an interesting option for Atlantic states that want to break their dependency on the Baltic trade.

Hardly likely to work that early.

In general, England is not going to be able to offer any support whatsoever to colonies there at this point, for a number of reasons. I'm not saying it is a doomed attempt, but it is going to be even more difficult than Roanoke, which, by the way, utterly failed.
A problem among many others is that the England is still faithfully Catholic at this point, and the Pope had just said that stuff in the West was going to be either Spanish or Portuguese. I'm sure that ways to wark this around can be found if England commits to this, but it is precisely the English committment that I see likely to utterly lack at this point.
 
Hardly likely to work that early.

In general, England is not going to be able to offer any support whatsoever to colonies there at this point, for a number of reasons. I'm not saying it is a doomed attempt, but it is going to be even more difficult than Roanoke, which, by the way, utterly failed.
A problem among many others is that the England is still faithfully Catholic at this point, and the Pope had just said that stuff in the West was going to be either Spanish or Portuguese. I'm sure that ways to wark this around can be found if England commits to this, but it is precisely the English committment that I see likely to utterly lack at this point.



Could be, but both France and Spain are preoccupied with their European wars, so don't want to add England to their enemies. And Spain's attention in particular was still focused on the Caribbean.

Biggest problem is likely to be the young Henry VIII, an old fashioned "European" with dreams of winning another Agincourt, and married to the King of Spain's daughter. Arrange a fatal accident for him (which I'd love to do for any number of reasons) and Queen Margaret and her Scottish husband might perhaps see things differently.
 
I can see a private sector response to this.
We think the fishermen of Bristol landed on the mainland to gut, preserve the cod.
If some merchant had the nouce to see the potential of the fur trade alongside the fish then a perminant settlement could be possible?
 
I thought the Indian population was considerably higher in 1509 than 1609. Diseases introduced by explorers and fishermen devistated the Eastern Seaboard during the 16th Century.
 
I can see a private sector response to this.
We think the fishermen of Bristol landed on the mainland to gut, preserve the cod.
If some merchant had the nouce to see the potential of the fur trade alongside the fish then a perminant settlement could be possible?

Jamestown was founded by a private company, as was Massachusetts Bay?
 
I thought the Indian population was considerably higher in 1509 than 1609. Diseases introduced by explorers and fishermen devistated the Eastern Seaboard during the 16th Century.


If Wiki can be believed, Cabot's expeditions didn't encounter any natives, though the second one found evidence of their presence. That doesn't sound as if Newfoundland was densely populated even then.
 
Top