Antitalia

I'm working on an AH novella where a 16th century Italian explorer for Spain is blown off course in the South Pacific and discovers the islands of Antitalia (New Zealand.) I don't know if it is plausible to have an enduring Italian colony by the time of Cook's arrival in 1769, or whether the Italians will just be massacred by the Maori.
 
chrispi said:
I'm working on an AH novella where a 16th century Italian explorer for Spain is blown off course in the South Pacific and discovers the islands of Antitalia (New Zealand.) I don't know if it is plausible to have an enduring Italian colony by the time of Cook's arrival in 1769, or whether the Italians will just be massacred by the Maori.

Just as long as it doesn't lead to the total destruction of the Ottoman Empire like all other AHs around here I'll eagerly look for it.

It seems unlikely that the Italians would avoid being massacred - are there any defensible positions in NZ that would be plausible as an enduring colony? Italians might be better off long-term due to their propensity to stick to trade instead of conquest.

Why Antitalia? Wouldn't that mean "Before Italy" or "Against Italy" (depending on what vowel is ommitted)?
 
Abdul Hadi Pasha said:
Just as long as it doesn't lead to the total destruction of the Ottoman Empire like all other AHs around here I'll eagerly look for it.

People don't enjoy destroying the Ottomans. They enjoy saving Byzantium.

There's a difference there.
 
chrispi said:
I'm working on an AH novella where a 16th century Italian explorer for Spain is blown off course in the South Pacific and discovers the islands of Antitalia (New Zealand.) I don't know if it is plausible to have an enduring Italian colony by the time of Cook's arrival in 1769, or whether the Italians will just be massacred by the Maori.
Looks quite interesting, and for sure it's a new approach.
Are the explorers wrecked on Antitalia, or they just make a landing?
I'm looking forward to this :)
 
Abdul Hadi Pasha said:
Why Antitalia? Wouldn't that mean "Before Italy" or "Against Italy" (depending on what vowel is ommitted)?

Maybe its something like the use of the term Antipodes. Perhaps since the land is opposite of Italy (on the other side of the globe) it is Anti-Italia.
 
David S Poepoe said:
Maybe its something like the use of the term Antipodes. Perhaps since the land is opposite of Italy (on the other side of the globe) it is Anti-Italia.

I like that, but it's hard to imagine an Italian being that subtle. Especially when there are aristocratic & royal patrons to name things after, or oneself!
 
David S Poepoe said:
Maybe its something like the use of the term Antipodes. Perhaps since the land is opposite of Italy (on the other side of the globe) it is Anti-Italia.
It's an idea. However, given the times and the usages, I would expect he would name the islands after his home city: something like Nova Florentia, or Nova Genova.
 
David S Poepoe said:
Maybe its something like the use of the term Antipodes. Perhaps since the land is opposite of Italy (on the other side of the globe) it is Anti-Italia.
Correct. (well, very nearly anyway; New Zealand is the antipode of Spain, but with the inaccuracies of determining longitude one could easily mistake it for the antipode of Italy.) Besides, Antiberia doesn't appeal as much to me. :p
 
LordKalvan said:
It's an idea. However, given the times and the usages, I would expect he would name the islands after his home city: something like Nova Florentia, or Nova Genova.

Name the North and South Islands this, perhaps.
 
My question is why isn't it a Spanish colony?

Remember, Columbus might have been an Italian. Didn't mean the new world ending up Genovese.
 
Abdul Hadi Pasha said:
Just as long as it doesn't lead to the total destruction of the Ottoman Empire like all other AHs around here I'll eagerly look for it.

You're still sore about the Austrians' taking Constantinople in my "1776" AH aren't you? ;) Don't worry, it's not like the Wieners could go any further; the Sultan just relocates to Ankyra and the whole of Anatolia remains Ottoman. :D
 
Faeelin said:
My question is why isn't it a Spanish colony?

Remember, Columbus might have been an Italian. Didn't mean the new world ending up Genovese.
I never said that it wasn't a Spanish colony. Even so, the name Antitalia stuck.
 
chrispi said:
I never said that it wasn't a Spanish colony. Even so, the name Antitalia stuck.
Politically, there is no way out, I'm afraid. Even Venice would have a lot of trouble to hold such a distant colony (without a market, btw!!)
It would be nice if the settlers were mostly Italians, though. Maybe the names would attract people
 
LordKalvan said:
Politically, there is no way out, I'm afraid. Even Venice would have a lot of trouble to hold such a distant colony (without a market, btw!!)
It would be nice if the settlers were mostly Italians, though. Maybe the names would attract people

In any case, there's certainly no reason why an Italian name wouldn't stick, especially as Latin names were used for everything.

We have for an example this little place called America. Thank God they used his first name, or we'd be the United States of Vespuccia.
 
Abdul Hadi Pasha said:
We have for an example this little place called America. Thank God they used his first name, or we'd be the United States of Vespuccia.
:) after 5 centuries of use, no one would blink an eye: long live the USV
 
chrispi said:
I'm working on an AH novella where a 16th century Italian explorer for Spain is blown off course in the South Pacific and discovers the islands of Antitalia (New Zealand.) I don't know if it is plausible to have an enduring Italian colony by the time of Cook's arrival in 1769, or whether the Italians will just be massacred by the Maori.

I didn't see anyone else address the last part of this. I think that is exactly what would have happened. If New Zealand was discovered without knowing that Australia was (comparitively) close (and remember that until Cook's first voyage, the size of Australia wasn't even known, it would be a very expensive colonization undertaking considering how large a force you would need to put down as formidable fighters as the Maori were.

Remember, Tasman was attacked by Maori just for mapping the coastline and he was sufficiently scared into never even setting foot on the mainland and Cook lost several men to them as well (although admittedly they killed more Maori).

In fact, I would think that the Maori would make short work of a shipwrecked Italian if they perceived him as any threat at all. He would have much better luck if he had some weaponry with him.
 
It would depend where the colony was based - from a friendly natives perspective their best bet would be somewhere in the South Island where the numbers of Maori were comparatively low, compared to the North.

You would probably also want the colony quite a bit further south, as the northern part of the N Island (looking at Nelson/Marlborough) was as much integrated into the North Island polity as the South, if one looks at settlement of Iwi anyway.

They would also need a fair bit of home or otherwise support for a while, while they adapt to local conditions. Initial Anglo contact with NZ was explorer/missionary/whaler and trader based, scattered in isolated coastal stations who relied upon local Maori for support around the islands and this was as part of a wider Australasia/British support system. Then widescale settlement begain to be pushed from Australia and the Home Islands, over a period of decades, which took a lot of planning and determination. I suspect a group of lost sailors, even if large, would have a lot more trouble, especially given that they are there several centuries earlier, and cannot rely upon the British/Australian support my ancestors could
 
Interesting.
Solarius, I would like to point out that many people here don't appreciate it when you ressurrect year old threads (probably because it reminds them how much of a noob they were when they first posted on this site). People even have been kicked or banned because of it.
 
Solarius, I would like to point out that many people here don't appreciate it when you ressurrect year old threads (probably because it reminds them how much of a noob they were when they first posted on this site). People even have been kicked or banned because of it.

The most recent person chastised for the practice made a regular practice of resurrecting old thread about WWII. Me, I don't get annoyed when someone finds AN old thread and resurrects it, as long as one doesn't make a habit of it.

Moderation in all things, would be my suggestion....
 
Top