Black/Indian culture still totally dominant in large parts of the Americas

Well, the Dhow is certainly equal to the Caravel, and the Malians could have adopted guns from North Africa. Besides, once the Malians gained a foothold in the Americas, do you not think that they would block a Portuguese (or any other European state's) expansion with their navy, as they would have a couple centuries to develop, by which time they could very easily be ahead of Europe in naval technology and would have naval bases on both sides of the Atlantic, to make the cannon at best a shock weapon (had they not already acquired it from North Africa).

This would also make it very hard for the Portuguese to reach India, as, instead of Ottoman middlemen, they would have Malian middlemen, with much the same effect.

BTW, the iron of West Africa was superior and developed earlier than European metallurgy of the time, with the Yoruba Ida being at least a fair match for contemporary European swords in the 1200s or 1300s.

About the resistance of the Amerinds: Would it not be much simpler to resist with Malian allies and African military techniques?

That seems like a lot of assumptions: Mali is an islamic country therefore it has dhows, Mali is in west Africa therefore they have access to the excellent Yoruba people's swords. Also the Dhow, though reliable is not quite as good as the Caravel. The dhow was held together by glue or lashes while the Caravel was held together by nails. The dhow could still likely sail to South America, as Thor Heyerdal did so on a reed boat across th pacific.

I don't think the Malians are the right africans to sail and colonize the Americas. Their Empire was a huge land-power, and the government had a hard enough time ruling over it for them to attempt to properly settle and colonize the Americas.

The POD has to be with Muslim rule over Iberia, and then perhaps the Morrocans or Cordobans could settle the Americas.
 
Last edited:
That seems like a lot of assumptions: Mali is an islamic country therefore it has dhows, Mali is in west Africa therefore they have access to the excellent Yoruba people's swords. Also the Dhow, though reliable is not quite as good as the Caravel. The dhow was held together by glue or lashes while the Caravel was held together by nails. The dhow could still likely sail to South America, as Thor Heyerdal did so on a reed boat across th pacific.

I don't think the Malians are the right africans to sail and colonize the Americas. Their Empire was a huge land-power, and the government had a hard enough time ruling over it for them to attempt to properly settle and colonize the Americas.

The POD has to be with Muslim rule over Iberia, and then perhaps the Morrocans or Cordobans could settle the Americas.

On the access of the Malians to the Dhow, they did have access to the dhow via their contacts with North Africans, and they built them on the coast of Senegal.

On the aspect of my argument for West African metallurgy, I was talking about West Africa as a whole, which is similar to talking about Europe as a whole in terms of difference between cultures, and why could the Malians not get access to Yoruba swordmaking once, or for that matter before, they had a transatlantic capable navy?

Why does the POD have to be Muslim rule over Iberia? Why could the Malians not get to the Americas without the Iberians, which I have shown to be quite plausible, or for that matter, why could the Maghribis not get to America without complete control of Iberia, especially as Iberia is much farther from the Americas than Iberia and that the Central Atlantic is calmer than the North Atlantic? Why does it matter much if a ship is held together with lashings or with iron nails, and when clearly the Islamic world knew of both, why did they choose the former?

BTW, to me it really does not matter the specifics of the tactics or the weapons used by the Europeans, because in this timeline they never gain a foothold in the Americas in the first place, making the matter moot. Mali would have a couple centuries to gain a presence in most of the Americas, so what could tiny Portugal, the Netherlands or slightly larger France, Spain or Britain do about it? I think we should move forward with how the Malians would relate to the peoples of Amazonia and what their routes of exploration would be once they gained a foothold there. Also, how would Malian society be changed by new crops, ideas and goods from the Americas?

I, personally, see (as I said before) a much less exploitative treatment of all of the Amerind societies, including the ones not yet even settled, based on trade and maybe tributary relations, with the Malians as the dominant player of course, and mutual alliance for the Mississippians (which had yet to collapse by that time and could be revitalized by trade and influence with and from Mali), the Andes and the more developed societies of Amazonia. Mali would overshadow Europe with its connections to the Americas and prosper from trade with the former, while maintaining its position via a huge navy. Due to Mali's position of power West Africa, their would be no transatlantic slave genocide, for even if slavery occured (though it might actually quite quickly disappear; see here for a possible reason), it would not be the same dehumanizing slavery of the Europeans that happened in actual history.

Eventually, the Malisphere would establish contact with China, India and Southeast Asia, and establish more or less fair and respectful relationships with each, though of course their would be wars, though probably mostly naval (with the Chinese and the Southeast Asians, probably). The Mandinkan language of Mali would a major world language and a Classical language.
 
Last edited:
On the access of the Malians to the Dhow, they did have access to the dhow via their contacts with North Africans, and they built them on the coast of Senegal.

That article doesn't say anything about the dhow.

On the aspect of my argument for West African metallurgy, I was talking about West Africa as a whole, which is similar to talking about Europe as a whole in terms of difference between cultures, and why could the Malians not get access to Yoruba swordmaking once, or for that matter before, they had a transatlantic capable navy

Europe as a whole was much more united and were able to transmit ideas much better than West Africa. From how I understand it Senegal was really only ruled over in theory by the Malians, instead there were local Mansas that called the shots. I guess to clarify, what I meant to write was that there was alot more communication and exchange of goods between Portugal to Denmark than from Yoruba to Djenne. The Portuguese Priest could speak in latin to the Danish one, and would share a common outlook on many things. The Yorubans were across immense tracts of jungle and thousands of language barriers.

Why does the POD have to be Muslim rule over Iberia? Why could the Malians not get to the Americas without the Iberians, which I have shown to be quite plausible, or for that matter, why could the Maghribis not get to America without complete control of Iberia? Why does it matter much if a ship is held together with lashings or with iron nails?

Because if the crusader Iberians are not dealt a crippling blow, then they would likely be able to raid and disrupt the Malian naval empire. They would have great reason to sail down the african coast in their nailed together caravels and wreak havoc.

A similar situation occured in the Indian ocean, the dhows of Arabs and Indians were forced to pay a cartazes for their cargos and were eventually booted out of the indian ocean trade entirely. In India the Portuguese were poorer, less well armed, and did not know the territory they were conquering yet they suceeded. A major reason for this was that the Sultans of Gujarat or Vijyangar or the Mughals were simply more concerned with their inland provinces and the feudal order of things. Every time the Portuguese would raid or plunder from coastal India they were only facing local rulers with less resources. The great Sultans showed little concern over their coastal provinces because they only made up about 5% of their total incomes (see my thread about the Gujarat vs. Portuguese)
 
Last edited:
The dhow thing seems pedantic (why are European ships so much better than dhows anyways; if you say nails, explain why this is such a huge advantage); Besides, the Portuguese would need to get to India in the first place, and through Malian waters, a difficult task. A related question would be, do you think that if the million sailor Chola Navy had been encountered by the Portuguese, would they have been able to defeat it? BTW, the Mughals only had a small navy in the first place, despite being about as good, well into the 1600s as any European navy in shipbuilding skills (and the Mughals sold ships to the Europeans well into the 17th century as well.) Something similar to this would quite easily be achieved in this TL by the Malians in by the time of Henry the Navigator.

In this timeline Mali would become more unified, and it quite easily could, if the larger actual Chinese state and the younger Tawantinsuyu(which was not yet even more than a small kingdom in the 1300s, actually).
 
But are there any really good records of Mesoamerican city populations, or just guesses?

The population estimates of the pre-Columbian Americas are incredibly difficult to make due to lack of information (few cultures kept written records), complexity (the Americas are a big place which had a wide variety of environments and cultures) and, of course, politicization. Estimates dropped ridiculously low in the early 20th century as scholars sought to downplay the atrocities of the European conquest, and then soared to ridiculously high numbers in the late 60's/early 70's as scholars sought to completely reverse the dominant narrative without being quite as academically vigorous as they should have been. Honestly, anyone who tells you that they 'know' the population of any area of the pre-Columbian Americas is either lying or arrogant to the point of delusion. We do have some educated guesses, indeed some very well educated guesses, but ultimately no knowledge.
 
But, to get back to the topic at hand-having a more successful black/Amerindian presence in North America at least would be more easily be accomplished by having a more balkanized North America. If they can play off a French Louisiana against an Anglophone Georgia and South Carolina (and for that matter, an anti-slavery Northern nation against a pro-slavery southern nation), the 5 civilized tribes and allied groups of escaped slaves could keep their traditional land. Likewise, Apache who can play the Mexicans, independent Texans, Estado Unidenses, and other states against each-other could do much better.
 
Would it not be simpler to just abandon European colonization entirely and go with my idea of Malian dominance? My idea is much simpler, and has a much earlier POD, than an elaborate diplomatic game with the USA involved.
 
What if the 1535 slave conspiracy in Mexico City worked out and the Africans under their elected king threw out the spaniards, it could trigger a kind of Haiti en-masse. They would have the metalurgical know how of Africa and left over Spanish weapons. They would likely form a kind of elected monarchy with Native American participation.
 
Would it not be simpler to just abandon European colonization entirely and go with my idea of Malian dominance? My idea is much simpler, and has a much earlier POD, than an elaborate diplomatic game with the USA involved.

Malian dominance over the ENTIRE TWO CONTINENTS of the Americas?:eek: Hey, whatever floats your boat, but I have great difficulty suspending my disbelief for that. A tropical Brazil settled and controlled by blacks is one thing, but a Malian army marching from the Amazon to the tundra, conquering all the natives, AND fending off the inevitable interest of Europeans is quite another.
 
Some ideas that might work into your ATL.
Most Africans brought over in the Atlantic slave trade were nobodies, or captured enemy noncoms.
It is known that West African civilization, particularly the kingdoms around modern Nigeria and Mali had iron and steel smiths. They were very secretive and highly revered tradesmen. I doubt any who were captured by a rival kingdom would have ended up being sold into slavery for any amount of guns. If somehow a bunch of them were brought across the Atlantic and somehow associated themselves with surviving Mayans similar to the Valdivia shipwreck. they would then integrate steel instead of obsidian into Mayan weapons.
The conquest of the Yucatan was already the hardest of conquests. They were already isolated and weren't as devastated by disease as the rest of MesoAmerica, because they were very feudal each city was a fight in its own right. They also didn't have as much gold and weren't as attractive to the conquistadors.
The biggest draw back in my idea is the closest iron mines are near Mexico City in San Luis Potosi.
 
Top