Your issue is that you have no other player.For example France, England, Ottoman Empire, Venice, Denmark?
You need a POD which prevents the Spanish from funding Columbus' expedition to the New World. If he can get funding from another power, then odds are that other power will be the one to seize on the New World gold.
Your issue is that you have no other player.
Which contender is there?
- Portugal
- France
- England
- Italian Republics
- Morocco
- Ottoman
- The Dutch
Assuming a PoD after Colombus, that gives us a window until 1520, let's see what's possible:
Portugal
Too busy with the Indies. They already had enough trouble gathering funds for the Gama expedition to go on a route they knew did not lead to spices (which was the main motivation)
France
Too busy with the Italian wars to project power oversea.
England
Isn't it in the middle of a civil war? Doesn't have the fund or the might anyway
Italian Republics
No reason to go, they were doing enough money in the Mediterranean. At that point, the well hasn't dried up. If anything, they're too busy financing Portuguese armadas to the Indies
Morocco
Morocco is currently busy being stomped by a mix of Iberic knights
Ottoman
Not a naval power yet, and focused on the Med anyway. When they get Egypt (1517) and start building a fleet (1527) they'll focus on the Indian Ocean, where the wealth is. Plus, it's super easy to bottle someone in the Med, especially if you're Spain and hold both end of Gibraltar
The Dutch
Well, technically they're Spanish at that time but if anything, they'll finance Portugal
England's colonialism during the 16th century was mostly just inconspicuous shop-setting, as their navy wasn't yet that well-developed. England only surpassed Spain navally during the government of Cromwell, but the spanish had already estabilished firm control over Mexico at that time.Very nice reply, thank you, and let's probe if there any assumptions or 'false givens' here.
England - Disagree. The Wars of the Roses had ended and Henry VIII was now despotically revitalizing the country. England had already financed the Cabot expedition and had a serious fleet that conducted major battles in the Channel. Henry did what he wanted, as we know. It seems he didn't want to directly compete with the Spanish... but an ATL in which he did want to directly compete with the Spanish is plausible. Ships would be freed up in a window of peace with France.
We also have the Kalmar Union, afair.
To clarify, and to be more precise, I'm talking about some other power taking Mexico JUST before Spain does, i.e. after the Spanish conquest of Hispaniola and/or Cuba. This would be a rival reacting competitively the Spain's first forays led by Columbus.
France - I might disagree. Wasn't France fighting Spain in Italy? If so, wasn't it only as busy as Spain? And why not open up a fresh, colonial front against Spain by outflanking Cuba by setting up in Mexico? They had a serious fleet that conducted major battles in the Channel. Atlantic ships would be freed up in a window of peace with England.
England - Disagree. The Wars of the Roses had ended and Henry VIII was now despotically revitalizing the country. England had already financed the Cabot expedition and had a serious fleet that conducted major battles in the Channel. Henry did what he wanted, as we know. It seems he didn't want to directly compete with the Spanish... but an ATL in which he did want to directly compete with the Spanish is plausible. Ships would be freed up in a window of peace with France.
Ottomans - hang on, they did have a fleet which evacuated the persecuted Jews from Spain. They were a naval and colonial power if the Portuguese took Goa from them. Take, for example, the fascinating Battle of Diu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Diu_(1509). While an Ottoman (and possibly) westward route would make no sense as a way to Asia, it would make sense as a way of outflanking the Spanish. I also wonder whether the Spanish control of the Straits of Gibraltar is being overstated.
Killing off Cortez may buy some time for someone else to sweep in and take the Aztec Empire for themselves. Honestly, if someone on here wrote about how Cortez pulled off what he did then they would probabaly be considered wanking.
Seriously, go read about Cortez.
Are you saying that there would have been no Mexico conquest without Cortes? It certainly would have been undertaken because the whole idea was that of Velasquez, the governor of Cuba - and there were several other men who could have and wanted to go instead of Cortes.
Now if it comes down to you arguing that Cortes was exceptional and instrumental, I'm tempted to agree. He was clearly an extremely talented operator, like some modern genius billionaire CEO of a startup. Let's never underestimate the power of the individual over history.
This said, we all know that European disease wiped out 90% of the Aztecs within 80 years, so even incompetent adventurers would have had the odds in their favor across decades.
Aren't there a few assumptions (without facts to back them up) being made here about English and French capabilities, as if what happened was the only possible timeline?
Take, for example, the English attack on the French in 1512 when they deployed 25 ships and the French met them with 22: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Saint-Mathieu
Cortes only had 11 ships on his Mexico expedition seven years later. Granted, he had a short supply chain from Cuba, plus a wealth of intelligence. But Columbus took Hispaniola with a tiny force, no intelligence and a trans-Atlantic supply chain.
I just think we're ruling out the ATL too fast.
Maybe the vikings with an early and more sucessful vinland would try?
Problem was, Hispaniola was a bad gamble ending badly, a least for the time. It had cost a lot funding Colombus and all they got was this loosy island with not much on it.France - I might disagree. Wasn't France fighting Spain in Italy? If so, wasn't it only as busy as Spain? And why not open up a fresh, colonial front against Spain by outflanking Cuba by setting up in Mexico? They had a serious fleet that conducted major battles in the Channel. Atlantic ships would be freed up in a window of peace with England.
You're right about the Venitians but the Genoese are business people. They can try and fund pie in the sky things about circumnavigating the earth or they can fund that fairly stable enterprise that is the Portuguese Armadas.Italian states - Not sure about your answer. Big difference between Genoa and Venice, who were arch rivals. Afair Venice had a trade deal with Mameluke Egypt so I agree that might disincentivize a westward search; but the Ottomans replicated that deal (see battle of Diu below). And Genoa's well certainly did dry up when its close ally Byzantium fell. And weren't they allied with the French?
The Battle of Diu was a Mamelouk fleet which was not that effectual anyway. The Ottoman only got Egypt and Irak in 1517Ottomans - hang on, they did have a fleet which evacuated the persecuted Jews from Spain in 1492. They were a naval and colonial power if the Portuguese took Goa from them. Take, for example, the fascinating Battle of Diu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Diu_(1509). While an Ottoman (and possibly Venetian) westward route would make no sense as a way to Asia, it would make sense as a way of outflanking the Spanish.
The Dutch were not anti-Spanish, they were a Spanish possession at the time.As to the Dutch and Moroccans, I agree. However, both were anti-Spanish and may have somehow assisted an Ottoman gambit.