Can someone take Mexico before Spain does?

Don't worry, i'll take up the task! *hurries to Mexico*
...just kidding.
The problem here is that, in order to prevent the spanish from taking Mexico, you have to prevent them from setting shop in the caribbean right after Columbus' voyage. Cuba gave the spanish a launching platform for their conquest of the mayan states and the aztec empire.
 
For example France, England, Ottoman Empire, Venice, Denmark?
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
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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


Very nice reply, thank you, and let's probe if there any assumptions or 'false givens' here.

Portugal - I agree.

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.

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?

Ottomans - 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. I also wonder whether the Spanish control of the Straits of Gibraltar is being overstated here. The whole Portuguese-Spanish carve up of the world was an attempt to outmaneuver the Muslim superpower: why couldn't it have acted to counter that attempt? It would have taken visionary leadership, but I don't find it implausible.

As to the Dutch and Moroccans, I agree. However, both were anti-Spanish and may have somehow assisted an Ottoman gambit.

We also have the Kalmar Union, afair.
 
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.
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.
The Kalmar Union was already in sharp decline during the late 15th and early 16th century before collapsing. The most colonialism they could do would be acquiring the Hudson Bay before the british, and they'll have to stay united if they want to keep it.
 
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.

The only power at the time with enough Naval Power and wealth to fund such expedition would be Portugal and there was no interest in going there because we already knew the path to the Indian riches. As @Tanc49 pointed out the other powers wouldn't be able to do 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.

French lacked the naval power to project itself into central America and didn't had any base in the Americas to accomplish the conquest. This France had been bullied by the Portuguese navy during the reign of John II.

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.

If he tried to compete with Spain it won't end well. OTL the Spanish Armada failed because the man that was supposed to lead it died before they could attack and the good admirals were set aside by court intrigue. A English attempt to meddle with Spain will end badly.

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.

The Ottoman fleet was designed to fight on the Med. OTL with far larger resources and closer naval bases they failed to defeat the Portuguese in the Indian Ocean, trying to fight the Spanish on the Americans would be wasting ships.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

I'm saying that if Cortez didn't pretend to be a god, help start a civil war, and do a coup then it would have probabaly been much more difficult for the Spaniards, or anyone, to conquer the Aztecs. Sure, they would still succeed eventually, just the Aztecs could have at least made them work for it. I mean look at the Mayans, it took a long time before the Spanish were able to fully pacify them, especially compared against the, relatively, smooth acquiring of the Aztec Empire.
 
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.

Those ships numbers are too low to make them naval threats. The Portuguese Expedition to Otranto was made up of 21 ships and it was a very small part of the navy and no one had any real interest in participating other that the King, not even the Prince-Heir had interest in that. Unless you have the numbers for the navies at the time 25 and 22 are numbers one can ignore when compared to the numbers of the Portuguese Fleets in Asia and the Spanish fleets in the Med and in the Americas.
 
Maybe the vikings with an early and more sucessful vinland would try?

No. You need some "divine" weapons to strike with awe the masses of amerindians.

I agree with Karolus Rex's review.

In OTL, no other country than Castile/Aragon and Portugal was able to project power over the oceans.

Even Venice, although a great naval power, did not sea the interest and did not have the kind of ships that were fit for transoceanic crossing.

England did not have the Navy as It began having later. You would need to butterfly away both the war of the roses and England's anachronistic goal of taking or retaining control of european continental territories.

The problem with France is that its king did not take back direct control of major harbours on the french Atlantic coast and Channel coast before the middle of the 15th century. So this made France a late starter in developing a strong Navy. You need to butterfly away the victories of Henry V and the english-burgundian alliance or to have the Armagnac to crush them in 1415-1420.
 
Last edited:
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.
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.
The Spanish were actually fairly pissed about it. We only know now how big it was but at the time, it was just not the same as the actual Indies.

Opening a front there would be like in WWII conducting a very expensive and very risky sabotage operation on the lovely town of Weiden in der Oberpfalz in Bavaria. 40k people, no significant target.
Sure you're technically hitting Spain but the massive resources spent there would be better used elsewhere.

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?
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.
And those one actually go to the Indies and do bring back massive quantities of pepper.

Ottomans - 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 Battle of Diu was a Mamelouk fleet which was not that effectual anyway. The Ottoman only got Egypt and Irak in 1517 :)

And before that, they were a Med power as @Karolus Rex pointed out. Very different sea and very different navy required. To piss the Iberians off, it's much easier to bolster your local alliances, with the Swahili coast, Indian sultanates or if you're of great vision, Insulinde powers.
Which is what they did later in the century :)


As to the Dutch and Moroccans, I agree. However, both were anti-Spanish and may have somehow assisted an Ottoman gambit.
The Dutch were not anti-Spanish, they were a Spanish possession at the time.
Morocco was... in a bad shape. They had enough trouble holding it together and even then, very much barely

Being a training ground for crusading Portuguese nobles for a century will do that to ya
 
Of the European Powers non ( or all possibly). Cortez lands in 1519 so this is pre Protestantism as a major world force

1518 is the Treaty of London which secures peace between the major European states so noone has a reason to send a fleet to the indies, For the northern European states you would have to ask why they sail across the mid atlantic in violation of the treaty of Tordessillas ( spanish POV) and start a war or ignore the East coast of the North America in favour of a very long voyage south for no good reason.

The Spanish do it because its a short hop from Hispaniola.

OTH. Charles has issues with Spain early on in his reign and its possible to imagine a resolution that encourages him to plant Burgundian (netherlandish) influence in the Americas at the expense of Spain which might be interesting.

The actual conquest is not really a state mission so any band of lusty rogues with a Cortez could do it. ( and 200k locals)

So a TL with in 50 years the Netherlandish influence resulting in a revolt alongside the eventual UP might be fun.
 
I'm curious about whether Spain really has a lock on the issue. Given that Mexico was first conquered by a lucky adventurer with a predominantly native army, I can't help but think that any European naval power could have done it.

Now, holding it, thats an entirely different matter.
 
Top