Could the America's have been settled by the Europeans in the middle-ages?

[Balaur]

I think a small, isolated population would just up and join the natives entirely and be incorporated into their culture.



Aztec and Inca could be butterflied entirely, and if not, then definitely their rise to power.

The main advantage Europeans have at this time is their metal armour, but unfortunately, not everyone has that.

I'd predict metal armor gets adopted first by the more developed civilisations, then metal weapons, because until then, those obsidian clubs are good enough. Not to mention, since not everyone in Europe had metal armor, neither would everyone in the Andes or Mesoamerica (or Mississippians, or wherever).

The main advantages the Europeans had were not technological but biological-horses and smallpox resistance. If you read accounts of the conquests of the Aztecs and Incas, it's not guns, crossbows that were the main advantage, but lancers and close order infantry with sword and shield-especially the former. Conquistador infantry were just a better equipped version of what the natives had, but cavalry was a completely outside context problem tactically that they had a hard time dealing with, at least at first.

 

[Shevek23]

....
For maple products, I heard it stated by a historian on the Iroquois "If you have a bucket of maple syrup, why would you let it rot?" Practically, it seems like making mead from maple syrup has different requirements than normal mead from honey, because maple syrup has less nutrients than honey.

I know in certain stores in New Hampshire (probably other parts of New England too), you can get what seems to be maple mead--I'm not sure if it's mixed with honey (or vodka or something), but it tastes rather thin exactly as I'd imagine something made from maple syrup might taste, and far different from normal mead. There's several recipes online for "mead" made exclusively from maple syrup....

Indeed I struggled to word it so as not to imply anyone making alcoholic drinks out of maple until after Europeans got there.

I believe various alcoholic drinks were not unknown in Central America, and perhaps in the Andes though I can think of though not properly name examples of the former (and I believe chocolate, heavily spiced with hot peppers, was also brewed into or mixed with something alcoholic) but not in the South American case--still most peoples make some kind of beer so it wouldn't surprise me. But as far as I know there was no sort of booze to be had in the North American Atlantic region.

Fermented drinks are speculated to perhaps be behind the invention of agriculture, but in the Americas, where a great diversity of crops were developed, it seems there was room enough for the idea to spread faster (from core regions where perhaps indeed some sort of fermented drink might have been involved in developing the core crop) than getting drunk. As far as I know, east coast Native Americans were perfectly innocent of alcohol. So no, of course they wouldn't seek to ferment maple, and would have no idea how to go about it.

But let some Europeans show up, and manage to stay, in whatever numbers large or small...small enough numbers means they get absorbed into some Native group eventually, but maintaining a distinct identity for some time implies to me they'd have enough numbers to support the skill and labor time needed to start making some sort of booze, and they would turn their ingenuity to doing it with new materials.

I'm glad you can back up what altwere said about the regional availability of maple drinks of various kinds; I was categorically certain that once European colonists showed up such developments would not be delayed for long! Yet I had never heard tell of them. To be sure while I have lived a couple years in New England, it was only when I was a preschool child, and way up in the far backwoods of Aroostook County, Maine. I think that isn't maple country, and anyway as a child I would not be exposed to such details about what people on the Air Force base might have been getting hammered on, nor did I meet many locals. (The towns nearby had populations under 100 after all; the great metropolis of Bangor was a hundred miles away or so). So I wouldn't know from that, but I'd have thought it would come up in popular culture sooner or later. Yet I'd never heard of it, and this was an unnerving dilemma!

Thank you both for dispelling it.

 

[sloreck]

Distilled spirits were not around during the Middle Ages. You could boost alcohol content with things like ice wine but that's it. I would expect that Europeans would bring brewing to North America, between imported grains, and hops, and native corn that should do the trick. FWIW honeybees are not native to North America - once they are imported you can make mead. From a quick search it seems that once they were introduced on the east coast by the mid 1600s they spread on their own at least as far as Texas and Kansas within 200 years. This would be a permanent feature of even a failed European settlement, as well as introduced species like sheep, cattle, chickens that would be adopted by the natives and/or go feral and spread.

 

[Arkenfolm]

Indeed I struggled to word it so as not to imply anyone making alcoholic drinks out of maple until after Europeans got there.

I believe various alcoholic drinks were not unknown in Central America, and perhaps in the Andes though I can think of though not properly name examples of the former (and I believe chocolate, heavily spiced with hot peppers, was also brewed into or mixed with something alcoholic) but not in the South American case--still most peoples make some kind of beer so it wouldn't surprise me. But as far as I know there was no sort of booze to be had in the North American Atlantic region.

Fermented drinks are speculated to perhaps be behind the invention of agriculture, but in the Americas, where a great diversity of crops were developed, it seems there was room enough for the idea to spread faster (from core regions where perhaps indeed some sort of fermented drink might have been involved in developing the core crop) than getting drunk. As far as I know, east coast Native Americans were perfectly innocent of alcohol. So no, of course they wouldn't seek to ferment maple, and would have no idea how to go about it.

But let some Europeans show up, and manage to stay, in whatever numbers large or small...small enough numbers means they get absorbed into some Native group eventually, but maintaining a distinct identity for some time implies to me they'd have enough numbers to support the skill and labor time needed to start making some sort of booze, and they would turn their ingenuity to doing it with new materials.

I'm glad you can back up what altwere said about the regional availability of maple drinks of various kinds; I was categorically certain that once European colonists showed up such developments would not be delayed for long! Yet I had never heard tell of them. To be sure while I have lived a couple years in New England, it was only when I was a preschool child, and way up in the far backwoods of Aroostook County, Maine. I think that isn't maple country, and anyway as a child I would not be exposed to such details about what people on the Air Force base might have been getting hammered on, nor did I meet many locals. (The towns nearby had populations under 100 after all; the great metropolis of Bangor was a hundred miles away or so). So I wouldn't know from that, but I'd have thought it would come up in popular culture sooner or later. Yet I'd never heard of it, and this was an unnerving dilemma!

Thank you both for dispelling it.

The Andes had chicha, and the indigenous Brazilians had cauim. Mesoamerica had pulque. Aridoamerica had corn beer.

If corn/maize beer wasn't known in Eastern North America, it would only be because maize was a newer introduction, although by the time Europeans showed up, maize for known for centuries and had supplanted many of the previous crops in that time. I'm sure there's research on this subject which I'm not aware of, but from what I know, if corn beer was known, the purpose of it was to get utterly drunk for religious reasons--these are the same cultures which made the "black drink" (drink the caffeinated yaupon tea mixed with emetic herbs), as well as were historically documented to use alcohol traded to them by Europeans for the same purpose (and European "firewater" will hit you way more than whatever drink you have).

 

[dissatisfieduser]

This is tangentially related: I really want to read a retelling of history from the High medieval period onward but in medieval stasis. Some things are impossible to pull of with just medieval levels of tech but it would be a novel read before disbelief can no longer be suspended.

 

[FSB]

There is actually surprisingly many individuals with large influence on colonization events. Henry the Navigator thought that developing seaborne alternatives to land trade routes to Gold Coast, India and China would be profitable. He did extended push for this, and the Portuguese developed better ships and learned to sail the trade winds. The idea of going to get African gold is pretty simple, but the focus and persistence it was done with was pretty extraordinary.

Columbus could have been a used car salesman, and talked the Spanish crown into funding his long-shot adventure which resulted in the discovery of the big mesoamerican empires.

The initiative to Greenland colonization came from Erik the Red, who also could have been a used car salesman. His efforts did not have quite the impact that Columbus' had. They _could_ have, if he had colonized something bigger than Greenland, though.

You _could_ have a POD where someone pushes to sail south along African coast earlier to get at that sweet gold, although the amount of investment needed would be pretty large. This would probably result in the discovery of coast of Brazil. Getting it settled at a time when Europe had no excess population would be pretty hard, though.

 

[ATP45]

Assuming the voyages of the Norse became widespread knowledge in the rest of Europe, similar to how Marco Polo's voyages to China became popularized.

Could the Europeans from the 11th century on wards had the means to launch expeditions and eventual settlements in the new world?

Yes.Indians in OTL was genocided by protestant - in your timeline,they would survive,just like mexican did.

 

[Arkenfolm]

Yes.Indians in OTL was genocided by protestant - in your timeline,they would survive,just like mexican did.

Any outsider group, from Asians to Catholic Europeans, would have "genocided" Indians, by virtue of their lack of disease resistance. North of Mesoamerica, only the Mississippians really had the potential to withstand the epidemics, based on their population density. California Indians were also densely populated, but their fragmentation and disunity compared to the Mississippians means they'd be far less likely to withstand the epidemics.

 

[Burton K Wheeler]

This is tangentially related: I really want to read a retelling of history from the High medieval period onward but in medieval stasis. Some things are impossible to pull of with just medieval levels of tech but it would be a novel read before disbelief can no longer be suspended.

That's sort of the premise of Dies the Fire, except it's a post-apocalyptic setting.

 

[Burton K Wheeler]

Any outsider group, from Asians to Catholic Europeans, would have "genocided" Indians, by virtue of their lack of disease resistance. North of Mesoamerica, only the Mississippians really had the potential to withstand the epidemics, based on their population density. California Indians were also densely populated, but their fragmentation and disunity compared to the Mississippians means they'd be far less likely to withstand the epidemics.

The OTL Central Valley was basically depopulated by epidemics, with the survivors fleeing to Spanish missions on the coasts.

 

[Kerney]

Any outsider group, from Asians to Catholic Europeans, would have "genocided" Indians, by virtue of their lack of disease resistance. North of Mesoamerica, only the Mississippians really had the potential to withstand the epidemics, based on their population density. California Indians were also densely populated, but their fragmentation and disunity compared to the Mississippians means they'd be far less likely to withstand the epidemics.

The Puebloans managed to survive culturally by the skin of their teeth and arguably wouldn't have made it but for this co operation with the Spanish post revolt.

Also, disunity seems to have helped Indian groups survive in many cases. Look how the Aztec leadership was quickly beheaded where less centralized groups fought for centuries before being overcome.

How a group responded, luck, geography, did have a lot to do with which groups still exist, to what degree is their culture survived and which groups are names in a text, if that.

 

[Arkenfolm]

The Puebloans managed to survive culturally by the skin of their teeth and arguably wouldn't have made it but for this co operation with the Spanish post revolt.

Also, disunity seems to have helped Indian groups survive in many cases. Look how the Aztec leadership was quickly beheaded where less centralized groups fought for centuries before being overcome.

How a group responded, luck, geography, did have a lot to do with which groups still exist, to what degree is their culture survived and which groups are names in a text, if that.

Very true. No doubt if some great Mississippian Empire had existed, it would've been conquered in a way that looked easy (no doubt with complex factors behind it like the Aztec/Inca conquest) and gotten the Spanish established in that part of North America.

The ideal is something less centralised than a Mesoamerican/Andean state, but far moreso than a California Indian band. Unless this centralised state can resist a conquistador attempt, of course. Since we're discussing the Middle Ages here, it's unlikely Europeans can repeat that feat, much less repeat it again in the Andes. OTL this Mississippian state didn't exist, so the Europeans would encounter something like what de Soto saw, but no doubt more developed. And considering the distance and hassle to go from the East Coast to the Mississippi area, I don't think conquest is their first idea (a lot of tobacco to trade!). Although the gold in Georgia is always tempting.

 

[Prism]

OK,if Medieval Europeans decided to colonize North America,it won't be as easy in OTL,but they still had technological advances the Native Americans did not. Such as crossbows,siege machines,mills,printing press,steel,steel armor,the wheel,Greek Fire and numerous others. Hell,their castles were perfectly designed for siege andC even the cathedrals could double as fortresses. Plus,they have more livestock which means more pandemics and they have horses. Hell,they have the Black Death and Bubonic Plague which were far worse than Smallpox.
On the Vikings,their longships and navigation;few are their equals in that regard with the exception of the Polynesians and Phoenicians. Their longships are more then capable of a Transatlantic voyage. What probably did Vinland in OTL was the Mini Ice Age which near crippled Europe. So,let's say that there's more reason to go to Vinland and explore. Such as a lot more Norse get outlawed and decide that Vinland is a lot safer than Scandinavia. Either that or they discover the Mississippians and decide to set up trade. Mayhap they discover Maple syrup and offer up honey as an equivalent trade.
One of the Italian city-states like Venice or Genoa decide that the Americas is more economical than the Indies and set up trade colonies,perhaps around the edge of Mesoamerica. Or maybe further up north.
There was tons of persecution against early Protestants,like the Hussites,Lollards,Waldensians,Cathars and any Christian sect that was not Catholic or Orthodox,so mayhap have some flee Europe and set up colonies. Make sure they have provisions,are capable of protecting themselves and that they have a high birthrate,plus are capable of working the land. Maybe that will enable them to survive. Especially if they set up alliances with local tribes.
Anyway,yes Medieval Europeans have the tech,livestock and even germs in their favor. Just won't be as easy as in later times.

 

[altwere]

A thought, at the time of the OTL maple syrup was usually boiled down to maple sugar. Maple sugar is much more compact and transportable.

 

[Michael B]

On the Vikings,their longships and navigation;few are their equals in that regard with the exception of the Polynesians and Phoenicians. Their longships are more then capable of a Transatlantic voyage. What probably did Vinland in OTL was the Mini Ice Age which near crippled Europe. So,let's say that there's more reason to go to Vinland and explore. Such as a lot more Norse get outlawed and decide that Vinland is a lot safer than Scandinavia. Either that or they discover the Mississippians and decide to set up trade. Mayhap they discover Maple syrup and offer up honey as an equivalent trade.

Much better to trade iron, which the Indians will want for furs, which Europe has a giant market for. Whilst there is a sugar market in Europe, the Indians are not going to produce very much.

One of the Italian city-states like Venice or Genoa decide that the Americas is more economical than the Indies and set up trade colonies,perhaps around the edge of Mesoamerica. Or maybe further up north.

If the Italian city-states are going to hit the New World they would be better off stopping short of Mesoamerica and set up sugar planations in the Carribbean.

 

[FSB]

European fur stocks have not yet collapsed, so while Europe does have market, the price is not necessarily all that good. Furs would be very cheap to source from the Indians, though.

 

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

European fur stocks have not yet collapsed, so while Europe does have market, the price is not necessarily all that good. Furs would be very cheap to source from the Indians, though.

It certainly would hurt those who dominate the European (and Russian) fur trades - as it adds another option. The Hansa and Novgorod may both be weakened by more options for furs.

 

[Michael B]

It certainly would hurt those who dominate the European (and Russian) fur trades - as it adds another option. The Hansa and Novgorod may both be weakened by more options for furs.

Agree that the market for furs is not that good. Certainly not up to the level under early modern France. However, there are not very many valuable exports from North America.

 

[ATP45]

Any outsider group, from Asians to Catholic Europeans, would have "genocided" Indians, by virtue of their lack of disease resistance. North of Mesoamerica, only the Mississippians really had the potential to withstand the epidemics, based on their population density. California Indians were also densely populated, but their fragmentation and disunity compared to the Mississippians means they'd be far less likely to withstand the epidemics.

Diseases killed most of native population - but spanish catholic did not genocided rest,when protestant Englismen did.That is why mexicans are mixed blood,and yanks are not.
Why protestant kill indians? becouse of Old Testament.They belived,that jews really genocided Kaanan - and becouse was "New Israel" they dutifully killed off indians.
That is tragicomedy,becouse jews not really genocided Kaanan,only wrote obout it in Bible.Why? to look stronger - just like they wrote about Salomon small kingdom as a superpower.

 

[Arkenfolm]

Diseases killed most of native population - but spanish catholic did not genocided rest,when protestant Englismen did.That is why mexicans are mixed blood,and yanks are not.
Why protestant kill indians? becouse of Old Testament.They belived,that jews really genocided Kaanan - and becouse was "New Israel" they dutifully killed off indians.
That is tragicomedy,becouse jews not really genocided Kaanan,only wrote obout it in Bible.Why? to look stronger - just like they wrote about Salomon small kingdom as a superpower.

While I don't believe the depopulation of the Americas counts as genocide, there certainly were numerous genocides in that depopulation. The treatment of the Indians fed into the mines in the Andes and Mexico as effectively slave labourers probably would count as a genocide.

Anglo-Americans are not mixed-race because there was no large population to mix with unlike in Latin America, and not because they killed them, but because they died in large numbers of disease. Also, the white settlers were proportionately larger in number over a smaller area, and also included entire families far more than Latin American colonists. That, and extensive immigration in the 19th century. A similar case is Argentina, where the number of natives was much smaller compared to elsewhere in Latin America, and the country also got much immigration in the 19th/20th century. Argentines are thus less mixed as a whole than other Latin Americans.

I've never heard the idea of America as a "New Israel" and "we need to kill all natives" as being a major idea or playing a major role in conflict. That sort of ideology certainly existed, but you can't actually say it was ever a major reason for anything.