could venice or genoa or any other italien state colonise the americas

well could Venice or genoa or any other Italien state colonise the Americas because i know columbus first went to the Italien states but could they really colonise the massive land
 
*Contains laugh* Correct, under near OTL circunstances, meaning no super-genoa, venice, tuscany or naples. However one of these major states, provably the merchant republics, could have held gibraltar/ceuta long enough to send colonists somewhere in the Americas, though I don't see this being their priorities.

That, of course, is until the harsh reality of Castille/Spain, or even Portugal, tramples them like a train.
 
No if this Italian state not control Gibraltar Straits and even then it is difficult due lack of their own resources. It can't even defend its American colony.
 
You could have a Klein-Venedig or Little Venice situation. Have say Spain in return for clearing a debt allows for the creation of the respective state to create their own colony. It could be used for mostly settler purposes while allowing whatever institutions to attempted to open/create new economic markets as the reasons for it. A lot of Italians did move to the Americas and elsewhere because of such reasons as most of us would already know. There really isn't much of a stretch for such to begin earlier. So yes very plausible but due to clear reasons, said colony would generally be independent as soon as the first foot touches the ground.
 
It was not their OTL policies, but come on guys, they could have different political traditions and then major naval powers could surely play that game, too.
 
I wonder if Gian Galeazzo succeeding in unifying Italy would lead to a colonization effort? A Kingdom of Italy trying to do prestigious things might make an attempt somewhere at least?
 
I wonder if Gian Galeazzo succeeding in unifying Italy would lead to a colonization effort? A Kingdom of Italy trying to do prestigious things might make an attempt somewhere at least?
In America or Asia, No. In Africa, maybe, depends how quick they are to crush the Barbary Pirates.
 
Very concise statement, maybe too much so: care to elaborate a bit?
America and Asia, they can't physically get to, Mid East is to strongly controlled by Ottos. Leaves North Africa, again subsaharan is unlikely, Them getting much of that depends on them being the ones to break the Pirates, compared to France OTL.
 
America and Asia, they can't physically get to, Mid East is to strongly controlled by Ottos. Leaves North Africa, again subsaharan is unlikely, Them getting much of that depends on them being the ones to break the Pirates, compared to France OTL.
Do you know when Gian Galeazzo died?
 
*Contains laugh* Correct, under near OTL circunstances, meaning no super-genoa, venice, tuscany or naples. However one of these major states, provably the merchant republics, could have held gibraltar/ceuta long enough to send colonists somewhere in the Americas, though I don't see this being their priorities.

That, of course, is until the harsh reality of Castille/Spain, or even Portugal, tramples them like a train.
That's why the Spanish and Portuguese trampled like a train all the French, English and Dutch colonies which sprang up in the Lesser Antilles?
Whatever the pretensions of Spain and Portugal, they were spread pretty thin and could not police adequately the Caribbeans, or even Brazil coast.
The crown of Spain was interested in getting silver and gold out of the Americas, not to invest it there, much less to spend money to firm up their grasp over the lesser islands(most of which they never visited). From time to time (maybe once every 10 years) they made a half-hearted sweep in the Lesser Antilles, and if they happened to notice a settlement of interlopers - interlopers according to their interpretation of the treaty of Tordesillas - they usually burned it, and some times they took prisoners the colonists and brought them to Cuba condemned to forced works. But if the bulk of the colonists took refuge in the interior of the islands, they almost never chased them. Not to mention that the prevailing winds in the Caribbeans (and the currents too) made the transit from Cuba/Santo Domingo to the LAsa very slow trip. If - and it is a big if, because the various regencies were usually reluctant to work together - the Spanish had decided to put together all their assets in the Caribbeans, they could certainly make a clean sweep: the game was not worth the candle to them, and in any case as soon as the Spanish armada left the islands, there would have been another dozen attempts at colonizing.

The problem with these small colonies was that they were not self-sufficient: they needed supplies and manufactured goods from the mother country, and they needed a market for their produce, be it sugar of tobacco. They also needed manpower to work in the fields, but the only ready source of manpower is through the slave trade.
Some of these colonies became quite productive and rich, but they were quite a minority.
 
America and Asia, they can't physically get to, Mid East is to strongly controlled by Ottos. Leaves North Africa, again subsaharan is unlikely, Them getting much of that depends on them being the ones to break the Pirates, compared to France OTL.

Ottos don't exist as a hegemonic power pre 1400, didnt control the Levant before circa 1510 or so, and aren't really an unstoppable juggernaut prior to the end of the 15th century give or take IMHO. Ditto Spain, or France for that matter.

Ultimately it depends on when and how the Italian state is expanding. A surviving medieval Italy could very well conquer into Aquitaine, Andalusia, or Egypt, which rather changes the calculus, doesn't it.

France moreover was much less focused on the Mediterranean and had her own problems, namely Habsburg (and then English) opposition.
 
Yes 1402, so the Barbary Pirates, start about 200 years later, which if Gian is pretty but not totally successful, gives a good time frame.
It is naive to even think that a major POD like it would result from the formation of a major unitary state in Italy during the first decades of the 15th century would not produce a whole host of butterflies that would completely change the course of European history.
Just to make one very likely possibility, the succession crisis which is coming up in Aragon very soon might become much more complicated than OTL: Anjou has a claim on the Aragonese throne, as well as on Naples. ITTL the presence of a strong Visconti state might make them choose to pursue their Aragonese prospect rather than the Neapolitan one.
It would also butterfly away the unification of the Aragonese and Castillian crowns, and this might also have an impact on the fate of Granada (which might also be "sponsored" by the Viscontis, because of its strategic position).
The key to the future colonial fortunes of a Visconti state would not be the Maghreb: it is Egypt. The Black Death made a heavy toll in Egypt, much worse than in Europe (the population of Egypt reached the pre-Black Death level only in the 18th century) and might be a juicy target which opens the door not only to grain supplies but also to the Indian market.
You might want to check the Visconti TL written by @The Undead Martyr ;)
The point is that the 15th and 16th centuries are centuries of very fast changes where a lot of events might end up differently and further change the path of future history.
 
In America or Asia, No. In Africa, maybe, depends how quick they are to crush the Barbary Pirates.

Yes 1402, so the Barbary Pirates, start about 200 years later, which if Gian is pretty but not totally successful, gives a good time frame.

I mean, there are a lot of options here in how Italy could develop. What if one of Galeazzo’s successors decides to handle the Barbary pirates “once and for all” and conquers Tunis and Tangiers? If the Italians held Tangiers that’d be a pretty good launch-off point to the New World.

EDIT: ninja’d by someone making the same point
 
It is naive to even think that a major POD like it would result from the formation of a major unitary state in Italy during the first decades of the 15th century would not produce a whole host of butterflies that would completely change the course of European history.
Just to make one very likely possibility, the succession crisis which is coming up in Aragon very soon might become much more complicated than OTL: Anjou has a claim on the Aragonese throne, as well as on Naples. ITTL the presence of a strong Visconti state might make them choose to pursue their Aragonese prospect rather than the Neapolitan one.
It would also butterfly away the unification of the Aragonese and Castillian crowns, and this might also have an impact on the fate of Granada (which might also be "sponsored" by the Viscontis, because of its strategic position).
The key to the future colonial fortunes of a Visconti state would not be the Maghreb: it is Egypt. The Black Death made a heavy toll in Egypt, much worse than in Europe (the population of Egypt reached the pre-Black Death level only in the 18th century) and might be a juicy target which opens the door not only to grain supplies but also to the Indian market.
You might want to check the Visconti TL written by @The Undead Martyr ;)
The point is that the 15th and 16th centuries are centuries of very fast changes where a lot of events might end up differently and further change the path of future history.

TBH I had not thought of it in this manner, however with Egypt it is fundamentally more vulnerable to Ottoman invasion, compared to North Africa
 
That's why the Spanish and Portuguese trampled like a train all the French, English and Dutch colonies which sprang up in the Lesser Antilles?
Whatever the pretensions of Spain and Portugal, they were spread pretty thin and could not police adequately the Caribbeans, or even Brazil coast.
The crown of Spain was interested in getting silver and gold out of the Americas, not to invest it there, much less to spend money to firm up their grasp over the lesser islands(most of which they never visited). From time to time (maybe once every 10 years) they made a half-hearted sweep in the Lesser Antilles, and if they happened to notice a settlement of interlopers - interlopers according to their interpretation of the treaty of Tordesillas - they usually burned it, and some times they took prisoners the colonists and brought them to Cuba condemned to forced works. But if the bulk of the colonists took refuge in the interior of the islands, they almost never chased them. Not to mention that the prevailing winds in the Caribbeans (and the currents too) made the transit from Cuba/Santo Domingo to the LAsa very slow trip. If - and it is a big if, because the various regencies were usually reluctant to work together - the Spanish had decided to put together all their assets in the Caribbeans, they could certainly make a clean sweep: the game was not worth the candle to them, and in any case as soon as the Spanish armada left the islands, there would have been another dozen attempts at colonizing.

The problem with these small colonies was that they were not self-sufficient: they needed supplies and manufactured goods from the mother country, and they needed a market for their produce, be it sugar of tobacco. They also needed manpower to work in the fields, but the only ready source of manpower is through the slave trade.
Some of these colonies became quite productive and rich, but they were quite a minority.

I was referring to the eventual loss of one or both gates to the atlantic(gibraltar and ceuta), assuming said italian state conquered them from granada/morrocco, making it very easy for Spain/Portugal to block or restrain italian interests in the americas. As you said, smaller colonies(which is what we'd probably get out of an italian colonizer) aren't very self-sufficient, and thus need supplies that could be harder to obtain with iberians holding both sides of the strait.

Such a feat wasn't and wouldn't be possible with any of the other colonial powers you listed, for obvious geographic reasons.

Indeed, the sheer scale of the americas made it hard for the spanish and portuguese to hold on to their belongings, but overall they were pretty successful. Even portugal got their share of low-key kicking french teeth in when they tried to intervene in their interests in africa and brazil.
 
Britain has held Gibraltar up to the present day. I see no reason that an Italy which may well be facing a divide peninsula or even own parts of it could not manage the same(depending on the PoD; medieval Italy, such as in Carps timeline, could very well involve itself in the Reconquista, and there is also the Aragonese succession crisis in 1410 which I used in my timeline to give the Italians Valencia). This is several decades hefore the union of Castille and aragon, consider thst even OTL thw union might well have not happened, or been between Portugal and Castille instead (this was in fact the plan but la baltraneja failed and Isabella revolted against her father).

Basically an early Italy, assuming a medieval PoD, has fairly dramatic consequences for European history; don't assume that the same players will exist as oTL.
 
Top