DBWI Done Properly, Hopefully: What if the Americas had been inhabited by humans?

Thande

Donor
(OOC: All right, there's been a fair amount of DBWI-hateage recently, and not without reason. So let's try and do one properly. Firstly, this is a DBWI, i.e. there was a POD separating this timeline from OTL, and from the perspective of people living in TTL we're asking what we think OTL would look like - which, it is expected, we will get amusingly wrong due to our preconceptions colouring our judgement. The POD here is that humans never entered the Americans, which is a bit ASB I admit, but it's sufficiently far in the past that it shouldn't affect our discussion, it just sets up the scenario)

So I was reading about African resistance to European colonisation the other day, and it got me thinking: what if the Americas had had native peoples as well? Not as technologically advanced as Europeans probably, but still people living there on the land who would have resisted encroachment by European colonisers, instead of the virgin uninhabited land our ancestors discovered? How would history have been different?
 
Do lost early nipponese colonies like in "Ronin Clan" series count? Or maybe some early *Islander travelling and settling the land? I don't think you can get more native than that realistically. That is, unless you get a geological **IP. (I know, we really shouldn't overuse this pun. ;) )

As for your question, some random thoughs: I think the exploration of Americas would accelerate considerably. At the very least we could trade for maps with the natives. Also, don't forget the added incentive of plunder. The natives would have gathered, mined or crafted some goods ready for taking. On the other hand, either no or less slavery, as there would be enough potential workers in place already.

OOC: *Polinesian, **IP = POD, stands for Initial Pebble
 

Sachyriel

Banned
Well, wouldn't different European cultures have varying views on these other people? I mean, with an initial pebble rippling into the mix, would the Spanish expand their racial class system beyond black, white and interracial?

I think that these other peoples would likely drive the invaders off the continent. I mean, unless Cathay or Japan or some other power came at them from the West and boxed them in, they'd have an entire continent to regroup and drive out the colonization efforts.
 
Intresting.

We would need to figure out how large the North America native population would be. Are we talking 1000's or 1000000's?

If there are fewer people, it might not make much diffrence, and if trhey live far inland, European settlers won't find them for a long time. It may take decades, or even hundreds of years, to establish firm contact.

On the other hand, if there are large numbers, contact would come sooner.

It really depends on what kind of society the natives have. If they have developed into a European style society, then the two would get along well.

If however they were nomads and "savages", like the ones who lived in the Pacific, Europeans would be brutal towards them.
 
America would have been colonized much later, no earlier then 1700 I think.

The colonization of Africa would've been pushed into the 19th centuary since at least North America will be alot easier to control then Africa...
 

wormyguy

Banned
The oppressors may try to pretend we never existed, but we are here, we are united, and we are strong! We will fight to regain our fnsadbhff&&"'dfwe746vvm

Subject Disconnected. Reason: MORAL DISSONANCE

Subject Terminated. Reason: MORAL DISSONANCE

EXTERMINATE THIS THOUGHT.

EXTERMINATE THIS THOUGHT.

THE WORLD STATE LOVES YOU.
 

Thande

Donor
Here's an interesting thought: a lot of the Polynesian islands suffered very badly from European diseases like smallpox when they were first discovered. D'you think that might be the case here? What would that be like across an entire continent?
 
Here's an interesting thought: a lot of the Polynesian islands suffered very badly from European diseases like smallpox when they were first discovered. D'you think that might be the case here? What would that be like across an entire continent?

I don't think we'd see that much of a collapse - maybe an initial dip from the first contact, but an entire continent being cut down? That's Plague levels, and I don't think smallpox is really enough on its own to provide that sort of destruction.

Though it could be interesting to see their plagues hitting us... One Influent sailor heading back to Amsterdam at exactly the right time to decimate the Netherlands.
 

Thande

Donor
I don't think we'd see that much of a collapse - maybe an initial dip from the first contact, but an entire continent being cut down? That's Plague levels, and I don't think smallpox is really enough on its own to provide that sort of destruction.

Though it could be interesting to see their plagues hitting us... One Influent sailor heading back to Amsterdam at exactly the right time to decimate the Netherlands.

That's true. If you take it to Ethereal Void Bird levels, you could even see a scenario where the trading/colonising countries get decimated and the interior ones like Russia get a temporary advantage. Could change the outcome of the Italian Wars, for example.
 

Sachyriel

Banned
That's true. If you take it to Ethereal Void Bird levels, you could even see a scenario where the trading/colonising countries get decimated and the interior ones like Russia get a temporary advantage. Could change the outcome of the Italian Wars, for example.

For all we know there could have been domesticated animals that have diseases as well. Not only the humans that could have been there in a different time, but their livestock could have been diseased. If these diseases came over the oceans who knows what kinds of diseases they might have mutated into?
 
If the Americas had had natives prior to colonization, then colonization would have gone quicker. Why?

As Nek said, the natives would suffer from Old World diseases, which, whether they be plague levels or only temporary dips, would give the Europeans an advantage, for the short term if at least.

So European colonisers (probably starting with Spain and Portugal as in This World) would be able to establish toeholds in the New World surrounded by natives. Assuming the natives have agriculture, they'd be mostly sedentary, and make good trading partners. Being able to trade for food and other supplies would allow the first colonies to survive for much longer, perhaps even indefinitely.

In addition to that, the natives would have definitely domesticated native crops and livestock for their own uses. If they give these to the Europeans and show them how to grow and gather the crops, it will be much less time until the New World colonies are self-sufficient. So, so far we have colonies which are both self-sufficient and worth the effort in the short-term. This means that we'll see settlements pop up in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, instead of only really starting until later.

Other than the Iberian countries, who else would be interested in New World colonies? I'd wager it would include the trading states, like the Italies and Hanseatic nations. Where would this lead in the long run?
 

Thande

Donor
Other than the Iberian countries, who else would be interested in New World colonies? I'd wager it would include the trading states, like the Italies and Hanseatic nations. Where would this lead in the long run?
Good point. I could see Venice and Genoa competing over the sugar islands in the West Indies.[1] However, don't forget that small nations that found colonies can have them taken away by treaties after losing wars at home - like what happened to Port Henry and Tudorborough in This World after the War of the Holy Roman Succession.



[1] OOC: Still makes sense to use this as a name in TTL as Columbus would still claim they were the East Indies to start with, but not the Caribbean as that derives from the name of a tribe.
 
Well, the obvious benefit - there wouldn't be any of the 'Land Of The Free' nonsense that developed following the Wars Of Succession. Our preconceptions of the Virgin World would be far different to what they are today, and the 'free-soil' ideology is far more difficult to sustain when that soil has other people living on it (and farming it, if these theoretical aboriginals can develop corn into a sustainable founder crop).

I also don't buy into this idea some scholars push that a native population in the Americas is going to worsen the situation in India once European colonialism appears - partly because I doubt it's possible for things to get worse than an arbitrary division of the Carnatic between five members of a shaky alliance, three of whom have a mutual and destructive hatred of each other and all of them possessing an almost complete disregard for the wellbeing of native populations, and partly because populating America doesn't mean the Europeans are just going to give up trying to conquer the damn place (cf. Austrocambria*).


*ATL Australia, from a bastardised Latinisation of 'South Wales', as in New South Wales

EDIT: Yeah, the infodump was supposed to be more 'description of infamous historical event the events of which are well enough known that the name doesn't need to be mentioned'. That I need to justify it probably suggests it didn't succeed.
 
If the Americas had been colonized, do you think the American fauna would have been wiped out by these "Americans" as it was by European settlers? Or could they have domesticaded the buffalo or the mountain sheep*? Also, would agriculture ever be developed there? IOTL were the Europeans who brought wheat and other grains to America, and there almost no plant worth of cultivation.**

*Llamas.

**Without the Native populations corn is never developed to the point of become an important aliment, and potatos or cassavas are just strange plants with weird roots.
 

Thande

Donor
If the Americas had been colonized, do you think the American fauna would have been wiped out by these "Americans" as it was by European settlers? Or could they have domesticaded the buffalo or the mountain sheep*

But if humans could have crossed into the Americas, wouldn't horses have come with them? Maybe other Old World domesticated animals, too...
 
Guys, I think we are ignoring a bigger consequence. Even if the natives died out quickly, but espeicaly if they didn't had had coherent nations, the colonial powers could not have mapped and claimed the entire contenent so fast.

Just think of the consequences for the series of wars over the Western borders. In OTL, these "wars" were mainly on paper, because of the lack of population. But with natives, it is quite possible that some colonies would become independent before the interior was well explored.

(Or if you just want to have some fun in a TL, imagine turning these natives against themselves and taking sides as a means of turning the border wars into real wars)
 

Thande

Donor
Guys, I think we are ignoring a bigger consequence. Even if the natives died out quickly, but espeicaly if they didn't had had coherent nations, the colonial powers could not have mapped and claimed the entire contenent so fast.

But if there were natives to trade with, wouldn't exchanging knowledge and maps mean the continent was mapped faster than in This World?
 
But if humans could have crossed into the Americas, wouldn't horses have come with them? Maybe other Old World domesticated animals, too...

I think it depends on which populations could have crossed. Probably the most likely of them are the Islanders of the Eastern Ocean (OCC: Pacific), and they didn't have horses. Could pigs perhaps make the journey?

Also, some people talk about the possibility of Siberian natives crossing the straits to North America (highly unlikely, due to the harsh environmental conditions), but did they raised anything else than reindeer? Maybe we could see domesticated reindeer farms in the northern regions of the continent?
 
Top