Earlier Colonization in the New World in 1200 AD?

By that I mean would of it been possible if the Byzantines, Celtics(if they were still around) and the Arabs to possibly colonize the world a lot earlier in the 1200's?
 
By that I mean would of it been possible if the Byzantines, Celtics(if they were still around) and the Arabs to possibly colonize the world a lot earlier in the 1200's?

Byzantines have enough on their plate in the 1200s and it's a long way to across the Med, let alone across the Atlantic. Celts don't have the resources. Arabs don't have the motivation - remember, the Iberians started sailing because the Arabs/Muslims stood astride the land routes to the wealth of the east.

There was, however, an African prince, Abu Bakr II who sent a fleet into the Atlantic in the 1300s to see what was there. He never returned. But if he had...
 
By that I mean would of it been possible if the Byzantines, Celtics(if they were still around) and the Arabs to possibly colonize the world a lot earlier in the 1200's?

I think it would just be the Normans and Andalusians since almost nobody else had any motivation. Byzantines and Arabs benefited from traditional trade lanes, and Italy boy proxy through them.

Not with out the compass or caravels or at least some modicum of average level astronomy

A man actually proved he could circumnavigate with an old Egyptian reed and wood dhow and an astrolabe

The main problem is economics, disease would destroy the native population so the land is settleable, but who in 1200 has a land shortage that couldnt fill that by going east? Maybe Andalusian merchants will try to slave, gold and fur trade, but it's not profitable.
 
The main problem is economics, disease would destroy the native population so the land is settleable, but who in 1200 has a land shortage that couldnt fill that by going east? Maybe Andalusian merchants will try to slave, gold and fur trade, but it's not profitable.

It's the same problem as with the Norse. Discovering the Americas is feasible but there's no economic incentive to stay or build a colony. Even the English colonies didn't really get going until the mid 1600s when population pressures in Europe had built up and technology made shipping thousands of people across the ocean feasible.
 
It's the same problem as with the Norse. Discovering the Americas is feasible but there's no economic incentive to stay or build a colony. Even the English colonies didn't really get going until the mid 1600s when population pressures in Europe had built up and technology made shipping thousands of people across the ocean feasible.

The Spanish seemed to find enough reason to set up up almost a century before the English. Sure Vinland wouldn't have much but the gold and silver in Central America?
 
I've been playing with a timeline idea where the conversion to Christianity of Scandinavia is slower and in response a sizable number of Norse Pagans flee to Vinland. They have the kind of push (percecution) to motivate them, and the economic skills to create trade networks, and the numbers create a beachhead in Newfoundland. The fact that they have no home to return to is also a motivating factor.

Basically, you would need combination of a "pull" to encourage people go west that can't be met in other ways and a "Push" to encourage people to risk going off the map.

As for the tech, you need a plausible reason for it to be developed at the proper time. Life and death and greed situations are great motivators.
 
The Spanish seemed to find enough reason to set up up almost a century before the English. Sure Vinland wouldn't have much but the gold and silver in Central America?

Gold and silver that would be largely inaccessible in the 1200s due to a lack of gunpowder and an inability to get large numbers of people across the ocean because of technological and logistical considerations. A Norman or Arab invasion of Mexico in the 1200s is going to result in a lot of dead Normans and Arabs even with the advantage of diseases. Heck Spanish successes in the New World were a lucky and close run thing a few centuries later. Trade is still a possibility though.
 
Gold and silver that would be largely inaccessible in the 1200s due to a lack of gunpowder and an inability to get large numbers of people across the ocean because of technological and logistical considerations. A Norman or Arab invasion of Mexico in the 1200s is going to result in a lot of dead Normans and Arabs even with the advantage of diseases. Heck Spanish successes in the New World were a lucky and close run thing a few centuries later. Trade is still a possibility though.

Not to mention if the Vikings stayed and continue to colonize at least a good amount of North America then it would of seen a lot of Native American Vikings. Since there is proof that Native American Vikings did in fact existed as well as Black Vikings.
 
Given all the speculation regarding pre-columbian contact including the Romans,Arabs,Chinese,Phoenican,Irish and Mali I'm not too sure that the ships were incapable of trans Atlantic travel. There would have to be a motive though. Maybe some of the Knights Templar did escape to the new continent and founded a small settlement on one of the islands. Likewise with the Cathars or other heretics who figured the risks were worth non persecution. The riches of the Toltecs if word got out would be tempting to any African or European civilization. Macaronesia would actually be an easy stepping stone on the way to the Caribbean. And any conquerors or colonizers would do what they always did with natives. Either subjugate them,cultivate alliances and/or use local enmities to their advantage. There's a ton of ways for medieval or even ancient colonization to occur. Or at the very least trade established. Now if relations between christians and muslims were even more strained or the Mongols went on a rampage earlier, that as well would add motive for alternative trade routes and new converts for either muslims or christians.
 
Last edited:
Possiblities:

Phoenicians/Carthagians--Plenty of room for colonization. Possibly capable, considering Hanno the Navigator, but what would they go that far west? No reason I can think of.

Greeks/Romans-- No reason to go that far west and larger priorities closer to home.

Polynesians--Some evidence to suggest they reached South America, but not in large enough numbers. Probably much more difficult/impossible with the ecological devastation of Easter Island which was probably too small in and of itself to sustain colonization.

Celts Skilled enough. Possibly motivation: Fleeing the Romans. But at all times they had places to flee, either Britian when Gaul was conquered or north when Britian was conquered. The Irish Celts and probably the Brits are aware of Thule (Iceland). If someone felt like fleeing, they would have no rivals and no reason to go further. Celtic conversion to Christianity was fairly peaceful.

Arabs Don't know them well, but the Atlantic Arabs don't seem to be able seaman. Lost of ocean to the west and little reason to go that way.

Basques Possible, then then their homelands are realitively peaceful. No motivation and probably not the numbers to establish a more then a few temporary camps.

Norsemen --They made it but they did not stay. RL problem not enough colonists to face the hostile native population. Possible solution? More colonists. Only motive that seems to possibly exist at the time is resistance to Christianization. OtL, Leif Ericsson was a Christian convert, though his father and siblings were Pagan. OTL problem Chistianization in the Atlantic facing Norway was extremely swift due to fairly effective percecutions under Olaf Tryggvason. Conversion of Iceland was due to economic pressure from Norway and took place in 999-1000 peacefully but under threat of force.

I think if you slowed this process, to over a 100 year period like what happened Sweden, you might have a population of motivated colonists fleeing percecution. Truthfully this is the only PoD I could think of which might end up with a large enough population to be sustainable. Kill King Olaf and his hirdman, Leif Ericcson in some skirmish and you might have something.
 
By that I mean would of it been possible if the Byzantines, Celtics(if they were still around) and the Arabs to possibly colonize the world a lot earlier in the 1200's?

Not really : lack of ressources, especially for the latter ones, possibilities, motivation to undergo such with the naval technology of the time.
First, we'd need to have soemone able not only to cross the Great Sea, but with the technology to do so regularily in less than 2/1 month.

IOTL, it may have been possible for Basque fishermen, on a semi-seasonal base, but not before the early XVth century at best.
And at this time, not any people you mentioned had the possibility to undergo such expedition.

Phoenicians/Carthagians--Plenty of room for colonization. Possibly capable, considering Hanno the Navigator, but what would they go that far west? No reason I can think of.
Hanno the navigator basically followed the landmasses. There's a huge difference sailing by coast with navies going at best at 3 knots (in favourable conditions, and commercial ships) keeping coast lines in sight; and going west in what appeared for an endless sea.

Celts Skilled enough.
And not technologically read enough : Romans ships would probably go as quickly as 4 knots in best conditions; Gallic ships (as Veneti) were good enough but not matching this (and Brythonic and Gaels didn't even had that).

As for fleeing, doing so either in Germany, Caledonia or even Hibernia would have been far easier (and eventually was done) than attempting some random journey west with embarcation barely fit for long-range coastal sailing.

The Irish Celts and probably the Brits are aware of Thule (Iceland).
No real proof Gaels were aware of Iceland before the High Middle Ages (possibly in conjuction with Gael maritime raids), to say nothing of Britons.


Arabs Don't know them well, but the Atlantic Arabs don't seem to be able seaman. Lost of ocean to the west and little reason to go that way.[/QUOTE]
Well, I'd disagree there : Arabo-Andalusians and Arabo-Berbers were, in spite of a cultural bias that went only growing after the XIth century, still had enough skilled sailors to defeat Vikings, and to make western Mediteranean sea their sea up to the rise of Italian republics (basically Xth->XIIIth centuries).

But eventually their focus was far less exploration or long-range trade than local hegemony and local transportation (and even that went to be seen with greater suspicion with time)

IATL, I wouldn't be surprised to see Arabo-Berbers settling Canarias, for instance.

Basques Possible, then then their homelands are realitively peaceful.
When, exactly?
Basques were at a litteral crossroad between Europe and Spain, meaning quite disputed areas since Basques appeared as a geopolitical thing in High Middle Ages, up to the Hundred Years Wars.

Of course, when we talk about Basque sailors, we're mostly speaking about fishermen, rather than the expression of an organised policy. IOTL, with the right technology, they were able to follow the fish's trails up to North America easily, but that was hardly ancestral knowledge. Actually it could came from the early XVth century.
 
The Spanish seemed to find enough reason to set up up almost a century before the English. Sure Vinland wouldn't have much but the gold and silver in Central America?

The Spanish had a hidalgo culture which in the Muslim world is the equivalent of a ghazi culture- kill, conquer, brutalize, enslave, and convert for glory. The conquistadors were all examples of cunning, strong men who rose out of the culture of the reconquista. The norse and Andalusians didn't have this religious conqueror mentality and were quite tolerant. Maybe if the Ummayads never collapsed and conquered North Spain, or if the Andalusian princedoms unified under a conqueror, the Ottoman-like ghazi culture would be generated.
 
Andalusians didn't have this religious conqueror mentality and were quite tolerant
Nope. Basically, more and more Islamized it gets, less Muslim Spain looked as a scenic country of tolerence, hence pogroms since the XIth century, and expulsions/migrations out of it.

Furthermore political legitimacy, whatever for Christians or Muslims in Spain, was about ability to take down or to raid their neighbours : until the final conquest, Nasirids always lead raids against Christians.

(And I'm not even talking about their struggles against Sh'ia Fatimids)

The problem isn't being religiously-driven, but having the opportunities, the ressources and the technology to undergo a colonisation.

Maybe if the Ummayads never collapsed and conquered North Spain
They did IOTL, it's just that the structural unstability of Muslim Spain made it pretty hard to maintain a clear domination (altough having it onto a sphere of influence is another matter entierly) critically with regular support from their northern neighbours (which Andalusians didn't have themselves).

or if the Andalusian princedoms unified under a conqueror
It happened, quite regularly : Almoravids and Almohads are pretty much what you describe.
 
Top