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?
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 with out the compass or caravels or at least some modicum of average level astronomy
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.
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.
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?
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.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.
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).Celts Skilled enough.
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.The Irish Celts and probably the Brits are aware of Thule (Iceland).
When, exactly?Basques Possible, then then their homelands are realitively peaceful.
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?
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.Andalusians didn't have this religious conqueror mentality and were quite tolerant
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).Maybe if the Ummayads never collapsed and conquered North Spain
It happened, quite regularly : Almoravids and Almohads are pretty much what you describe.or if the Andalusian princedoms unified under a conqueror