Earlier European discovery of the Americas

Nobody's being very clear about this, and Umbral seems to be ill-informed of it, so I'll state this for those who don't know:

Columbus got financing to sail west for India because the fall of Constantinople to the Muslims meant that the old trade routes to India and China were cut off. He was not sent because Isabella had money to burn. His plan was insane, which is why nobody funded it until the city fell and the issue of finding a new route to the East became urgent.

Thanks for the clarity, though I might add that it was not crazy to him personally, he beleived he had reached Asia till he died. Of course HE was crazy...

Back on topic, maybe some Icelandic pagans take a harder line against christianizing influences from Europe and move to Newfoundland, creating a lasting settlement with a trickle of trade with Europe for certain goods. Eventually word starts to spread about all the extra land and resources, of course youde need joint stock companies to fund major ventures but perhaps small scale settlement starts. Probably a win for the natives that late to ernmenta aren't interested right away.
 
Why not just make Constantinople fall early?

Too early and the European countries will be too poor and too badly organized to take advantage of it the way later monarchs did. Authority would need to centralize further as well. Or at least business's would have to be advanced enough for the formation of joint stock companies.
 
speaking of the Norse... maybe someone gets intrigued by the tales of Vinland and gets royal sponsorship to go find it again? Not sure just how that would come about, but stranger things have happened...
 
I know it's a long-shot, but how about smaller lords and princes wanting to carve themselves a few kingdoms?

Not sure that they'd really think of the Americas as a good place to do so.

Though - and where are our Mesoamerican experts when we need 'em - something like the Normans of the 11th-12th century (or maybe even the Normans themselves) going there would be interesting if you could make it work.

On the fall of Constantinople: Constantinople had less to do with it than the monopoly held by Egypt, but it amounts to the same thing - economic monopoly (by Muslims) that Western Europeans wanted to break.
 
So Columbus being funded in pursuit of a better route to profit is the same as searching for something that may or may not even exist because . . ..

Colombus was being funded in pursuit of a better route that may or may not exist. This is not dissimilar from searching for other routes to profitable things that may or may not exist.

I'm responding to this part alone because I am quite at a loss as to the basis of your attitude that medieval Europeans are just going to throw money away - either kings (or powerful nobles), or merchants that have even less reason to be quixotic..

That is because you are misrepresenting me. I am not saying that medieval Europeans are just going to throw money away.

My point is that people then were just as likly to make mistakes, be taken in by conmen or charismatic nutters as people are today. Also, if a monarch got a bad idea in his head, society had fewer political circuitbreakers to stop that idea from being translated into action. Sometimes, projects that seem sensible at the start turn out to be money thrown away in hindsight. Then and now.

Further, people back then had a different set of basic assumptions about things like geography and religon, which could lead to decisions that seem strange to us today, but perfectly sensible in their setting.

I honestly don't see why this is a point of contention. It is fairly basic.

Could it happen? Sure. People do stupid things. But it would take a pretty good argument (by someone at the time) to justify it, which is about all this has in common with Columbus.

How many good arguments do you think were made to kings in Europe over a, say 200 years period?

I mean, its not like Colombus expedition was the only one. King Magnus of Norway and Sweden comissoned an expedition to America 150 years before Colombus were funded. In this case, to pursue Greenlanders from the Western Settlement, who were presumend to have reverted to paganism and fled.

200 years before that, Bishop Gnupsson set out for Vinland on his own initiative, for religous reasons.

It did happen occasionally. Colombus got massive interest for his landing because he massivly overreported and published the amount of gold he found.

Now that would be interesting, although I'm not sure why it would be particularly appealing to sail to - and stay in -Greenland as opposed to somewhere considerably more fortune-producing.

I mean, you could have them spin a story of cities with streets paved with gold, but what happens when no such cities are found?

The d'Hautevilles were a lot of things, but not quixotic.

I think the point is that if we have an expedition (sent for whatever reason) that returns with tales of available land futher south, this might catch some interest. For example, if our POD is that Bishop Eirik Gnupsson survives his trip to Vinland in 1121, he may report pleasant climes further sout in Vinland (he was bishop of Greenland, his idea of a pleasant climate would probably have been a low bar), and lots of pagan skrællings.

Converting pagans appeals to clerics, and land appeals to nobility. Some of both may have found the conditions more interesting than fighting Moors in the Crusades. Less sieges and boiling oil, better land, more converts. Less plunder and a more dangerous trip. Might work for some.

Columbus wasn't a moron, he was basing his assumptions on the Ptolemaic universe, which was widely beleived it then, it's anachronistic to say an idea is stupid just because it has since been disproven. Was everyone stupid before Newton proved gravity??.

I am not sure what you are trying to say?

During Colombus time, educated people had a pretty good idea of the circumference of the Earth from Eratosthenes, Posidonius, and even El Ma'muns calculations. Which is why Colombus initially were refused.

Colombus, however, had his own figure. He though the circumfrence was half that or so. And that Asia extended a lot further east. He was wrong and everybody else was right. If he hadn't lucked into something else in the middle of the ocean, he'd have died out there.

What does the Ptolemaic/Copernican etc models have to do with it?

The basque and Viking explorations are perfect examples of what would not create lasting contact because they didn't. The reason Columbus' voyage created a lasting link was because it was funded by a powerful and expansionistic royal European government who had a vested interest in getting around a powerful enemy.

Which...they didn't find there, so that was no reason to go back. Contact lasted because Colombus massivly overreported the amount of gold he found. A con job. Which tends not to be remembered because lots of gold were actually found later.

Nobody's being very clear about this, and Umbral seems to be ill-informed of it, so I'll state this for those who don't know:.

I know of it, but what is the relevance? Isabella had a reason to look for a sea alternative to the silk road. People tend to have reasons, even when they make errors or look in the wrong place.

He was not sent because Isabella had money to burn. His plan was insane, which is why nobody funded it until the city fell and the issue of finding a new route to the East became urgent.

Well, strictly speaking it was funded just after the reconquista ended, so there was probably excess funds available to turn to other purposes.

speaking of the Norse... maybe someone gets intrigued by the tales of Vinland and gets royal sponsorship to go find it again? Not sure just how that would come about, but stranger things have happened...

Vinland wasn't, stricly speaking, lost. People know of it, but badly underestimated the size of it, and how far south it extended. What would be needed would be some kind of discovery or development that made it attractive.
 
Colombus was being funded in pursuit of a better route that may or may not exist. This is not dissimilar from searching for other routes to profitable things that may or may not exist.

Searching for a better route is not the same as searching for something you don't know if it even exists, let alone where it would be.

That is because you are misrepresenting me. I am not saying that medieval Europeans are just going to throw money away.

Umbral said:
Because they were morons who had money they wanted to get rid of? Thats actually a suitable description of Colombus, after he finally got his funding.

Yeah. Totally not suggesting they wouldn't throw money away.

My point is that people then were just as likly to make mistakes, be taken in by conmen or charismatic nutters as people are today. Also, if a monarch got a bad idea in his head, society had fewer political circuitbreakers to stop that idea from being translated into action. Sometimes, projects that seem sensible at the start turn out to be money thrown away in hindsight. Then and now.

Making mistakes is one thing. Being taken in by charismatic people is one thing. But people will still do things for reasons with some actual - or strongly perceived as actual - reason.

Columbus wasn't funded because Isabella and Ferdinand were quixotic dreamers, he was funded because he made an argument that sounded good that he could find a better route to somewhere known and known to be worth finding such a route to.

"Sail around and hopefully you'll find Prester John." would taken a far better argument than "shortcut to the Indies" - and/or a far more gullible audience.

Further, people back then had a different set of basic assumptions about things like geography and religon, which could lead to decisions that seem strange to us today, but perfectly sensible in their setting.

I honestly don't see why this is a point of contention. It is fairly basic.

The point of contention is the idea that Europeans will sail west just because of some randomly chosen Mythical Land, and don't need to actually have any sound reason to do it.

How many good arguments do you think were made to kings in Europe over a, say 200 years period?

Not enough to lead to people sailing West for practically no reason.

I mean, its not like Colombus expedition was the only one. King Magnus of Norway and Sweden comissoned an expedition to America 150 years before Colombus were funded. In this case, to pursue Greenlanders from the Western Settlement, who were presumend to have reverted to paganism and fled.

200 years before that, Bishop Gnupsson set out for Vinland on his own initiative, for religous reasons.

It did happen occasionally. Colombus got massive interest for his landing because he massivly overreported and published the amount of gold he found.

So we have two (here) specific examples of sailing West for good, sound, meaningful reasons. But no examples of sailing West to find Prester John or Avalon or other mythical (and I use that word instead of just fictional for a reason) lands.

Columbus did find stuff worth following up on - did he overreport the amount of gold? Yes. But there was gold, there were people to enslave - actual gains.
 
I know of it, but what is the relevance? Isabella had a reason to look for a sea alternative to the silk road. People tend to have reasons, even when they make errors or look in the wrong place.

The relevance is that a western sea route to India was not economically viable until it was the only option. The Reconquista freed up funds, but Columbus still would not have gotten his money if the Silk Road was still open.

People wouldn't fund expeditions to sail west to India, a place they knew existed, and you're expecting people to finance expeditions to places that might exist? And "people were stupid in the Middle Ages" is a BS excuse, because anybody nuts enough to sail west for a new continent is very likely too nuts to plan a voyage that will succeed.

As for the Norse, everybody thought that Vinland was a myth until L'Anse aux Meadows was found.
 
The relevance is that a western sea route to India was not economically viable until it was the only option. The Reconquista freed up funds, but Columbus still would not have gotten his money if the Silk Road was still open.

People wouldn't fund expeditions to sail west to India, a place they knew existed, and you're expecting people to finance expeditions to places that might exist? And "people were stupid in the Middle Ages" is a BS excuse, because anybody nuts enough to sail west for a new continent is very likely too nuts to plan a voyage that will succeed.

As for the Norse, everybody thought that Vinland was a myth until L'Anse aux Meadows was found.

The sea route westward was never the only option. It was, in fact, a horrible option, and nobody who was anybody in the serious exploring business wanted anything to do with it. The Portugfuese refused to fund Columbus because they knew his assumptions were wrong. The Spanish only ultimately funded him because even though they suspected the same, it was worth a try. The route that everybody knew was the real paydirt was the eastward route to India, but of course the known stages of that were in hostile - Portuguese - hands.

And Columbus was too nuts to plan a voyage that would succeed. He did not have abnywhere near enough supplies to make it to India. If he hadn't stumbled upon the Americas, he'd never have been heard from again. This was not a question of stupidity. The experts knew it was hopeless.
 
And Columbus was too nuts to plan a voyage that would succeed. He did not have abnywhere near enough supplies to make it to India. If he hadn't stumbled upon the Americas, he'd never have been heard from again. This was not a question of stupidity. The experts knew it was hopeless.

Is it possible he correctly suspected there was land where he found it? I noticed one historians comment on Columbus visiting the Gascony ports a few years earlier. The date the Gascon or Bereton fishermen started exploiting the Grand Banks is a bit ambigious. Hypothetically he learned something of the distance to the Grands Banks & drew his conclusions from that?
 
Umbral said:
[Colombus] was trying to find India... He was looking for spices
No, he wasn't: he was looking for a route to circumvent the Arab tolls on the routes to spices. Which, if he found it, would be worth a bloody fortune.:cool::cool:
Umbral said:
Despite his contemporaries having a fairly good idea of the distance he'd have to go.
What makes you think he didn't know perfectly well, & minimized it as a way to make selling the project easier?:rolleyes:
Elfwine said:
unlikely events (such as...a 13th century discovery of the New World) need some motive behind them.
While I tend to agree, I wonder what happens if Eric the Bloody's 10th Century effort gains more attention than OTL. How big was the demand for spices in 10th-11th Century Europe? And was there an Arab interference with the trade?

Or, was there a big enough demand for cod, which the Grand Banks (which at that time were incredibly productive) could have been tapped to serve? Was whaling anything like an industry yet?

Gannt the chartist said:
The obvious something is land, especially if you are a younger son. If you want a good cast of characters and a possible link have a good sales job from Greenland resulting in the sons of Tancred D'Hauteville going west not south.

Though tbh I expect it requires better ships to make the journey attractive to anyone capable of exploiting the situation, but with the need the shipping will follow.
That sounds lovely, until you consider how damned expensive it's likely to be. This isn't just Henry Birkin going out for a bit of fun in his Bentley. This is, at a minimum, Frank Williams or Ken Tyrrell going & financing their own world-class F1 teams, if not Branson deciding to put a tourist on the Moon & starting his own private space program.:eek:
 
Last edited:
While I tend to agree, I wonder what happens if Eric the Bloody's 10th Century effort gains more attention than OTL. How big was the demand for spices in 10th-11th Century Europe? And was there an Arab interference with the trade?
Not that big yet, and not really. I mean, tehy're the middle men, but the outrageous abuse of that is late 14th century if memory serves.

Or, was there a big enough demand for cod, which the Grand Banks (which at that time were incredibly productive) could have been tapped to serve? Was whaling anything like an industry yet?

Not enough to need to go this far west.
 
Elfwine said:
Not that big yet, and not really.
So, not enough for a national effort yet. Small enough for a single merchant (or small consortium) to consider trying it? Or even for a (smaller) city-state? (In this period, I'm thinking Venice & the like had as much commercial clout as Spain later.) Or too much hazard for too small reward, against going the known route?

Which is to say, do conditions have to approach the "perfect storm" of Columbus' era? It's sounding like.
 
Last edited:

Ancientone

Banned
Is it possible he correctly suspected there was land where he found it? I noticed one historians comment on Columbus visiting the Gascony ports a few years earlier. The date the Gascon or Bereton fishermen started exploiting the Grand Banks is a bit ambigious. Hypothetically he learned something of the distance to the Grands Banks & drew his conclusions from that?
Someone had found something in the Atlantic in the 14th C and called it Hy Brasil. It has always been dismissed as a myth, but most myths have some kernal of fact. Maybe it was the Azores, maybe something further West.
 
Someone had found something in the Atlantic in the 14th C and called it Hy Brasil. It has always been dismissed as a myth, but most myths have some kernal of fact. Maybe it was the Azores, maybe something further West.

Everybody knew there was "something" in the Atlantic. Vinland, Hy Brasil, the Hesperides, the Isle of Brendan... And before Columbus, Portuguese and Spanish explorers had discovered the Canaries, the Azores and the Cape Verde Islands, all commercially viable territories. If Columbus had had that kind of thing in mind, why not sell his expedition as such? Instead, hew spent years peddling his fairy tale about Eastern riches which any competent geographer could easily show to be impossible. Indeed, which had been disproven in classical antiquity.

I would love to think that he was a smart guy fully aware of what he was doing. Regrettably, the evidence suggests he was the fifteenth-century equivalent of a Dänikenite who knew exactly where the Ancient Aliens had landed and was nagging everybody until he got funding for his excavation.
 
So, not enough for a national effort yet. Small enough for a single merchant (or small consortium) to consider trying it? Or even for a (smaller) city-state? (In this period, I'm thinking Venice & the like had as much commercial clout as Spain later.) Or too much hazard for too small reward, against going the known route?

Which is to say, do conditions have to approach the "perfect storm" of Columbus' era? It's sounding like.

You'd need something where the existing options aren't profitable (enough?), and places like Venice find the situation of the Middle Ages favorable, so . . .
 
"blown off course" like Vasco da Gama?

vasco3.jpg


America COULD be discovered occasionally by s.o. who is sailing from Europe to Equatorial or South Africa ...

In a Non Black death Europe with continuously accelerating population fishing could have more biz and market?

Aren't ALL ocean going vessels technological evolutures of the almost stone age old FISHING BOAT?

AFAIK Basque and portuguese fishermen might been pretty frequent around the shores of N.America pre-columbus?
 
There aren't voyages that far south (by Europeans) until after the Middle Ages, so being blown off course like that doesn't really work. Not without speeding up those voyages, which would require a reason too (the existing trade routes are fine).

And fishing had plenty of business OTL - but the fishing stocks took a while to reach the point when people sailed west.
 
Top