I always wonder why people always include the Dutch in this situation. Dutch history is so interwoven with Spanish history at the 16th century that such major POD could easily butterfly away the Netherlands or at least change it so much that it is unrecognisable and wouldn't be able to (or interested in) colonizing the America's.
Implications of no Spanish Conquista?
- Thread starter Blair
- Start date
Venice OTL had no chance to make a move on the new world, because of the remarkable speed with which the Castilians took control of the Carribbean and Mexico. Since they had no territor, trading posts, or claims in the new world it wouldn't have made any sence at all for them to support it. If there is no conquista, and Portugal doesn't immediately colonize the same areas, then the Italian states, enamoured as they were with exploration, might be the first to discover Aztec gold, or the Carribbean islands incredible sugar growing capacity, and thus be the first ones to take an interest.
As for Gibralter, I've heard the arguements for it, and the idea that it makes colonization by a Mediterranean based naval power impossible is just wrong IMO. Genoa had colonies in the Black Sea without controling the Bosporus, and I imagine a similar arrangement could be made with Castile as was made with Byzantium. Yes, there is danger in falling out of the controllers good graces, but if you become fabulously wealthy you could certainly make it profitable to simply allow you through.
The PoD here is going to be in the 1400s at latest, and at that time there was no universal hatred of north Africans, and in any event with an earlier PoD you can keep and strengthen the Maranids in Morocco to give you a good strong Kingdom with allot of atlantic coastland.
The Portugese were never all that big on settler colonies, and an American colony that doesn't come close to equalling their rout around the cape of good hope on an annual basis will find little support. As for them believing that the western rout is faster, there is a reason that the Portugese didn't hire Columbus. They'd done the math, and Columbus estimates about the size of the world were totally off in their opinion, and a giant landmass with scant valuables (to their knowledge) and no way around just makes it worse.
And the other Atlantic european powers, France was strongly attatched to its continental ambitions, and had very little navy at the time of the conquista, while England in this period was experiencing weak rulers and the Wars of the Roses, in addition to strong rivalry with France and little real control of Ireland and Scotland. Who else is there?
Unconsensual
Banned
Uh huh, can you site where the Italian states were so interested? I've never read anything about this. And quite frankly the Italians were galley users of the Mediterranean, not used to or suited to the high seas. More importantly they had to deal with a few hundred miles of pirates before even getting to the Atlantic, pass right by a hostile Portugal, Barbary state, Aragon, & Castile . This is no different from the Duchy of Courland, it maybe able to establish a colony, only to have it snuffed out by the big players.
& Genoa lost it after a hostile power took the straits, more importantly it distracted Genoa from defending it's home city from hostile neighbors. Even more importantly this was known land in Mediterranean waters, nothing like new land thousands of miles further on open seas.
Coast land doesn't equal seafaring power, if it was the case I'd be speaking Chinese in California now. Why would they go Atlantic when all the trade and wealth was in the Mediterranean & they had access to the east? The constant fighting with the Christians up north, it won't stop as long as N Africa was Islamic and Europe christian. Also the Atlantic coast of Morocco was a backwater with little to nothing to offer for them, why would they go there in the first place. Where's the incentive for them to develop a blue water tradition when their brown water navy served them both militarily and profitably?"
For this to work, you need to push the Christians from the Western Mediterranean.
Brazil
These are temporary problems not limited to France & England, to put it in perspective the two main seafaring cities states: Genoa and Venice were always fighting, eventually Genoa was destroyed. France & England didn't have to face constant hostility from multiple enemies ringing it's lands of whom all had vastly bigger armies & larger populations to sustain them.
Mind you this was the Silver age for the Italian states, they were getting rich off of trade with the East and they rather considered a Suez Canal before going to the Atlantic.
Also the Italian states were never too good at expanding their citizenship, especially Venetians. It's nigh high difficult for a city state of 100-150K at its peak to colonize, let alone man an Atlantic fleet in addition to a Mediterranean fleet.
Last edited:
Nope, it just means that al-Andalus colonizes the Americas instead of the Reconquista states. Or a slightly more implausible, but extremely cool, possibility: Christian and Muslim Spanish states all colonize the new world and bring the Reconquista with them!Hey, combine them - no Spain means no Spanish Conquista, right?
Bruce
I agree it would be a very interesting scenario. Should the Portuguese find themselves in control of Incan metals, it might just lead to a wide spread Portuguese empire with holding in S. America, Africa, and India. The Dutch could get into the game earlier too, playing they cards right they might have more luck colonially as well. Someone is bound to conquer the Aztecs and if we're letting the castilians colonize id put mt money on them, Spain conquered the Chibchan Nations in 1502 and the Aztec Empire in 1520 OTL, both of these conquests came before the Incan one in the 1530's. If the Portuguese discover Incan gold before the castilians and capture said gold before the castilians have a chance to respond all of this becomes plausible. Anyhow what do you think/what might happen next? Also what of N. America would we see different colonization patterns there as well?
Last edited:
Were the Andalus Muslims at all into Atlantic navigation? I don't think they're very likely to discover the Americas, although they might get involved after the Brits or the Scandinavians (or the Basques) discover America by the northern route...
Bruce
No, but the Reconquista Spanish weren't either. (except for the last year of the Reconquista, obviously)
I see little justification in the often repeated theme that if Al Andalus had stayed Islamic they would not turn westward. Political or even Religious differences were present and could be expanded to have them look at colonizing the Americas. They already got into enough fights with Europe, raiders and corsairs appearing as far as England and the Netherlands. They would be just as interested in the trade products of the Western Hemisphere and would be drawn in for similar reasons as their Christian counterparts.
Yeah, but they had the practical example of the Portuguese right next door (and quite a few of their leading explorers and skilled captains were of Portuguese extraction - Magellan/Maghaeles, anyone?)
Bruce
Didn't say they wouldn't get involved, just that they weren't likely to be the first there...and with the historical struggle to maintain a stable regime, pesky Christians to the north and close involvement in NW African affairs, they have other distractions and committments. They might succeed in establishing some colonies of their own, but something on the scale of the OTL Spanish conquest seems unlikely, unless we are assuming an Andalusian state fundamentally different from ours. (Of course, to avoid the reconquista, you just might need that to begin with).
Bruce
That was because of Prince Henry the Navigator and Portugal's far western position, though.
I don't think it would stop the Conquista, but the biggest reason I can think of would be that they have trade with the rest of the Muslim world, which is to the east.
Yeah, the whole "they're blocking our trade routes to the east and holding the sacred cities" is less important when they're fellow Muslims, and it's not like there's an Islamic version of Prester John to ally with. Of course, if relations between an *Ottoman Empire and Al-Andalus are bad enough, perhaps the idea of going around Africa to make contacts with the Persians and the rest of Eastern Islam would catch on...
Bruce
Conquistadors and Ghazis were two sides of the same coin. They fought for God, Wealth, and Fame. The formation of the Spanish Empire came about fairly unintentionally.
If the Fatimids were able to secure their power they would have screwed up Al Andalus and pretty much the majority of the Islamic world.
When did the Fatimids come into the discussion?
And by "screwed up" do you mean "massively change" or "lead to an earlier decline of Dar-al-Islam relative to the European states?"Bruce
When did the Fatimids come into the discussion?
Bruce
If the Fatimids manage to keep power in Egypt then given their Shia beliefs they would be in a certain amount of rivalry with their Sunni neighbors. Given Egyptian naval strategic dominance they could challenge the other Islamic states for trade. Thus a Al-Andalus would be propelled to look for other routes to Asia.