Plausibility Check: simultaneously as many native states, and colonizers, as possible

The idea: Even more Old World peoples than OTL colonize the New World. Yet, at least one people, perhaps just one leader of one empire, takes advantage of the competition between the foreign powers.

What cultures that didn't in OTL are most likely to colonize, and which OTL New World cultures are most able to adapt and survive?

The more colonizers and the more surviving tribes/empires, the better.

As far as the colonizers, I'm thinking:
- Polynesians. They may have visited the Americas in OTL, but did not leave a lasting impact.
- Inuit and Aleut colonized the Americas in OTL. ITTL, one group influenced by Vikings or even on their own accord may develop advanced ships and expand further south and east.
- Vikings. They settled the Americas in OTL, fruitlessly. ITTL they may have more success, but their sphere will be limited.
- Anglo-Saxons, after the Norman conquest, may settle Denmark because the Varangian Guard is somehow not a possibility. From Denmark, they are sent to Vinland.
- Andalusians. They had the capability in OTL and may have visited Bermuda, the Azores, Madeira, and the Canarias.
- Malinese. Abu Bakr II abdicated his throne to explore the ocean. His fleet sank in the ocean, but with some good luck, they may arrive in Brazil. Afterward they would be unable to return.
- Hispanic Christians would colonize like OTL. Portugal and Spain may be united, but later. Though Spain would not have a head-start, they would be the first colonizers with gunpowder.
- The Spanish could bring along Moriscos, who could ally with natives.
- Other Europeans could still colonize the New World. The English may see their colonies rebel earlier while the French and Dutch may cooperate with natives to their own benefit like they did to some extent IOTL.
- Austronesians, after colonizing Madagascar, could possibly colonize South Africa at the expense of the Khoisan, being just about as advanced as the Bantu. Later on they could go even further west.
- Japan, centuries after Mongol conquest, might colonize. This would be after everyone else, except for...
- the Southern Chinese, who would have been separated from Northern China for years, with their merchant colonies in the Philippines and Southeast Asia, could see a group of pirates or traders going east to the Americas. A westernizing emperor could also try to grab some lands in the West Coast.
- The Russians or Tatars would be the very last. In all likelihood they may just supplement Inuit and Aleut communities and fur trade.

As far as native states:
- The Apache and groups in that region are advantaged by their relatively inhospitable homeland. Though they would build a lot of enemies like OTL through raiding, they also have more powers to play against each other.
- The Nahua are probably the first group to be conquered. However, their conquerors could assimilate into their culture instead of the other way around. Or one state could ally with Old Worlders against neighbors.
- The Andeans have travel distance and geography on their side. Though the Inca Empire may not rise like OTL, this also means there's more of a chance that one of dozens of states may ally with Old Worlders against neighbors.
- The Amazonians would be devastated by Malinese and later Spanish smallpox and malaria. However, their agricultural techniques were promising.
- Any tribe from British Columbia to Ohio to Louisiana could retract and retreat west, or accept conquered peoples/Old World settlers into their number, or both, to preserve their independence.
- A colonist successor state could adopt native language or culture (Paraguay, for example).

Any other ideas? And how possible are some of those suggestions?
 
Last edited:
Problem: The Aztec Empire, the Inca, and other groups on your "first to be conquered" list are states. The Apache and other groups in that region are not states, they are nomadic and semi-nomadic groups. Additionally, the former are way more likely to have the manpower to permanently resist colonizing powers than the latter.

Personally I do think the idea of an East-and-West meeting in the Americas is pretty interesting. The Polynesians, the best navigators in the world at the time, were really, really close if they hadn't actually gotten there. They could have started trading with the native tribes.
 
Problem: The Aztec Empire, the Inca, and other groups on your "first to be conquered" list are states. The Apache and other groups in that region are not states, they are nomadic and semi-nomadic groups. Additionally, the former are way more likely to have the manpower to permanently resist colonizing powers than the latter.

Personally I do think the idea of an East-and-West meeting in the Americas is pretty interesting. The Polynesians, the best navigators in the world at the time, were really, really close if they hadn't actually gotten there. They could have started trading with the native tribes.
Well the Andeans (Inca would be butterflied away by Vinland and Polynesians) don't necessarily have to be conquered, considering how much more defensible and hard to access they are compared to the Nahua.

And if the Nahua or Andeans are conquered, there's no saying that the conqueror won't assimilate to his subjects in all but religion. (like Cuauhtemoc's Nahuatlacas TLs). Thus you have a native state merely with an Old World dynasty.
 
Of course, if we get early Scandinavian, Chinese, African, whatever contacts well before columbus, and horses, cattle, pigs, etc. are introduced, there will be massive changes in mobility, farming technique, immunology, etc. many OTL tribal nations will either end up in places they weren't OTL, get largely wiped out by diseases arriving earlier than OTL, amalgamate with other tribes in different patterns than OTL: only a few centuries of this, and the picture in much of North America will be almost unrecognizeable from the OTL point of view.

Bruce
 
Of course, if we get early Scandinavian, Chinese, African, whatever contacts well before columbus, and horses, cattle, pigs, etc. are introduced, there will be massive changes in mobility, farming technique, immunology, etc. many OTL tribal nations will either end up in places they weren't OTL, get largely wiped out by diseases arriving earlier than OTL, amalgamate with other tribes in different patterns than OTL: only a few centuries of this, and the picture in much of North America will be almost unrecognizeable from the OTL point of view.

Bruce

Going off of this, this is one of the reasons I've had trouble exploring a Vinland TL properly; the tribes of the region were in flux during this period, but in the absence of written sources we have to guess about myths and peoples in place at the time.
 
I'm surprised you didn't mention the Maya as a culture likely to survive. They certainly did better than most, including some of the people you mentioned.
 
Not sure the Polynesians work as early colonizers: they certainly can serve as importers of useful products and ideas (pigs, long-range navigation), but their food package (correct me if I'm wrong) is essentially tropical - and the tropics are where the more advanced Amerindian civilizations are, plus the thinly scattered Polynesian populations don't carry the sort of heavyweight bioweapons Europeans did (the Pacific islanders were pretty devastated themselves by European diseases, which is why Hawaii is a state.). They're not going to be able to arrive in any real huge numbers, either. I really don't know of anyplace in the (Coastal Pacific) Americas where they could handle the locals, not freeze in the winter, and grow their crops successfully...any ideas?

Bruce
 
Last edited:
Not sure the Polynesians work as early colonizers: they certainly can serve as importers of useful products and ideas (pigs, long-range navigation), but their food package (correct me if I'm wrong) is essentially tropical - and the tropics are where the more advanced Amerindian civilizations are, plus the thinly scattered Polynesian populations don't carry the sort of heavyweight bioweapons Europeans did (the Pacific islanders were pretty devastated themselves by European diseases, which is why Hawaii is a state.). They're not going to be able to arrive in any real huge numbers, either. I really don't know of anyplace in the (Coastal Pacific) Americas where they could handle the locals, not freeze in the winter, and grow their crops successfully...any ideas?

Bruce

I would suggest the Galapagos for them to settle and from there, have them conduct trade with the Andean civilizations but it's probably a long shot.
 
I would suggest the Galapagos for them to settle and from there, have them conduct trade with the Andean civilizations but it's probably a long shot.
That sounds pretty plausible. After all the Galapagos are about the size of Jamaica.

Perhaps once they exhaust the natural resources of the islands they begin pirate raids of the mainland.

To the north, perhaps Polynesians could settle islands on the west coast of North America (mainly ones in the Sea of Cortez, south of Panama, etc.) as well as areas somewhat protected by mountains or other geographical features (SF bay, various coastal valleys in Central America)
 
I would suggest the Galapagos for them to settle and from there, have them conduct trade with the Andean civilizations but it's probably a long shot.

It's what works best with their MO of finding virgin land rather than conquering people in place. It is a long shot, but it's better than having the Polynesians make a break for colonizing, say, Panama.

Also, Polynesian bananas, sugarcane, and pigs would all be pretty big game changers in the agricultural scene in the Americas. Bananas produce a lot of calories for very little work, and could prompt a population boom. Sugarcane does require a lot of work, but it could also support population growth. And the pig, of course, largely takes the need to hunt away from the Native American civilizations, making them a little less vulnerable to environmental changes and less limited by the hunting grounds immediately adjacent to them.
 
It's what works best with their MO of finding virgin land rather than conquering people in place. It is a long shot, but it's better than having the Polynesians make a break for colonizing, say, Panama.

Also, Polynesian bananas, sugarcane, and pigs would all be pretty big game changers in the agricultural scene in the Americas. Bananas produce a lot of calories for very little work, and could prompt a population boom. Sugarcane does require a lot of work, but it could also support population growth. And the pig, of course, largely takes the need to hunt away from the Native American civilizations, making them a little less vulnerable to environmental changes and less limited by the hunting grounds immediately adjacent to them.
Wouldn't pigs mean that the Polynesians would bring diseases to the native Americans?

Though I thought they only had chickens.
 
Wouldn't pigs mean that the Polynesians would bring diseases to the native Americans?
.

They had pigs, but a lot less endemic diseases than Europeans: as I said they got whacked pretty hard by European disease without transmitting anything comparably lethal back (AFAIK)

Bruce
 
Personally I do think the idea of an East-and-West meeting in the Americas is pretty interesting. The Polynesians, the best navigators in the world at the time, were really, really close if they hadn't actually gotten there. They could have started trading with the native tribes.

The problem with this is that even if the Polynesians do colonize (as in settle) in tropical America, they are doing so with small groups of people accustomed to colonizing small uninhabited islands. At best they are going to bring their food to the Americas, import a few cultural tidbits, intermarry... and completely blend in.

Or else you could have a situation like in New Guinea, where the Austronesian languages are only spoken on offshore islands. I could see Polynesians forming states on islands that trade actively with the mainland, maybe setting up rich and influential trade networks. The problem is that the Pacific coast of the Americas has next to no suitable islands. There are a few off southern California and a few off Panama. Polynesian chiefdoms there would add interesting flavor to an ATL but not change the geopolitics in any significant way.

Not sure the Polynesians work as early colonizers: they certainly can serve as importers of useful products and ideas (pigs, long-range navigation), but their food package (correct me if I'm wrong) is essentially tropical - and the tropics are where the more advanced Amerindian civilizations are, plus the thinly scattered Polynesian populations don't carry the sort of heavyweight bioweapons Europeans did (the Pacific islanders were pretty devastated themselves by European diseases, which is why Hawaii is a state.). They're not going to be able to arrive in any real huge numbers, either. I really don't know of anyplace in the (Coastal Pacific) Americas where they could handle the locals, not freeze in the winter, and grow their crops successfully...any ideas?

Bruce

Polynesians thrived in New Zealand and in Easter Island, both in temperate climates. But they were also uninhabited before they arrived, so your other objections stand.
 
Top