I've been thinking about how geography and history have shaped the population map of the Americas and how our current population distribution would be impossible in past ages. For the sake of argument, assuming technology and agriculture similar to 10-12th century Eurasia, where would you put the major population centers of North America? What would a cultural map of the continent look like?
Population centers in a medieval N. America
- Thread starter Escape Zeppelin
- Start date
Not too different than the early/mid 19th century US, in many respects, to be honest. Even without the Erie Canal (which might still have an equivalent built, even with medieval technology), New York is an amazing natural harbor at the mouth of a river. The Mississippi is still going to be a major artery of commerce and attract settlement (indeed, Cahokia is very close to St. Louis). Trade with Mesoamerica and points south probably encourages more settlements in the Southern US (especially along rivers and near the extremely fertile soil within OTL's "Black Belt") compared with OTL. Depending on the disease situation (remember that things like malaria were Old World imports, so they may or may not have equivalents), that might mitigate the situation somewhat, but regular plagues didn't destroy e.g. Venice OTL.
Medieval technology isn't especially suited to agriculture on the Great Plains, so they remain sparsely populated (if there are horse equivalents in this TL, then they are an excellent place for pseudo-Mongols, much like OTL, otherwise they are mostly small settlements that rely on subsistence farming and cross-continental trade routes, probably concentrated along rivers).
So, I'd expect major population centers more or less near New York City, various points along the Mississippi (I'd expect Cairo, Illinois to become a major city, lying at the intersection of the Ohio and the Mississippi) and especially the Delta (the exact center of population there might shift as the Mississippi does, but the region itself will be significant). Other major rivers/junctions (e.g. Pittsburgh) Various other excellent harbors (e.g. Charleston, San Francisco, etc.) as well.
One major cultural difference from OTL: borders will not be along rivers! OTL river borders make a natural, easy to spot boundary when you are in e.g. London (and later Washington) and dividing up a mostly unknown continent, but they are terrible borders for the people who actually live there. You see this OTL, where plenty of US cities have been built along border rivers (from major cities like New York or DC to small ones like Grand Forks, ND) and inevitably develop a sister city across the river (whether that's Newark, NJ or East Grand Forks, MN), which is in a different state, complicating governance significantly. Most likely, cultures are centered around coasts or river valleys, with deserts (including the Great Plains) and mountain ranges serving as major cultural barriers.
Medieval technology isn't especially suited to agriculture on the Great Plains, so they remain sparsely populated (if there are horse equivalents in this TL, then they are an excellent place for pseudo-Mongols, much like OTL, otherwise they are mostly small settlements that rely on subsistence farming and cross-continental trade routes, probably concentrated along rivers).
So, I'd expect major population centers more or less near New York City, various points along the Mississippi (I'd expect Cairo, Illinois to become a major city, lying at the intersection of the Ohio and the Mississippi) and especially the Delta (the exact center of population there might shift as the Mississippi does, but the region itself will be significant). Other major rivers/junctions (e.g. Pittsburgh) Various other excellent harbors (e.g. Charleston, San Francisco, etc.) as well.
One major cultural difference from OTL: borders will not be along rivers! OTL river borders make a natural, easy to spot boundary when you are in e.g. London (and later Washington) and dividing up a mostly unknown continent, but they are terrible borders for the people who actually live there. You see this OTL, where plenty of US cities have been built along border rivers (from major cities like New York or DC to small ones like Grand Forks, ND) and inevitably develop a sister city across the river (whether that's Newark, NJ or East Grand Forks, MN), which is in a different state, complicating governance significantly. Most likely, cultures are centered around coasts or river valleys, with deserts (including the Great Plains) and mountain ranges serving as major cultural barriers.
I think a good clue of what sites could be huge can be determined by what sites were frequently used by American Indians in the precolonial era for trade and such. For instance, we can expect that somewhere near The Dalles, Oregon would be a major city based on the large volume of trade that occurred between Indian groups thanks to its location near Celilo Falls. And as in the Old World, river valleys are an artery of trade and can serve as the center of a nation.
Not quite true. Great Plains agriculture is actually very good within the river valleys, and any trade network across the continent will require some transportation center while travelling across the "Great American Desert". So there's plenty of places to put a city down on the Plains, although as you said, they'd be at high risk from any psuedo-Mongols. And even if it is the Great American Desert, it also isn't the Sahara in terms of harshness. I think the dominant form of organisation would be city-states along the Platte, Arkansas, and other rivers in that region, city states which have dominated their neighbours. I guess we'd be assuming that agricultural techniques are better than what the Caddoans and such had.
Oh, I'd say that Cairo area wouldn't be a major city, since the region is extremely prone to flooding, more than most cities along the Mississippi and Ohio. It's no surprise why it didn't develop into a major city OTL (with Early Modern technology at that).
New York might not be a major trading center either--it might be one of many important centers, unless there's trade with Europe/Africa. All trade would be naturally north and south, not east across the Atlantic.
Not quite true. Great Plains agriculture is actually very good within the river valleys, and any trade network across the continent will require some transportation center while travelling across the "Great American Desert". So there's plenty of places to put a city down on the Plains, although as you said, they'd be at high risk from any psuedo-Mongols. And even if it is the Great American Desert, it also isn't the Sahara in terms of harshness. I think the dominant form of organisation would be city-states along the Platte, Arkansas, and other rivers in that region, city states which have dominated their neighbours. I guess we'd be assuming that agricultural techniques are better than what the Caddoans and such had.
Oh, I'd say that Cairo area wouldn't be a major city, since the region is extremely prone to flooding, more than most cities along the Mississippi and Ohio. It's no surprise why it didn't develop into a major city OTL (with Early Modern technology at that).
New York might not be a major trading center either--it might be one of many important centers, unless there's trade with Europe/Africa. All trade would be naturally north and south, not east across the Atlantic.
A lot depends on details of history too, such as the pattern whereby civilization comes to the continent. Are we imagining an ATL Native analog to the Roman Empire somewhere (on the Great Lakes? The Gulf of Mexico? The Atlantic Coast? The Southwest?) and assuming some ATL domestication of some draft, meat, and/or fur-bearing animals to allow civilization to follow a more Old World sort of pattern, so that states on a Roman or Han Chinese scale are possible? Does the High Middle Ages equivalent American society arise over a region that is partially a portion of the old empire and partially territory that empire never held? Where are the ancient antecedents to the "medieval" societies--does civilization largely radiate out of MesoAmerica as OTL, or is there a very different cradle such as the Great Lakes or some part of the Mississippi Valley or even say Chesapeake Bay or somewhere on the West Coast--California, Columbia River, Puget Sound?
Who comes first, what they have and where they have it will make a big difference. Of course if economics bypasses a once-great city that city will wither and quite likely vanish from the map. But we may well have two sites, essentially equal in merit, where one is highly developed and has been for several thousand years, and the other is a recent upstart, simply due to the pattern whereby civilization arose and spread.
If we aren't inventing ATL ancient domestications that totally transform the Old World, then a medieval North America can't really come into being any later than the European Middle Ages. Either some Old World ancient civilization branches into the New World somehow--for Romans to be able to do this, settling in the Caribbean let us say, has been a TL subject but I never was persuaded they could do that. It would probably be easier for East Asians from China, Japan, or Korea to arrive in Classical times, but still very very difficult and it is hard to see what would motivate an expedition to say California, let alone substantial settlement there. An ancient Old World civ somehow establishing itself in say Puget Sound (coming from Asia) or the Caribbean (coming from the Roman Empire) around the beginning of the Common Era might grow, spread and mutate into the foundation of a broad "medieval" zone a thousand years hence--though it would probably lack the constant injection of new tech and ideas that helped shape the sequence of European history.
Alternatively we could be talking about a colonization of North America during medieval times, with the colonies being not much behind their mother countries in technology.
In either of these latter cases, the direction of settlement will have a lot to do with the actual pattern of urban development.
All that said, I suppose that on the whole, while this determines the general level of development of large regions--which are old settlements developed to the hilt already and which are new colonies being carved out of wilderness just in the past generation or so--the exact sites of the greater cities of the region, whether these are ancient city-states or brand new outposts, will be mostly the same as OTL prosperous towns that have some other cause than their position on the right rail lines for glory. And by and large, most really major American cities have something going for them other than some arbitrary historical choice. Even when it was a RR that fostered a town, chances are that particular spot on the line had something special about it, and the rail line ran through that point for reasons that would tend to channel other modes of transport near it. There's a pass it leads to, or a river brings reliable water in a scrub land, or a lake makes an oasis in the desert.
There must be some interesting exceptions, some fair-sized modern American towns that simply would never exist under medieval conditions, or vice versa would be mighty in medieval conditions but OTL are bypassed.
---
Perhaps, you the OP who has presumably thought about this problem a while, might sketch up a map that highlights sites suitable to base a substantial medieval presence where moderns would not particularly choose to site a city? The criteria governing the location of a castle might be quite different from those governing where to put a town. (I'd think though that even in medieval conditions, a castle might be put where a town is uneconomic, but another one that is put where a town would prosper is more liable to become a major, important, retained and rebuilt over the centuries rather than abandoned castle!
Vice versa, starting with a map of OTL one might eliminate, or anyway downgrade, towns in places where we'd expect a lot less civilization than in modern conditions, such as the above mentioned Great Plains that medieval people could not farm, or places in the middle of deserts--but be careful with that, since current desert towns tend to b on the major transport routes, and these are close to the old, pre-railroad trails for crossing these. So odds are an AT North America that has been medievalized somehow or other would have some sort of settlement along those routes after all--but it would be constrained by the available water. Some spots have water supplies that aren't evident to the naked eye; if these are simple enough to access those towns can be quite large, if we are talking supplies that can irrigate fields with medieval tech. Other spots would be reduced very severely indeed.
Who comes first, what they have and where they have it will make a big difference. Of course if economics bypasses a once-great city that city will wither and quite likely vanish from the map. But we may well have two sites, essentially equal in merit, where one is highly developed and has been for several thousand years, and the other is a recent upstart, simply due to the pattern whereby civilization arose and spread.
If we aren't inventing ATL ancient domestications that totally transform the Old World, then a medieval North America can't really come into being any later than the European Middle Ages. Either some Old World ancient civilization branches into the New World somehow--for Romans to be able to do this, settling in the Caribbean let us say, has been a TL subject but I never was persuaded they could do that. It would probably be easier for East Asians from China, Japan, or Korea to arrive in Classical times, but still very very difficult and it is hard to see what would motivate an expedition to say California, let alone substantial settlement there. An ancient Old World civ somehow establishing itself in say Puget Sound (coming from Asia) or the Caribbean (coming from the Roman Empire) around the beginning of the Common Era might grow, spread and mutate into the foundation of a broad "medieval" zone a thousand years hence--though it would probably lack the constant injection of new tech and ideas that helped shape the sequence of European history.
Alternatively we could be talking about a colonization of North America during medieval times, with the colonies being not much behind their mother countries in technology.
In either of these latter cases, the direction of settlement will have a lot to do with the actual pattern of urban development.
All that said, I suppose that on the whole, while this determines the general level of development of large regions--which are old settlements developed to the hilt already and which are new colonies being carved out of wilderness just in the past generation or so--the exact sites of the greater cities of the region, whether these are ancient city-states or brand new outposts, will be mostly the same as OTL prosperous towns that have some other cause than their position on the right rail lines for glory. And by and large, most really major American cities have something going for them other than some arbitrary historical choice. Even when it was a RR that fostered a town, chances are that particular spot on the line had something special about it, and the rail line ran through that point for reasons that would tend to channel other modes of transport near it. There's a pass it leads to, or a river brings reliable water in a scrub land, or a lake makes an oasis in the desert.
There must be some interesting exceptions, some fair-sized modern American towns that simply would never exist under medieval conditions, or vice versa would be mighty in medieval conditions but OTL are bypassed.
---
Perhaps, you the OP who has presumably thought about this problem a while, might sketch up a map that highlights sites suitable to base a substantial medieval presence where moderns would not particularly choose to site a city? The criteria governing the location of a castle might be quite different from those governing where to put a town. (I'd think though that even in medieval conditions, a castle might be put where a town is uneconomic, but another one that is put where a town would prosper is more liable to become a major, important, retained and rebuilt over the centuries rather than abandoned castle!
Vice versa, starting with a map of OTL one might eliminate, or anyway downgrade, towns in places where we'd expect a lot less civilization than in modern conditions, such as the above mentioned Great Plains that medieval people could not farm, or places in the middle of deserts--but be careful with that, since current desert towns tend to b on the major transport routes, and these are close to the old, pre-railroad trails for crossing these. So odds are an AT North America that has been medievalized somehow or other would have some sort of settlement along those routes after all--but it would be constrained by the available water. Some spots have water supplies that aren't evident to the naked eye; if these are simple enough to access those towns can be quite large, if we are talking supplies that can irrigate fields with medieval tech. Other spots would be reduced very severely indeed.
With the desert and Great Plains being important routes to continental trade, I would expect there would be plenty of motivation to innovate, perhaps expiramentaton with irrigation and farming techniques could be expected? Playing the right cards, whoever holds the desert trade routes could also be motivated to develop economic innovations to their benefit, making them more powerful than one may initially assume. Is there a good gold analogue in that area?
The example is a civilisation based on farming wapato and reeds (native to most all the continent) in a rice paddy-esque environment. Otherwise, the pre-existing agriculture from Mesoamerica is good enough. So I don't know--Utah maybe? Wapato occurs in every state besides Nevada and Hawaii after all.
For 18th century deep draught pure sailing ocean ships, sure. Hudson´s Half Moon drew 8 and a half feet. For comparison, the deepest draught 11th century Skuldelev ship, knarr Skuldelev 1, draws at most 5 feet loaded. And has some oars.
A 11th century Viking ship can sail further up river mouths than a 17th century ocean ship. And also maneuver in a narrow river where a 17th century sailing ship has difficulty tacking upstream.
So, for example, make Albany or Troy the major settlement on Hudson, and leave New York unimportant. And even on New York Upper Harbour, why New York on Manhattan? Why not Brooklyn, Richmond or Bayonne? On Mississippi, ignore New Orleans and make Baton Rouge the main port. Etc..
There's gold and even more silver in the US deserts. Besides the American deserts aren't really that dry or barren as people first think. I think you're right that trade routes are probably going to be the determining factor for city placement in the Southwest controlling the silver and gold from New Mexico and California as it's traded east to the Mississippi basin. The kingdoms of central Asia are probably a good analogy, dry but still reasonably populous and their wealth heavily dependent on controlling the high value trade.
Not Buffalo. Buffalo is transshipment point specifically for Erie Canal. No Erie Canal, and the best site for Niagara portage is between Niagara Falls and Queenston/Lewiston.
No. St. Lawrence between Quebec and Montreal is deep enough and wide enough for 11th century ships. The ships would probably sail all the way to Montreal and Quebec would be as irrelevant as Tadoussac. As for the Richelieu river, its mouth is at Sorel, not Quebec.
Driftless
Donor
Cairo: It's a perfect site on the map, but as noted, it's under near continual threat of flooding. You'd need a major engineering project to mitigate that problem - permanent levees, pilings, the whole nine yards and that's likely out of scope
Well Venice managed to build a city on stilts and as you said it is a great position on the map with enormous trade potential. Barring that the nearest bit of high ground to the junction of the Ohio and Mississippi is going to be a major trade center. Maybe have an Ostia-Rome relationship with the permanent city with all the major civic buildings etc. on safe ground while you have a wooden port that gets flooded and rebuilt every few years on the site of Cairo.
The most obvious differences are that the Mississippi cities/trade routes would be even more important(because no rail roads), that any settlements on the great plains would be smaller and far less economically, politically and culturally integrated with the East, and that any settlements on the West Coast would be completely deattached(and smaller).
Essentially you'd see the OTL territories of the USA loosely categorizable into four vertical blocs- East Cost, Mississippi, Plains, West Coast. This doesn't necessarily mean that political and cultural boundaries would line up cleanly along those contours, but they'd be "pulled" by them if you will.
Essentially you'd see the OTL territories of the USA loosely categorizable into four vertical blocs- East Cost, Mississippi, Plains, West Coast. This doesn't necessarily mean that political and cultural boundaries would line up cleanly along those contours, but they'd be "pulled" by them if you will.
I would think that the Great Lakes would be another major population center. Tons of fresh water, fertile soil and a land interconnected by lakes. The main problem I see it having is that it's fairly boundaryless so it might be at the mercy of powerful nomadic tribes. However, if those tribes don't have horses, then their lethality will have been curtailed a bit.
Saint Louis, New Orleans, Detroit, and (if their is a canal Lake Michigan-Illinois river canal) Chicago are all going to be major cities. New York might not be as big as OTL without the the Eire canal, but it's still probably a decent sized port.
Driftless
Donor
The Straits of Mackinac - near the juncture of Lake's Superior, Michigan, and Huron. The whole area was and is pretty heavily wooded, so not great horse country. However, you could move lots of people fairly quickly over water in some of the bigger freight canoes
The problem is the network of Great Plain's grass roots. Grown up over thousands of years, the deeply interwoven system could reach down over ten feet, and was fiercely resistant to conventional tools. Unless you have steel-plows, you'll have a hard time farming there.
I'd expect pretty high populations around the Great Lakes since there good farmland, good fishing, and as you pointed out excellent water transport for hundreds of miles. Detroit and Mackinac are probably going to be cities based on lake crossings. Chicago is likely to be a major city since it will still dominate the trade from the Lakes to the Mississippi and from the Midwest to Northeast. I suspect it might be the Constantinople of the Americas, all trade east-west will have to flow through it.
The Mississippi and the Great Plains would be very integrated with each other, as they were in the pre-Columbian era.
But the East Coast and West Coast would be entirely different cultural areas, as related to each other as Europeans and Chinese.
That is true, but was Caddoan agriculture really the best you could get in the river valleys before steel plows?
Cahokia indeed was.
No. The Plaquemines delta lobe is dated as forming from 750 BP. The active channel in 10th to 12th century was Bayou Lafourche.
Whereas Baton Rouge already was on the trunk river.
St. Clair and Detroit rivers are navigable. Why Detroit, not Windsor or Sarnia? Same reasoning about Mackinac - not that strategic.
Not necessarily. A portage also justifies a major city. Ditto about Niagara Falls.