European Catholicism:
As Torbald mentioned it will develop very differently in northern Europe that OTL went protestant. If you study the renaissance, you'll clearly realize that two separate renaissances occurred in Europe in the 1300 and 1400s. The northern and the southern. Both were deeply impacted by Christian thought, and all of Europe was Catholic at the time (besides hussites) , yet they still developed in extremely distinct ways. The northern renaissance was more interested in things which we would consider traditionally Protestant compared to the, well, very OTL Catholic southern renaissance. There will be major differences.
One thing I'm interested in would be the monastic traditions of 'northern Catholicism'. That is one aspect that was obliterated by the Protestants, and whatever orders develop in England and the Netherlands should be fascinating. I'd argue that a large part of the monastic motivation, whatever drives people to become monks, was expressed by the Protestant tendency to generate small, insular, radical groups that rejected some aspect of the overall movement, and moved to some separate location in order to practice a purer form of the religion and a purer life in general. This is the impulse that gave birth to the Puritans and the modern old order Amish. It's possible that English and Dutch colonization of the new world would be driven by not just Protestants that want to get away from general impurity and 'debauchary', but also more officially by northern monastic orders that move to the new world or emphasize living in the new world for the exact same motivations.
Brazil and Southern Africa:
Not much new to say about Brazil, just that other Europeans probably wouldn't set up shop in the Northeast Coast, but instead in the modern region of Guyana, east towards the mouth of the Amazon. And, more importantly in the gap between Spanish La Plata, and the Portuguese colony which doesn't appear to reach past modern Rio. The fertile and well watered regions of Rio Grande del Sul, and Santa Catarina is where it is most likely for a significant non-Spanish colony to be set up. This would be a much larger deal than the colonies in Guyana, which were basically just coastal outpost, and instead be a large and impactful area, that could directly challenge the local Spanish viceroyalties, but likely not Spanish America as a whole.
A note on the colonization of Florida and the Southeast. As a South Florida resident, I can say that to maintain control of the straits of Florida, nothing more would be needed that a series of forts on the Florida Keys, with perhaps a few outposts on the mainland near modern Miami. This series of outposts and settlements could be anchored by a larger town at Key West, and perhaps in the north at Key Biscayne or Key largo. Ergo, all Florida north of that could fall under French influence. Specifically all Florida north of modern Orlando(the good part pre air-conditioning) would be settled by the French colony in the Southeast. Historically northern Florida was deeply integrated into the greater South, and even today it is culturally and economically almost identical to the areas just across the border in Georgia and Alabama. There's a reason Florida was among the first states to secede from the Union.
Now unto the population numbers and maps that some presented for future South Africa. They are frankly a little bonkers. That is the type of ambition that the Portuguese had when they wanted the Pink Map in the 1800s. They didn't get it, and Spain won't get such a substantial chunk of Africa. The first map might be reminiscent of the final border of Sulafrica after whatever alt-scramble occurs, but the borders would obviously be different, as the modern ones are pretty much arbritary. Even so, the whole northern half of that area would be a traditional colony, similar to the old distinction between European Russia and Siberian Russia. Once some sort of alt decolonization occurs, if it occurs, I'd expect the northern half of that first image to be lost to native dominated states, while the Southern half, which would borders reminiscent of South Africa, perhaps a little larger, would be the area that was most Iberianized, most white, and most mixed. That would remain as a the Brazil equivalent, and I'd guess the population would be in the range of 100-150 million range, slightly larger than modern South Africa+Lesotho+Botswana+Zimbabwe+Namibia+parts of Mozambique.
Egypt and the Levant:
This whole conversation was pure copium and hype. Sounded like something the most zealous of Spaniards came up with immediately following the battle of Otranto. I know it's been a few months, but look at the most recent European update, Middle Sea Transformed.
Spain is still fighting for control in North Africa! Here's Torbald's map from 1577:
There's not going to be any sort of Egyptian conquest before the Saadi are pacified in Moroccom, and more importantly, all the rebellious sultanates in eastern Algeria and Tunisia are pacified. The whole coastline, and all the important ports need to be captured and a Christian population introduced. This is critical in the Spanish mentality to permanently prevent North Africa from being a springboard for another invasion of Italy, or God forbid, Spain itself. There is also the desire to prevent further raiding and slaving on the Mediterranean coast, especially in the particularly vulnerable Italian coast, which simply can't handle many more depredations.
This process will probably take until 1585 or 1590, and official peace, with intermittent fighting ofc, not until 1600. Until North Africa is fully controlled, there will be no invasion of Egypt, and that is a process which will take decades more.
Then there's the idea that the Ottomans are weak and Egypt is ripe for the taking! Seriously read the last updates again. The Ottomans explicitly have competent leaders in this time, and the infrastructure of their heartland was untouched, just the peripheral regions of Epirus and parts of Greece were impacted by the subsequent counter-invasion. Meanwhile, the rather important kingdom of Naples is going to be crippled for 20 years, and heavily impacted for 50 years. Additionally, while the state coffers were emptied by the Great Turkish War, it probably helped the economy, which means finances will be doing just fine in a decade or two, which coincidentally is how long it will take to clean up North Africa.
Then there's the worst argument I saw put forth. That the OTL 17th century was a period of crisis and relative decline for the Ottoman state so the same will occur ITTL. Guys, the entire history of the Ottoman Empire is completely different from the 1520s!!! The situation by 1600 will be completely alien compared to the historical one. Here's one little change, the Janissary corp was beaten down and brought under firm control of the state in the 1580s. That by itself would greatly alter Ottoman history. This Ottoman Empire met it's match the 16th century. It's not going to rest on it's laurels and slowly decline during the 1600s relative to everyone else, the last update made that very clear. This Ottoman Empire is never going to reach the same peak of international power as the historical one, but it will probably remain relevant and important for far longer.
On the side,
@Torbald, while I was going through the pages to find the 1577 map, I saw that you were thinking of doing retcons. Did you ever get around to actually changing the earlier updates like you said you would? Also any information you can give on what is going on in France would be appreciated. Did Henri Guise get into the whole 'trade with America' deal, or was he too injured? I'm interested in what Spain's biggest Christian rival is up to.
