What if Columbus had been supported by France or England?

If Columbus had voyaged west from England or France


  • Total voters
    127
If France or England goes towards NH then Colombus will not use the same route and dont end up in the Gulf of Mexico, but further north.

If he ends up on the Atlantic coast you see a relatively similar (but earlier) British America, or perhaps a much stronger New France. Louisiana and Quebec don't really have much on the Atlantic Coast.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
England of 1490-1540 versus the England of 1590-1640...

how would they be different, and how the same?


If he ends up on the Atlantic coast you see a relatively similar (but earlier) British America

SM Stirling envisioned something similar this POD resulting in the early repopulation of America by English, although of a different cultural sensibility (Catholic & High Church Anglican, rather than Puritan) than the OTL Puritans of the Great Migration, in his thread "Tudor America":

http://groups.google.com/group/soc....2947/e0c2c8554c7533cc?q=tudor+america&lnk=ol&

However, he presumes identical anglo-american demographic patterns in the 16th century as in the OTL 17th century, despite differences in cultural outlook. I wonder if this is warranted.

Has the England of the 1500s regained enough population from the Black Death and Wars of the Roses to generate the demographic and economic conditions that turned out to be so conducive to migration in the OTL 1600s?

Would many family units including large numbers of women move to major portions of the colonies in the 1500s, or would the settlers all be male adventurers, resulting in large mestizo populations and cultures by 1600?

or perhaps a much stronger New France. Louisiana and Quebec don't really have much on the Atlantic Coast.

An early New France - would the French be very interested. The east coast is more accessible and near fishery opportunities, but I wonder what colonial model a 1500s North American New France would follow. Small fur-trading and fishing outposts amongst the natives of the eastern seaboard, or more intensive settlement, perhaps even by religious dissident family units, more like OTL's New England than New France.
 
Wasn't Bartholomew Columbus campaigning for France to fund a trip to Cipango while Christopher was campaigning Spain? My understanding was that Christopher was the one more familiar with Spain, so that if either of them was going on a French-funded expedition, it would have been Bartholomew. Is that correct?
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
That's correct Brady,

Bart was friendly with the Queen or the King's favorite mistress, he had access to King Louis on that social basis, he just did not get anywhere with his business proposition.
 
I'm guessing he wasn't as good at pitching crazy ideas as his brother. Is it plausible that Christopher Columbus would have gone to France or England?

Also, I'd like to point out that Christopher Columbus chose his route because he was very familiar with the Atlantic current, and because the current would take him to where he thought Japan was. And where he thought Japan was is where the Bahamas are.
 
Last edited:
Two things cross my mind. One is the obvioius: this means France is far less likely to lose a war in the next 100yr or so, with much more money (& with much more trade from the Indies, likely to have a better navy, too). IDK enough about French history to know how much this impacts Europe, but IIRC, there's an Emperor's League involving France...

The second thing is, perhaps, less obvious: namely, France did colonies badly (based on the experience in Canada). So there's half a chance she'd lose the colonies in time, to Spain or Britain.
 
What does doing colonies badly mean? With the money France gets from this, just imagine what the Sun King could do. Universal monarchy?
 
Socrates said:
What does doing colonies badly mean? With the money France gets from this, just imagine what the Sun King could do. Universal monarchy?
I'm not sure how to explain it. People didn't want to be in the colonies, the crown didn't seem inclined to support them with manpower or resources. Not AFAIK a money issue OTL, & even less so TTL, just a peculiar kind of laissez faire attitude.:confused:
 
Bump...:p

Question: if Columbus is sponsored by France, & France thereby gets Caribbean islands, does this drastically change France's economic & military power? (It would seem to.)

So, what happens as a consequence? Does France win any of the Italian Wars? (All of them?:eek:) How does this influence the outcome of (frex) the 30 Years' War? (By appearances, France could come out controlling much of the Netherlands, Spain, & OTL Germany...:eek::eek: )

Does this mean Britain has more colonies in North America at the time of the ARW? Does this mean more Rebel colonies? Or more allies with Britain (such as Spain or the Netherlands)? More losses to a powerful France?

Does this, instead, mean France has a larger fur trade in North America, more comparable to HBC?:cool:

Or, does it mean France in 1803 sells even more North American territory to the U.S.: including, say, OTL Quebec?:eek: Or Hispaniola, Cuba, Jamaica?
 
He would have landed in roughly the same place.

Why? Two words.

Gulf.

Stream.

You can't just copy his route further north; there is a good reason he was immediately pulled south; it's the same reason England is habitable.

Actually, you're thinking of the westerly winds, which is the reason Columbus decided to sail south to Morocco before sailing west. The gulf stream is a totally different thing.
 
Bump...:p

Question: if Columbus is sponsored by France, & France thereby gets Caribbean islands, does this drastically change France's economic & military power? (It would seem to.)

So, what happens as a consequence? Does France win any of the Italian Wars? (All of them?:eek:) How does this influence the outcome of (frex) the 30 Years' War? (By appearances, France could come out controlling much of the Netherlands, Spain, & OTL Germany...:eek::eek: )

Does this mean Britain has more colonies in North America at the time of the ARW? Does this mean more Rebel colonies? Or more allies with Britain (such as Spain or the Netherlands)? More losses to a powerful France?

Does this, instead, mean France has a larger fur trade in North America, more comparable to HBC?:cool:

Or, does it mean France in 1803 sells even more North American territory to the U.S.: including, say, OTL Quebec?:eek: Or Hispaniola, Cuba, Jamaica?

Good questions! I think France would have been more eager to colonize in general and consequently would have made developing its navy a higher priority than in OTL. Perhaps it would have conquered somewhat less European territory as its army, in return, might be a little weaker - or maybe not with the extra money from the colonies?
 

katchen

Banned
Columbus knew that he had a great deal of open water to cross. He also knew from rumors from Iceland which he had visited that there was land out there, which apparently he did not want to bump into. The reason the Portuguese, French and English refused to fund Columbus was that being well educated, they knew the correct size of the Earth and knew that if Columbus sailed west to reach the East and there was no land in between West and East they would be dead of scurvy, starvation or thirst long before they got there. Columbus for his part, even with his crackpot notion of the Earth's size was not willing to bet his crew's life on fighting the contrary winds of the Westerlies. So he would sail south to the winds blowing East. If he was sailing for England or France, he would not be able to resupply at the Spanish Canaries or Portuguese Madiera. But I think he could buy supplies in Muslim Moroccan ports.
Which brings up another issue regarding Columbus. There is plenty of evidence that Columbus quite possibly might have been secretly Jewish. Whether he was or was not Jewish, there is very little doubt that while Spain provided the ships and authorization for Columbus's voyage, the financing for Columbus's voyage was provided by wealthy Spanish Jews and conversos, Jews who had converted to Catholicism. Spain was expelling it's Jews in 1492 and the Jews of Spain were truly desperate to find havens that would accept them on short notice. In the Middle Ages, towns did not accept and felt no obligation to accept outsiders and outsiders were usually either killed out of hand or allowed to die of starvation in both the Christian and the Muslim worlds.
Later, the Ottoman Empire would permit Jews to settle there, but in 1492, most doors were closed to Jews. A diredt route to the Orient offered hope of survival to thousands of Spanish Jews desperate to escape the Spanish Kingdom.
See
www.cnn.com/2012/05/20/opinion/garcia-columbus-jewish
reformjudaismmag.org/Articles/index.cfm?id=1428
jbuff.com/c100903.htm
www.[B]jewish[/B]virtuallibrary.org/jsource/loc/loc12a.html
I
 
funnyhat said:
Good questions!
TY.:)
funnyhat said:
I think France would have been more eager to colonize in general and consequently would have made developing its navy a higher priority than in OTL. Perhaps it would have conquered somewhat less European territory as its army, in return, might be a little weaker - or maybe not with the extra money from the colonies?
I'm less sure France would improve her navy. She seems more Continentally inclined (but maybe that's OTL bias:eek:). OTL, she relied on her colonies to do the local fighting overseas, with little support; if she'd had more money (& judging by the Caribbean, it would be much more:eek:), maybe this would change.

It's almost certain her army would be stronger, & she'd have hired more condottieri. Enough to tip the balance at (several!) critical battles? Maybe, even probably...

Now, if she is stronger, that does suggest more anti-French alliances, so maybe Venice allies with the Turks, instead of it being France as OTL. Or Britain. Or a *Central German Confederation, or something.
 

Dirk_Pitt

Banned
TY.:)

I'm less sure France would improve her navy. She seems more Continentally inclined (but maybe that's OTL bias:eek:). OTL, she relied on her colonies to do the local fighting overseas, with little support; if she'd had more money (& judging by the Caribbean, it would be much more:eek:), maybe this would change.

It's almost certain her army would be stronger, & she'd have hired more condottieri. Enough to tip the balance at (several!) critical battles? Maybe, even probably...

Now, if she is stronger, that does suggest more anti-French alliances, so maybe Venice allies with the Turks, instead of it being France as OTL. Or Britain. Or a *Central German Confederation, or something.

Or France reconquers Charlemagne's empire:D?
 

katchen

Banned
France is at war with Spain. If Columbus discovers the West Indies with the prospect of gold and the definite prospect of sugar for France, the first thing France will do is conquer the Canaries from Spain as a way station and grant it to preferred seigneiurs. or nobles.
As for the Northern route, north of the Westerlies, there is evidence that Columbus was already familiar with it. When Columbus presented his proposal to Ferdinand and Isabella, he had experience going for him. He had commanded a Danish-Portuguese expedition in 1476 that had gone 400 miles west of Iceland, apparently. to a place Colum bus called "Terranova". Columbus spoke of things like 25 foot tides that are not found by Greenland but are found at the Bay of Fundy off Nova Scotia. Seewww.cristobalcolondeibiza.com/eng/eng04.htm
It is understandable that Columbus would want to believe that "Terranova" was an extension of Asia (which geologically of course it is), since the natives he saw looked like Asians.or descriptions of Mongols. And that he would want to believe that the world was smaller than it was. And that he would want to avoid getting bogged down hugging and charting the coast of Terranova while seeking the Spice Islands, which were supposed to be east of China and Japan anyway.
So no wonder Columbus wanted to try the Tropical trade winds--since he had already tried the other way 14 years earlier. And that his previous experience gave him a certain amount of credibility even if Euclidean geomentry showed conclusively that his calculations were off--enough that Jews at least would invest in his voyage.
 
Going by a more northerly route, Columbus might not get as lucky with the currents, so he'd probably crash somewhere around Africa. But then again, maybe I'm not remembering history class well enough.
 
Superman said:
maybe I'm not remembering history class well enough.
You're not.:) The winds govern, not the currents. Plus, it's not like sailors were incompetent to navigate... They were perfectly able to follow a line of latitude; they just couldn't tell exactly how far east/west they were. (To determine longitude, you need an accurate clock able to work shipboard. It took about another 200yr to invent one.:eek:)
 
Top