What if the Americas weren't discovered till at least the 1800s?

Is there a way to make Christian and Muslim relations friendlier so that Portugal doesn't have an economic incentive to circumnavigate Africa? If Europe could access the trade route used by the arabs, then there would have been no need to look for an alternate trade route. Alternatively, if camel trade had lower prices with the north, then there would be no need for a blind and vast search to circumvent it.
The Portuguse were after African gold first and foremost. The spice trade motivation only came after that.
 
Basque whalers had sighted Newfoundland very early on, hadn't they? Plus the Bretons and Normans. Rich fishing grounds and westward winds meant that western European fishermen were going to venture further and further for financial gain, so long as they had boats able to make the journey.
 

Infinity

Banned
The Portuguse were after African gold first and foremost. The spice trade motivation only came after that.
With friendlier relations with the Muslim world, Portugal would have been content with gold and slaves from western Africa. There would have been no motivation to explore the coast of central and southern Africa. Consequently, Europe never takes the risk of sailing across the treacherous Atlantic ocean. What might happen instead is greater Christian expansion in the Mediterranean. Then again, it might be the other way around. Alternatively, there could also be a middle ground where Iberia dominates places like Tunisia and Morocco, but Italy and Byzantine territory is gobbled up by the Ottomans. Indeed, the Ottomans would likely do much better in this atl. Granted, if they become too successful early on, then civil war becomes more likely.

You'd think that with all the gold obtained from the new world that Spain and Portugal would be more militarily successful against small Muslim kingdoms in the Mediterranean, yet their 16th century performance in the region was pathetic. Perhaps encountering such weak resistance in the new world created a false sense of confidence. Additionally, the problem could have been that man power was spread thin due to colonization and vast trade networks.

I don't know if anyone has ever made a timeline with greater Iberian dominance in the western Mediterranean, but that should be a priority from a strategic standpoint. In atl, such strategic significance only increases.
 
Without the gold and silver from the Americas, Spain won't be nearly as rich nor as powerful as in OTL. Though in the long run it might benefit since it won't end up wrecking it's economy like OTL.
 
You'd need to butterfly away the existence of humans, or else have some ASBs show up and sink Alaska and Greenland, otherwise someone will eventually get in a boat and find their way to the northern part of the new continent.

Long before even the Norse got here, "America" was already discovered by the ancestors of the Inuit, the Innu, the Haida, the Blackfoot, the Ojibwa, the Nahiyaw, the Haudenosaunee, the Mi'kmaq, the Beothuk, the Seminole, the Sioux, the Muskogee, the Cheyenne, the Mixtecs, the Olmecs, the Zapotecs, the Maya, the Tupi, the Taino, the Inca... the list goes on. They didn't just fall out of the sky when Europeans showed up. The predecessors of these societies "discovered" America long before boats were even a twinkle in the eye of folks in the lands of Afroeurasia.
 
What would happen?

by human or just by Europeans?

If Europeans then the food plant brought to Europe and Africa do not come until much later.
There food plant like Potato and maize OTL lead to increase in population and food production.
The Atlantic slave trade might not happen.
European navies and merchant ship would be short of wood to build ship with the timber form the Americas.
South African and Australia might get a lot more Europeans much earlier.
With the large imports of gold and silver from the Americas not arriving before 1800s gold and sliver would be in much shorter supply in Europe.
 
Last edited:
How about this making it possible: the North Atlantic currents go clockwise instead of counter. Instead of being able to island-hop, as the Norse did, any European venturer would have to go across the width of the Atlantic with no landfall between the two continents. Therefore, less likely the Norse get there, and without their tales of what they found, less impetus for venturing forth. That would certainly delay European presence in the New World.

Don't have the remotest idea, however, what the counterclockwise currents would do to the weather, etc.
 

Infinity

Banned
You'd need to butterfly away the existence of humans, or else have some ASBs show up and sink Alaska and Greenland, otherwise someone will eventually get in a boat and find their way to the northern part of the new continent.

Long before even the Norse got here, "America" was already discovered by the ancestors of the Inuit, the Innu, the Haida, the Blackfoot, the Ojibwa, the Nahiyaw, the Haudenosaunee, the Mi'kmaq, the Beothuk, the Seminole, the Sioux, the Muskogee, the Cheyenne, the Mixtecs, the Olmecs, the Zapotecs, the Maya, the Tupi, the Taino, the Inca... the list goes on. They didn't just fall out of the sky when Europeans showed up. The predecessors of these societies "discovered" America long before boats were even a twinkle in the eye of folks in the lands of Afroeurasia.
Thousands of years passing between waves of migration isn't very encouraging. Similarly, the failure of North American Viking colonies makes the prospect for North American colonization bleak. The rise of Islam, its failure to conquer a disorganized rabble of primitive Christians, the rise of the nation state in Europe, and a nation states desire for trade with India were all required for the successful colonization of the new world. These were all improbable events. There are no intrinsic human qualities which necessitate sailing across a vast ocean and discovering the new world.

Europe could have easily remained in a Medieval state till the next ice age. The Mediterranean could have been friendlier economically, eliminating the incentive for dangerous exploration. One way to accomplish this is to have a more successful Islam. Another is a more unified Europe.

The 15th century represents a dramatic shift in the human condition. Instead of simply taking what others worked hard for, humans started spending vast amounts of time and energy to avoid conflict. Spending the better part of a century exploring a continent just to trade peacefully, is adverse to human tendencies. Only special circumstances make such endeavors possible.

The closest parallel I can think of is the Minoans. They loved going farther than everyone else in search of economic gain. Presumably, they too were afraid of conflict.

In contrast, what is more common is for humans to fight over a small piece of land, even if other land is available. Humans tend to be more interested in existing wealth, rather than creating a completely new source of wealth.

The people who have the vision to create a new industry, or colonize new land have always been a minuscule portion of mankind. Few have conceived of moonshot plans, far fewer still have found it worthwhile to try.

It's never made sense to me to define humanity according to a small fraction of the population.
 
Last edited:

Skallagrim

Banned
The whole "you need to get rid of humans because the Native Americans were already there"-reply that has come up in this thread is a bit childish, since it's pretty clear that the "discovery" of the Americas by later civilisation post ice-age is meant by the OP. Presenting the arrival of their ancestors by listing all the cultures that emerged in the Americas is also iffy. That makes it seem as if all those peoples separately discovered the Americas, when the reality is that they all descend from a group of ancestors that migrated from Siberia in maybe three successive waves. So that's one route to the Americas covered, and that one closed off when the last ice age ended.

Making it seem as if stumbling across the Americas is somehow very easy after that time is not exactly fair. I'm confident we can rule out Romans, Phoenicians and Irish monks, as well as hypothetical West African sailors. If any of them ever reached the Americas, it was by getting lost at sea and shipwrecking there. Incidental one-way trips. It's known that the Norse ended up in North America, but that didn't stick. Nor did it lead to wide-spread knowledge of the Americas even being there. Basque fishermen? Might have been fishing around, although I gather that's pretty hypothetical still. Same goes for Polynesian explorers coming in from the west. No hard confirmation, but they may well have made landfall. In both cases, it had even less of an effect than short-lived Vinland-- whose existance we can at least confirm beyond doubt.

If we take, for the sake of discussion, "discovery of the Americas" to mean more than just incidental trips that had no major consequences and didn't even spread wide awareness that the Americas existed, then we're back to Columbus. I'm not saying that out of some misplaced Eurocentrism - hell, Columbus was a colossal dick and that should be more widely acknowledged - but because beating the discussion to death with "technically correct answers" isn't going to get us anywhere.

So the question becomes: how to prevent Europeans from heading West to look for the East? I think the answer provided by @Infinity has a lot of potential. That said, delaying the discovery of the Americas by centuries is pretty tricky! But removing reasons to go west is a very good start. Let's consider that aside from certain periods (the Tamil trade-states and the early Ming dynasty), India and China showed less interest in oceanic exploration than Europe ever did. Similarly, Russia (until Peter the Great) wasn't very interested in any kind of major oceanic power, either. Eurasia has been described as the "world-island", and (non-Russian) Europe is merely a fringe peninsula, blocked out of the interior. I think that China, India and Russia were far more self-contained 'worlds' (or 'spheres' if you will) than Europe was or could ever be. Being blocked from the Eurasian interior, Europe looked outward.

Keep Europe from looking outward. Somehow integrate it more into Eurasia. Make europe's relation with the rest of Eurasia be one of trade first and foremost, rather than conflict first and foremost (which was what we saw in OTL).

That is where I would seek the answer.
 
I like the fair and constructive tone @Infinity and @Skallagrim have added to the thread.

I agree that European discovery of the americas could be delayed by a lot if we allow for early enough PoDs.

Going back to the OP: he really asked WHAT WOULD HAPPEN then. And that depends on the PoD, as I said. If, for example, we go with the open Eurasian trade routes, we might well delay a century or two without changing, say, climatic conditions across the Atlantic, and when the colonisers finally reach the Americas, they'll behave recognisably from an OTL perspective.
So, in this scenario we can simply attempt to simulate how native American history would have developed along the paths we know something about.
If, on the other hand, we're postulating that Europe remains way less developed, that might mean more forests, would that already be enough to change climatic patterns as far as America to a significant degree? I don't know...
 

Skallagrim

Banned
I like the fair and constructive tone @Infinity and @Skallagrim have added to the thread.

I agree that European discovery of the americas could be delayed by a lot if we allow for early enough PoDs.

Going back to the OP: he really asked WHAT WOULD HAPPEN then. And that depends on the PoD, as I said. If, for example, we go with the open Eurasian trade routes, we might well delay a century or two without changing, say, climatic conditions across the Atlantic, and when the colonisers finally reach the Americas, they'll behave recognisably from an OTL perspective.
So, in this scenario we can simply attempt to simulate how native American history would have developed along the paths we know something about.
If, on the other hand, we're postulating that Europe remains way less developed, that might mean more forests, would that already be enough to change climatic patterns as far as America to a significant degree? I don't know...

Yup, this is one of those cases where the "how" decides the "what". Giving that some thought, the "easiest" way I can see to tie Europe into the rest of Eurasia is (somewhat boringly!) a Christianity-wank. Prevent Islam from rising up, giving Christianity a lot of good luck, and have some Persian ruler go the way of Constantine. Christianity takes Persia (or at least becomes very strong there), has inroads deep into Asia, etc. etc. -- The wide expanse of this alt-Christendom makes a united Church nearly impossible, which may be good. Imagine a far more decentralised Christianity, with various sects and rites all over the place. Without central authority, they mostly just co-exist instead of fighting senseless wars of religion.

Effects: the ancient Rome-versus-Persia divide finally ends, as both are now within Christendom. Additionally, Europeans become primarily interested in spreading their religion into Eurasia, which turns their gaze east and land-inward. Finally, the absence of islam might just mean that certain texts preserved by islamic scholars get lost in this ATL? This one's iffy, becauase "no islam" can just as easily mean that they are preserved in the ERE. Then again, that's not a given. For the sake of the scenario, we might imagine that the ERE goes through a pretty fanatical Christian phase and burns a lot of "pagan" books. It wouldn't be the first time. A result could be that some classical knowledge is lost, which sets the Christian world back just that little bit compared to OTL. Seems petty, but we need everything we can get to keep them from discovering the Americas! ;)

That would be the most straight-forward scenario, I think. It allows for history in the Americas to go on as per OTL, I'd say.

A problem would be that people are just going to figure out the size of the world, and realise there's a huge unexplored part. Eventually, someone will go looking. Then again, before 1492, China showed no interest. Even after, when they surely learned of America's existence via the Europeans, they evinced no desire to go colonising there. (The first real Chinese presence in the Americas was the influx of labourers as of the 1820s.) So it is entirely possible that something like Vinland happens in this "Eurasia-focused Europe"-world... and nobody cares. Perhaps it happens somewhat like in OTL the first time, and nobody even really notices. Then someone else stumbles upon America later on... and while this is noted in Europe, nobody really cares. Especially if they manage to miss the more developed civilsations of Mesoamerica. The "Western barbarian isles" (or whatever they'd consider them to be) would just not be very interesting.

Eurasian civilsations did make major inroads into Indonesia (Hindus first, Muslims later). I could see a Eurasian Christendom esxpanding much like Islam did in OTL: going down East Africa, and across the Indian Ocean. It would be funny if they eventually discovered the Americas from the west, after island-hopping their way through Polynesia!

Regarding time-frame: if we compare the spread of Islam into Indonesia, and compare to a hypothetical Eurasian Christendom and its spread, those might just be similar. So... flourishing of Christian Indonesia around 1500? Trade routes to the East well-established, no need to go looking for another route... Add a long period of vaguely exploring the Pacific (took some 300 years in OTL), with a convenient detour involving Australia (and New Zealand?)... Well, by that point you can in fact end up past 1800 before Eurasians reach the Americas in the first place.

It's far from a given, but it's not ASB.
 
If, on the other hand, we're postulating that Europe remains way less developed, that might mean more forests, would that already be enough to change climatic patterns as far as America to a significant degree? I don't know...

When the POD happens is important even for the purposes of resource use that you highlight. (Western) Europe was already deforested through the early modern era. Most woodland was obsessively managed. Nothing changes there. The inventions that define "industry" were either already there, or well on the way, by the late 15th c. Ocean-going ships are already there by the 15th c. Nothing changes there. By the 15th c. Atlantic Europeans are powering unprecedented development, mostly internally. 15th c. Atlantic Europeans are one navigational accident away from America.

So a somewhat earlier POD is probably easier, but that creates its own butterflies beside the "what would happen in America" even if there is no American contact made.

As to what the contact created: the agricultural exchange, for one. Commercial strawberries, bananas, chilli peppers, sweet peppers, tomatoes, all that is significant but the most important thing of all was the potato. There will be no comparable 18th c. boom in population in China, or Germany, or Britain, or Sweden, or Russia, or Poland, or Italy, without the potato. Not sure about India but I suspect even there it had a late effect. This means at the minimum no Musket Wars. This means generally less settler colonialism (will still happen, but elsewhere, in smaller numbers), less Eurasian emigration, maybe less people in the world in general. That slower population growth could well affect climate too, and rate of forest clearance other than in Europe.

Africa will probably change the most. There will be no corn or cassava or sweet potato in Africa, so smaller population densities are guaranteed (and remember they were small even with corn). Without the slave-trading intermediaries re-orienting towards the Atlantic as opposed to the Mediterranean and the Indian ocean (this isn't to say you won't have plantation economies, what will change is where they will be; nor that there will be no Atlantic slave trade, only that it will be quite limited comparatively), western coastal states won't have much particular advantage over the inland ones.

Which nations emerge as politically dominant all over western Africa could be totally different by the time ATL's "today" rolls around. It could well be that without European colonial presence and the feedback effects that had on West African nations, the medieval pastoralists rolling westwards through the Sahel through the middle ages and until the second Imperialism would just continue doing what they were doing, driving off and decimating local sedentary nations to make space for more pasture all the way to where the tse-tse forces them to stop.

There's many possibilities for Afroeurasia. As for the Americas, I honestly don't feel qualified to say very much, and considering the lack of local written sources (with a few highly localized exceptions), even the best experts probably would struggle to predict very much with any confidence.
 
Last edited:
Top