What is the earliest date the European caravels could safely cross the Atlantic ?

Another question to be answered is why the Austronesians with much inferior nautical technology than the Europeans were able to colonize all the Pacific Island AND Madagascar. What did the Europeans lack compared to them? Did the Austronesian colonize the Americas too ?
Firstly, they didn't have inferior nautical technology; they had extremely sophisticated nautical technology (both in terms of the physical design of their boats and the navigation methods they used). The rest of their technological package was literally Stone Age, but their boats were excellent.

It is believed that they at some point had at least some contact with the Americas prior to 1000 AD, due to the presence of New World crops (specifically the sweet potato) as part of their later crop package, but this contact seems to have been extremely limited.

The Austronesians had a couple of advantages. Firstly, unlike the Europeans, they were navigators more or less by necessity. The western Pacific is full of little tiny islands to settle. The Austronesians mostly seem to have avoided colonizing previously inhabited land, but there are plenty of small islands that they can and did settle. The keyword here is small, which means that they eventually have a population surplus, and explorers just have to sail east for a few days and find the next island to settle. Unlike Europe, you have to get used to the tricks of navigating far away from the coast, because "the coast" is a tiny atoll. This process, over millenia, takes you a good chunk of the way across the Pacific. Combine with excellent nautical technology and culture, and you're set. Note that New Zealand, one of the last places they settled, as well as one of the largest, suffered a significant decline in navigational technology by the time the Europeans came, as the traditional small ocean-going craft and tricks were no longer necessary for life on such a comparatively large landmass.

The Europeans, on the other hand, had a massive landmass to inhabit. The Atlantic also has some islands, but nothing like the plethora that Polynesia has. It's much easier in Europe to expand by conquering your neighbor, so focus was generally on that side of things. Even sailing is generally coastal most of time; there's lots of coast, you can stop at ports if you run into any trouble/want to trade/need R&R. The single-minded Austronesian focus on nautical technology/culture is unneeded.
 
i would imagine that of the black death hadn't happened, that they would have crossed the atlantic earlier.

the sheer population pressure would make sure of that.
 
THe Europeans lacked the seafaring knowledge they had. Polynesian sailors developed a very comprehensive and intimate knowlewdge of wind and current patterns that allowed them to undertakle long voyages with very basic equipment. Eureopeans didn't get that knowledge until they were much further along the technological development. It's a nineteenth-century fallacy to assume that technology - the compassm, the stern rudder, the lateen sail, or whatever - allowed the Europeans to reach America. You can reach America in a skin boat or a dugout canoe if you know what you are doing. The point was knowing that.

Surely if the Austronesians could reach Madagascar they could reach the Americas too : I was wondering if the Austronesians colonies disappeared just by merging with the Amerindians
 
Surely if the Austronesians could reach Madagascar they could reach the Americas too : I was wondering if the Austronesians colonies disappeared just by merging with the Amerindians

That would be assuming that the Austrolnesians had motivation to go beyond Madagascar. After all, they had this big, huge, rich island to colonize. Mainland Africa would be more likely, as well as their merging with the local cultures (some evidence of presence in E. Africa). They would have a terrible ways to go to reach the Americas, as well as the time needed developing a passing familiarity to the currents and winds off western Africa.

This is the generally accepted historic migration range of all the various Austronesian peoples, as we understand today:
extent-of-austronesian-migrations2.jpg
 
West European fishermen are known to have been exploiting the Grand Banks off newfoundland fairly early in the 1500s. What was their ship technology, their hardware, like?
 
One account I read have Basque, Breton, and English fisherman on the Grand Banks as early as 1420. But they were fishermen, not explorers, so any land in the area wouldn't have interested them too much. [except the same account had them maybe going ashore on the Newfoundland coast to get fresh water]
West European fishermen are known to have been exploiting the Grand Banks off newfoundland fairly early in the 1500s. What was their ship technology, their hardware, like?
 
West European fishermen are known to have been exploiting the Grand Banks off newfoundland fairly early in the 1500s. What was their ship technology, their hardware, like?


Northern built skin-on-frame construction (the hull was built frame first with hull covering added later (a hallmark of Northern ships since the Viking age as opposed to weaker "skin first" with structural elements inserted after that was found in classical and Mediterranean construction) with a straight sternpost facilitating a hanging rudder, main mast square sails with sometimes an aft mizzen. -- like the Buss:
550px-Groenewegen.D3.Buis.jpg

Similar constructed ships of even smaller size were used, as well.
So, the tech set wasn't altogether different than the Nao (or Carrock) we associate with the first late 15th C. trans-Atlantic voyages, but significantly smaller.
 
That would be assuming that the Austrolnesians had motivation to go beyond Madagascar. After all, they had this big, huge, rich island to colonize. Mainland Africa would be more likely, as well as their merging with the local cultures (some evidence of presence in E. Africa). They would have a terrible ways to go to reach the Americas, as well as the time needed developing a passing familiarity to the currents and winds off western Africa.

This is the generally accepted historic migration range of all the various Austronesian peoples, as we understand today:
extent-of-austronesian-migrations2.jpg

I meant reaching the Americas from the Pacific side. It seems Austronesians could colonize only previously uninhabited areas.
 
Last edited:
I meant reaching the Americas from the Pacific side. It seems Austronesians could colonize only previously inhabited areas.

edit---I misread your post. apologies. Or you edited yours, or both. Anyway, a response to your edited post:

OTL, the Australasians came much, much closer to Americas via the Pacific than ever they did by sailing West. There is the possibility that some Polynesians reached Mocha Island, off the coast of Chile, and possibly were in contact with the local Mapuche of Chile. Still waiting on the proper archeology before decisive conclusions are reached. There are some interesting correlations on words for certain objects between the 2 peoples. Also some interesting coincidences that have spurred theories of Polynesian contact with the Chumash of the Central California coast (both uniquely used plank sewn canoes).
More in this paper but beware-- the sweet potato and chicken elements of the paper have generally been debunked:
http://www.academia.edu/2562286/Sum...ca_Pre-Columbian_Contacts_with_the_New_World_
 
Last edited:

TFSmith121

Banned
Oaken ships with leathern sails...

Oaken ships with leathern sails...

Even sturdier than a longship, and described by someone who should have known in the first century BCE.

Best,
 
i would imagine that of the black death hadn't happened, that they would have crossed the atlantic earlier.

the sheer population pressure would make sure of that.

But the motivation to cross the Atlantic in the first place was not finding new land to settle. It was to get new routes for Asian trade. And even after they discovered the Americas were their own continents, the other Europeans only set up shop in hopes that the rest of North America was as narrow as Mexico so they could build Pacific ports to get in on the Asian trade. The idea of settlements came later when they realized the greater part of North America was too vast, and the colonies found other ways to be profitable.

More than likely there would have been massive famines to level the population out before anyone decided to sail off into the wild blue yonder looking for more lands to settle. No one in Medieval Europe was going to put resources into that without some other more tangible pay off.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Yes and no

But the motivation to cross the Atlantic in the first place was not finding new land to settle. It was to get new routes for Asian trade. And even after they discovered the Americas were their own continents, the other Europeans only set up shop in hopes that the rest of North America was as narrow as Mexico so they could build Pacific ports to get in on the Asian trade. The idea of settlements came later when they realized the greater part of North America was too vast, and the colonies found other ways to be profitable.

More than likely there would have been massive famines to level the population out before anyone decided to sail off into the wild blue yonder looking for more lands to settle. No one in Medieval Europe was going to put resources into that without some other more tangible pay off.

Western Europe (Iberia, etc), that's true; Northern Europe, however, the motivations were "new territory" and "fish"...

Both of which, combined with the "short" northern route, means that given a "few" breaks, there could have been sustained contact between Europe and the Western Hemisphere from 1000 CE onwards.

Basically pushing the Columbian Exchange "back" almost half a millenium.

Best,
 
Oaken ships with leathern sails...

Even sturdier than a longship, and described by someone who should have known in the first century BCE.

Best,

Ahh, the Veneti. From what we know of this Gaulish people that were so decisively annihilated by the Romans (their disappearance from history adding to their mystique), they were coastal sailors along the Gaulish coasts and traders with Britain -- but not bluewater sailors. What we do know of their ships (from Monsieur J. Caesar) is loosely their method of construction, materials, and that some of their ships were larger than the Roman ships deployed against them. "Sturdier than a longship" is unknowable hyperbole, though. Besides, it was the beamier, stouter Viking knarr, not the longship that was used in their forays to Iceland, Greenland and beyond.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Yep; my point is just that Europe was not limited to

Ahh, the Veneti. From what we know of this Gaulish people that were so decisively annihilated by the Romans (their disappearance from history adding to their mystique), they were coastal sailors along the Gaulish coasts and traders with Britain -- but not bluewater sailors. What we do know of their ships (from Monsieur J. Caesar) is loosely their method of construction, materials, and that some of their ships were larger than the Roman ships deployed against them. "Sturdier than a longship" is unknowable hyperbole, though. Besides, it was the beamier, stouter Viking knarr, not the longship that was used in their forays to Iceland, Greenland and beyond.

Yep; my point is just that Europe was not limited to the Med-type ships, even in the BCE era...add the reality of geography is such (as shown by the Norse, a thousand years later) is that the Faeroes-Iceland-Greenland-Newfoundland-points southeast route does allow for what amounts to point-to-point coastwise (or then some) voyaging, back and forth.

Given that the question was "the earliest date" it seems worth considering it didn't necessary take a caravel.

Best,
 
Aren't the Champa people in parts of [mainland] southern Vietnam also Austronesian? This map seems not to show them...

Same loose language group, anyways. I would say the maps emphasis is on the sea migrations of the various Austronesians. The range does touch on the Viet coast.
 
Last edited:
Yep; my point is just that Europe was not limited to the Med-type ships, even in the BCE era...add the reality of geography is such (as shown by the Norse, a thousand years later) is that the Faeroes-Iceland-Greenland-Newfoundland-points southeast route does allow for what amounts to point-to-point coastwise (or then some) voyaging, back and forth.

Given that the question was "the earliest date" it seems worth considering it didn't necessary take a caravel.

Best,

Still the same issues of motivation, remain, in addition to the tech set. Although the verdict is out that, say the Veneti did--they weren't positioned well to discover either the "Northern" route or the Canary current and frankly, we don't know enough about their sailing tech. The Norse had the motivation. The Iberians had it. They both did their "homework" -- obtaining the necessary precursor information of currents, winds, island chains, incrementally. Who else did? might be the question to ask.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Okay, but the question seems both technology driven and

Still the same issues of motivation, remain, in addition to the tech set. Although the verdict is out that, say the Veneti did--they weren't positioned well to discover either the "Northern" route or the Canary current and frankly, we don't know enough about their sailing tech. The Norse had the motivation. The Iberians had it. They both did their "homework" -- obtaining the necessary precursor information of currents, winds, island chains, incrementally. Who else did? might be the question to ask.

I don't know, and I'm not sure it is knowable, given literacy and preservation of material culture issues...

But the question seems both technology driven and - given the "safely" caveat - sort of suggests the feat being something that could be repeated coming home AND presumably worth doing again.

My guess is a Western/Northern European maritime culture on the fringes of the Mediterranean world is presumably more likely to go a roving than one safely in the middle of the Mediterranean world, but that's just sort of instinct, based on frontier cultures elsewhere.

If there is money to be made going "south" for example, but there's a middleman, some thoughtful soul is going to consider if there may be money to be made going "north"...

And the one draw that is ever-present in the North Atlantic in the past millienium is fish; if they can be caught, dried ashore, and shipped back to market, there is definitely money to be made. And these are/were the days of "walking ashore on the backs of the fish" type hyperbole, so there was probably something to be said for it...

Not "Enterprise of the Indies" scale money, but still; there's definitely a risk-reward equation pencilling (quilling? stylusing?) out in that case.

Best,
 
Top