WI: Columbus never arrived America?

I don`t know, if the thread already excist.
But what do you think? What if Columbus never arrived the Carribean Islands/ America? What if the ships came in a storm and sank?
How would change that the histroy of the Americas? When would the Americas be colonized? And how will develop the history of the American Indians?
 
It's just a matter of who gets there first. A whole lot of people were already wandering around the Atlantic at the time.

There are some references that Basque fishermen were already exploiting the cod resources of the Grand Banks before the time of Columbus. They kept close-mouthed about it but sooner or later word would leak out. In the South Atlantic, the winds and currents that European mariners used to go South around Africa actually brought them swinging in an arc that came really near the Brazilian coast. Again, sooner or later someone's going to take a course that swings a bit further west than usual and make landfall.
 
It's an interesting question. There's no way the discovery of the Americas would be put off forever (some don't even think it would be put off for more than a decade). Personally, I find that mysticism played a large enough role in the daily lives of sailors that the disappearance of Columbus's fleet might spark some kind of supernatural fear that would at least stop Spain from arriving there in any hurry.

Regardless, the Portuguese would still land in Brazil soon after, and didn't Giovanni Caboto find Newfoundland before Columbus landed anyway? For these reasons it's only a matter of time before the Gulf of Mexico is discovered. By whom? Good question.

As far as my extremely limited knowledge knows, the most likely contenders (if not the Spanish, of course) are the English, Portuguese or Dutch. Imagine a Dutch Mexico, now there's a timeline. Though I'm probably wrong on that count.

Should the Portuguese arrive, the destruction of native culture in Mexico and the Caribbean might be greatly lessened. Disease would still be a problem, but the Portuguese preferred trade dominance over outright conquest and resettlement. What I know about the English colonialism in the era is that they preferred to steal land.
 
Hmm.... Dutch Mexico?? Yes! There's a timeline.... A Dutch Empire that might shook off its decline just because that the Dutch came into Central America or something... Hmmm... Columbus as the POD ah... But will this affect the Dutch War of Independence though?? A lot of things could happen...
 
Hmm.... Dutch Mexico?? Yes! There's a timeline.... A Dutch Empire that might shook off its decline just because that the Dutch came into Central America or something... Hmmm... Columbus as the POD ah... But will this affect the Dutch War of Independence though?? A lot of things could happen...

By 1492 , the Duchy of Burgundy was 15 years gone , and the Dutch were the subjects of the Hapsburgs . So , to speak of a "Dutch" State at this time is an anachronism. Dutch Mexico is not too probable - Portugese Mexico probably is , or French Mexico , or English Mexico. Someone would have conquered Mexico eventually, IMO , even if Cortes was defeated in OTL.
 
Mexico being conquered at all is not a foregone conclusion, the Spanish didn't even intend to conquer it at first. Cortez just went rogue and rallied the Mexica's enemies together.
 
By 1492 , the Duchy of Burgundy was 15 years gone , and the Dutch were the subjects of the Hapsburgs . So , to speak of a "Dutch" State at this time is an anachronism. Dutch Mexico is not too probable - Portugese Mexico probably is , or French Mexico , or English Mexico. Someone would have conquered Mexico eventually, IMO , even if Cortes was defeated in OTL.

Ah... that's true; and that's the Spaniards... so no Dutch Mexico... The Portuguese would be a great substitute...
 
Mexico being conquered at all is not a foregone conclusion, the Spanish didn't even intend to conquer it at first. Cortez just went rogue and rallied the Mexica's enemies together.

If Cortez hadn't, somebody else would have. Perhaps event a native leader. The Aztecs aren't exactly the most likable people in the room.

When you get down to it, didn't General Smallpox have a little to do with their destruction?
 
If Cortez hadn't, somebody else would have. Perhaps event a native leader. The Aztecs aren't exactly the most likable people in the room.

When you get down to it, didn't General Smallpox have a little to do with their destruction?
Yes, but people need to stop ignoring the fact that it was a massive army of native allies that actually did the deed. Smallpox didn't reduce Tenochtitlan to rubble. Also, what native leader? You do know the Aztecs were by far the strongest people in Mesoamerica? That was the whole reason Cortez managed to gather that army. The Tlaxcallans and Totonacs and all weren't pissed about their people being sacrificed, they were pissed that the Mexica were stronger than them and were beating them around. If Cortez died during La Noche Triste, there go the massive armies of native auxiliaries that could've topple the Aztecs. Good luck explaining how the next people are going to gather as much support. Don't exactly see Chichimec armies doing the same thing. Nor can I imagine that the Europeans would ship over tens of thousands of soldiers just to knock over some distant empire that they can easily trade with, which was the original plan.
 
If Cortez hadn't, somebody else would have. Perhaps event a native leader. The Aztecs aren't exactly the most likable people in the room.

When you get down to it, didn't General Smallpox have a little to do with their destruction?

Smallpox didn't destroy Tenochtitlan. It was several hundred thousand natives who decided the Spanish were useful in destroying the Mexica.

You might have a situation analogous to what happened in Asia and Africa in regards to colonization by the Europeans.
 
The problem is General Smallpox . Can the conquest of Mexico be held off till the 17th Century ? Perhaps , but the moment someone finds Gold in Mexico , expect a decimated Mexica to be colonized in the same manner the Eastern Seaboard was.

Actually , I wonder how the Spanish managed to subjugate the Mexica and Incans with ease , but had a harder time expanding north-wards. Was it due to incentive ? Similarly , how did the Mapuches held on for so long , while the Incans and Mexicas simply collapsed?
 
Puppet emperors you mean? The Spanish pulled that first, but when 90% of the natives died of diseases it was pointless to continue with the middleman.

Perhaps. The Spanish or whoever is colonizing the Americas isn't going to have the resources to send in armies consisting of tens of thousands of men to conquer the Mesoamerican kingdoms. Any European presence in Mexico is going to start with the Europeans getting permission to set up a trading port or two to monopolize the two-way flow of exotic goods. At the same time, you might find missionary activity to convert the locals.

Diseases will be spread that way.

What follows is either vassalization or outright conquest. I'm in the opinion that the former is possible, even with the diseases doing their bit.
 
The problem is General Smallpox . Can the conquest of Mexico be held off till the 17th Century ? Perhaps , but the moment someone finds Gold in Mexico , expect a decimated Mexica to be colonized in the same manner the Eastern Seaboard was.

Actually , I wonder how the Spanish managed to subjugate the Mexica and Incans with ease , but had a harder time expanding north-wards. Was it due to incentive ? Similarly , how did the Mapuches held on for so long , while the Incans and Mexicas simply collapsed?

They (Incas and Mexica) were organized. At first, the Spaniards just took over the top of the pre-existing organization and exploited it more harshly. After all, most valuable things to them were in the former empires, or, better said, were more readily available where a state organization was already in place. Places with less organized polities were harder to subjugate exactly for this very reason; this generally holds true for most historical empires, think of the relative ease Romans under the late Republic enjoyed in subjugating eastern Med polities vs. the long, unceasing series of fightings they had to face in places like Spain or Numidia.
Already civilized places are usually easier to exploit for a conqueror, unless there is a settling endeavor and/or a very huge tech difference (greater than the one Spain was able to put in place in peripheral places, lacking an adequately rewarding reason to do the necessary effort). For another example, Assyrians had an harder time with the relatively backward peoples of present-day Kurdistan than with Syria or Babylon or even Egypt; in Babylonian lands, resistance was basically from the "barbarian" Chaldeans, not from the "akkadian" city dwellers.
So, yes, lack of incentive was a factor, but the point is that the incentive would have needed to be higher than the one that pushed conquests in areas with native complex polities.
 
Last edited:
The longest you can put it off is the 1610s; by that point, navigation, nutrition and shipbuilding had reached the point that, even if there had been no continents in the way but just a vast expanse of water, sailing straight from the coast of Africa to China and Indonesia would become practical and profitable.

If it's not diverted into the New World, Spain will keep right on in reconquista mode, continuing into Morocco and then probably across North Africa.

Without Spanish gold to finance it, the Counter-Reformation...is not that successful. Catholic Germans will likely be a rare breed indeed, which probably means an end to the Holy Roman Empire.

Spain on permanent crusade, collapsed Empire...France looks to be on top of the heap for a while.
 
The longest you can put it off is the 1610s; by that point, navigation, nutrition and shipbuilding had reached the point that, even if there had been no continents in the way but just a vast expanse of water, sailing straight from the coast of Africa to China and Indonesia would become practical and profitable.

If it's not diverted into the New World, Spain will keep right on in reconquista mode, continuing into Morocco and then probably across North Africa.

Without Spanish gold to finance it, the Counter-Reformation...is not that successful. Catholic Germans will likely be a rare breed indeed, which probably means an end to the Holy Roman Empire.

Spain on permanent crusade, collapsed Empire...France looks to be on top of the heap for a while.

Now this is a fun scenario. I would love to see this one play out.
 
Top