WI: Columbus stranded in the new world

[Lusitania]

Are you sure? Because seem to remember firmly that Columbus proposal was rejected multiple times by royal advisers due to their belief that he was using far too small an estimate of the earths size. I thought Eratosthenes and Posidonius estimates were generally accepted at this time, with some quibbling about units of measurement. Posidonius measurement was quite close to correct, within about 3 %, but Ptolemy revised him downwards by almost 30%.

Columbus proposal to the Portuguese corte was not considered with the due diligence it required. Yes there were flaws in his calculation but the Portuguese had no need for it. They already had discovered a sea route to India around Africa so they never really considered it. I guess the best thing would of been to send him with two ships and have the Portuguese crew throw him overboard during the night and return saying found nothing. But they dismissed him and the Spanish hoping to circumvent their treaty financed the expedition.

What is their motivation? I mean, what do they hope to gain by spending ships an money on this? They know its to far to India, and Colombus just proved that.

Remember, Colombus belief about the size of the earth was pretty unique to him. No-one else believed that it was such a short distance to India. That was why Portugal rejected his proposal. And Venice, Genova, and England. And Spain, where he was initially rejected for exactly that reason, it was much further than he though. He was lucky enough to get a window of opportunity after Ferdinand and Isabella finished the reconquista. But before that, he tried over and over and no-one was interested because they knew his proposal was not viable. If he vanishes, it'll be a "What did we say?" from everyone.

Portugal had some success with sugarplantations, and could be said to want more land for those.

The fact that there was land and it had been discovered by several sources, French to north and Portuguese to south would of been enough incentive for the Spanish to sponsor expeditions. Remember Canaries were profitable colony at time and they would of been two incentives discover what happen to Columbus expedition and secondly to gain new territory which was lacking in Europe and North Africa.

 

[chornedsnorkack]

while the treaty of Alcacovas stated "Castile's rights over the Canary Islands were recognized while Portugal won the exclusive right of navigating, conquering and trading in all the Atlantic Ocean south of the Canary Islands. Thus, Portugal attained hegemony in the Atlantic not only for its known territories but also for those discovered in the future. Castile was restricted to the Canaries." The Spanish had hoped that in funding Columbus expedition that they hoped would bypass Portugal's lock on Africa and the Indian Ocean, and instead, reach Asia by travelling west over the Atlantic.

So you can see the Spanish though that by sailing west they could bypass Portuguese control of Africa and sailing south and East.

The Treaty of Tordesillas would not exist since it only came into play after the successful Columbus expedition. So, no Columbus means no need for treaty. Portuguese control of Brazil would be guaranteed by treaty of Alcacovas. The Spanish still would try going west.

But what is the key is control of Caribbean.
As far as Catholic Kings knew, Columbus might have complied with the Treaty of Alcacovas.
Which would have meant sailing due west along latitude 28. Unless he turned back for not finding land (as he well might), he would pass north of all Bahamas (ending short of latitude 27) instead of finding San Salvador at latitude 24, and reach North American mainland near Cape Canaveral.

Suppose Columbus does make landfall at Cape Canaveral, and proceeds North, appreciating that everything south is off-limits. What would happen?

OTL, Portugal protested against Columbus´ violation of Treaty of Alcacovas, and in April 1493, opened negotiations with Spain. Portugal also talked about responding with their own expedition to West Indies.

Meanwhile, the Pope was a Spaniard - Rodrigo Borgia since August 1492. Spain contacted Pope by 11th of April 1493, and by 4th of May, 1493, got Pope to issue a bull overriding Treaty of Alcacovas.

The Portuguese did not send their expedition to America, and meanwhile Spain sent 2nd voyage of Columbus in September 1493.
In June 1494, Portugal yielded and made Treaty of Tordesillas, giving up their claims to West.

What do you think could happen if the conditions for review of Treaty of Alcacovas were different?

 

[Lusitania]

But what is the key is control of Caribbean.
As far as Catholic Kings knew, Columbus might have complied with the Treaty of Alcacovas.
Which would have meant sailing due west along latitude 28. Unless he turned back for not finding land (as he well might), he would pass north of all Bahamas (ending short of latitude 27) instead of finding San Salvador at latitude 24, and reach North American mainland near Cape Canaveral.

Suppose Columbus does make landfall at Cape Canaveral, and proceeds North, appreciating that everything south is off-limits. What would happen?

OTL, Portugal protested against Columbus´ violation of Treaty of Alcacovas, and in April 1493, opened negotiations with Spain. Portugal also talked about responding with their own expedition to West Indies.

Meanwhile, the Pope was a Spaniard - Rodrigo Borgia since August 1492. Spain contacted Pope by 11th of April 1493, and by 4th of May, 1493, got Pope to issue a bull overriding Treaty of Alcacovas.

The Portuguese did not send their expedition to America, and meanwhile Spain sent 2nd voyage of Columbus in September 1493.
In June 1494, Portugal yielded and made Treaty of Tordesillas, giving up their claims to West.

What do you think could happen if the conditions for review of Treaty of Alcacovas were different?

Ok se we discussing not the lack of Treaty of Alcacovas which would stay in place. But the lack of the treaty of Treaty of Tordesillas. The Portuguese did not send an expedition to Caribbean because it was preparing for Vasco da Gama expedition.

Here we not have a Spanish Pope in control of Catholic Church till 1550. Therefore Spain not have the same leverage and also need. Therefore any expedition by Spain following Portuguese and French discoveries would need to be "adhere" to the treaty. So discoveries in the Caribbean would need to be negotiated and some sort of accommodation granted. The Portuguese would be negotiating from a stronger position for they be at their strongest with monopoly on trade to India.

 

[chornedsnorkack]

Let´s consider a number of possible PoD´s, by order of time:

1. Columbus gets Portuguese funding in 1485-1488, and discovers West Indies for Portugal. With Portuguese in place and no Spanish pope till 1492 (the pope was Genuan), would Spain try trespassing?
2. Columbus sticks to Treaty of Alcacovas and reaches America at Cape Canaveral, explores say Cape Canaveral to Hatteras. Once there is land which is legitimately Spanish but plainly extends south of the land border at Cape Canaveral, will Portuguese bother exploring their share?
   
3. Columbus fails: turns back short of Bahamas as his crew demanded and reports empty sea, or gets shipwrecked, e. g. on Valentine´s Day, or stranded on Haiti (and Pinzon does not bring word back either). Cabral eventually discovers America in 1497. And since there is no Treaty of Tordesillas in place, some Portuguese explorer after Cabral follows Brazilian coast to Guyana and Caribbean, and on return leg, sailing north to reach the westerly winds, finds Haiti and Columbus stranded there. How long until Spaniards send next expedition to West? How long until they send an expedition southwest, in violation of Alcacovas treaty? After 1503, Pope is not a Spaniard either.

 

[Umbral]

The fact that there was land and it had been discovered by several sources, French to north and Portuguese to south would of been enough incentive for the Spanish to sponsor expeditions. Remember Canaries were profitable colony at time and they would of been two incentives discover what happen to Columbus expedition and secondly to gain new territory which was lacking in Europe and North Africa.

Land? Why would they be interested in land?

This is a world without Colombus, without his letters and without or before the Spanish silver. Land that could be used for something -resources, sugarplantations etc- had a use. But just land? Far away full of hostile people? No. No one gave much of a fig about that. They'd known about vast land in Bjarmland and the east, in Greenland in the North, in Africa and the south, in Vinland in the west. For hundreds or in some cases even thousands of years. Far away and with hostile people.

It took Colombus PR-blitz on gold and precious metals, plus the fact that they actually found tons of precious metals turning Spain into a superpower briefly, plus the fact that the natives were having mortality rates of ~90% due to virgin field epidemics and could not put up much of a resistance to ignite the European notion that colonies and lands overseas meant riches. If they had cared much about lands before that, Vinland would have had much more interest.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

I'm having problems with the 'Empty Ocean' belief. As has been mentioned Greenland to the north was well known, and Vineland was also a thing. The Azores and Canaries had been discovered during the previous century, and the extent of Africa proven. One might calculate the true circumference of the Earth, and supose the Asian land mass on the opposite side. But, the idea all in-between might be empty ocean lacks any proof. That a Bristol merchants group was speculating on finding another Greenland, Vineland, or Maderia further west suggest folks were not stuck on the 'empty ocean' meme. That the Spaniards were wanting to cough up the cash & credit for Columbus suggests the belief in land to the west was more than a arithmetic error.

 

[Umbral]

From what I have read, people had a fair idea about how far it was to India going west. And they presumably expected that there would be islands, landmasses etc. on the way. Which a ship going into the unknown may or may not hit before the water ran out. Statistically, if you had no idea where you were going, the odds from other oceans would indicate that "not" was the most likely one. But if you found land, then what? Would it be useful for things, or not? Would it be close enough to actually have a realistic chance to sail to and from (with the ships of the day)? If there were useful stuff there, would there be hostile people? And if useful items could be extracted, would they actually be economically competitive with items sourced from closer to home and safer to get?

You had to roll a lot of sixes to come up with something useful.

The fact that Vinland was known about for half a thousand years before Colombus and regarded with close to total apathy, says a bit about how uninterested people were in far away lands. For a while it produced Narwhale horn, everything else you could get from Russia cheaper and safer. All the other palces too. No-one much cared. The automatic assumption that far away lands would matter is something that entered people horizons afterwards. And quite deeply it seems

Ferdinand and Isabella, after finishing the reconquista and having no big projects to occupy people, had a brief window for a high-risk venture, and Colombus was there to exploit it.

 

[Jimbo808]

Were there any other explorers that set off westwards before Columbus?