WI: English Columbus and Amerigo?

What if the English funded Columbus and Amerigo Vespucci? What routes would Columbus take? Would he land in Canada or New England? Or would he still land somewhere in the Caribbean? Where does England set up colonies after Amerigo tells them they discovered two new continents? Do they still colonize the North American east coast? Do they gain more colonies in the Caribbean? What about Mexico or Colombia? Where do other nations like Spain, France, and Portugal colonize? Does the US still come into existence? Or is it butterflied? Does this make England stronger than OTL? Or do they experience something similar to Spain? Does England colonize places as quickly as Spain? Does Russia take more of the west coast? What are some other effects?
 
What routes would Columbus take? Would he land in Canada or New England?

Not really sure on this one. If he tried to set out straight from England from looking at maps of ocean currents I would think he would arrive in Greenland, although I'm far from an expert on how sailing/currents work. By this time the Norse settlements there have failed, but maybe he encounters the Thule and still thinks he's on the right track for reaching Asia.

Where does England set up colonies after Amerigo tells them they discovered two new continents? Do they still colonize the North American east coast? Do they gain more colonies in the Caribbean?

The real question is, depending on where he lands and who he encounters, will England even be interested in immediately colonizing? The natives Columbus encountered during his first voyage had golden jewelry. The Inuit people, and east coast tribes, at least to my knowledge, did not. Columbus also noted that the people he encountered could be easy converts to Christianity. He might not come to the same conclusion about the people he encounters on this voyage, although he might paint everything in the best possible light to receive further funding for further expeditions. This was before Henry the VIII split the Church, but England still might not be as interested in establishing missions in the New World either.

As for where everyone establishes their colonies it all depends on where the first voyage ends up and how quickly countries are to capitalize on the discovery. I would imagine that Portugal still ends up in Brazil due to the routes they took to get to their colonies in Africa. Who ends up in the Caribbean all depends on who sets out first, but I imagine it's between Spain and Portugal.

What about Mexico or Colombia?

Now this is an interesting question. Any changes to 1492 almost guarantees butterflying the conquest of the Aztecs and Incas. That's not to say they won't be conquered eventually but how long it takes and how much of the culture survives will differ greatly from OTL. As for Colombia specifically, most of the tribes there weren't organized into societies like the Aztecs or Incas so I would think it would go similar to OTL just with whatever power gets there first.

Does the US still come into existence? Or is it butterflied?

The US as we know it is butterflied but that's not to say a similar country won't rise up. With the separation of so much distance and travel time during this era and the following years it's almost certain that the colonies begin to develop their own cultures and identities. Sooner or later there will be breakaways so an independent North American Republic with English as the primary language is always possible.

Does this make England stronger than OTL?

I think there's a possibility it's weaker. This is before the Act of Union and Scotland might set up successful colonies of its own unlike their failures in OTL, and become a competitor to England.

Does Russia take more of the west coast?

With the feudal nature of Russia contributing to their lack of potential colonists, and lack of infrastructure in the Far-East, I'd say it goes the same as OTL.

As for other effects if there are not as many reasons to colonize quickly ITTL it's possible that Native peoples have more time to recover from diseases. While I would say it's possible that more native states might survive they would still only be a plurality in a European dominated New World.
 
Butterflies, butterflies, butterflies. Talking about a USA with a 1490s POD is pretty ridiculous since they’re 300 years apart.
 
Butterflies, butterflies, butterflies. Talking about a USA with a 1490s POD is pretty ridiculous since they’re 300 years apart.

To be fair there have been three posts here including yours, the first asking "Would the US be butterflied?" and the next replying, "Yes it would be," so nobody's really talking about it.
 
Similar questions have been posted before, but England Discovering the New World is still a very fascinating idea. First of all, OTL Columbus sent his brother Bartholomew to England 1489 to search for support. Meanwhile, the same year Columbus began receiving an allowance from Spain in return for Columbus not offering his ideas elsewhere. Therefore, the POD would be England accepting Bartholomew Columbus' offer in 1489, which place Columbus' voyage in 1490 or 1491. As for Vespucci, it seems like he went where the action, and money, were, so if Columbus discovers America for England, Vespucci is probably close behind.

As for what route Columbus would take, it is hard to tell. On the one hand, he understood the Atlantic Equatorial currents fairly well( better than arctic waters) and believed that was where the spices were. The use of the Canaries or te Azores would be a big boon, but i don't know enough about the political situation at the time. I've read that England had better relation with Spain at the time, but Columbus had offered the Spanish and Portuguese his mission first, so they countries might be a little ticked off if Columbus wanted to use their islands as a pit stop. Getting from England to the Bahamas was not impossible, but Columbus would have needed a more professional (well paid) crew to stick with him. If he took an arctic route, i would imagine the route would be similar to John Cabot's and Columbus, like in the Caribbean, would only stay long enough to take some slaves and any fancy looking thing he could find. In the short term(2-5 years) it would not really matter because Columbus would lie and say he found Asia either way, but it could determine whether Native Americans would be called Indians or Cathays(northern chinese).

On Columbus' further voyages, he would obviously go south, desperately looking for Natives with gold, which he would have to go to the Caribbean to find. Henry VII was notoriously frugal, so he would probably fund these expeditions by promising Italian explorers land claims, a right to more profits, or titles, which could lure in more talent. Once the English realize this isn't Asia, their further exploration might be far slower than Spain's because the English lacked the crusading zeal of Ferdinand and Isabella, so most explorers would have less support for colonizing, probably searching for a northern or southern passage to asia instead. I think if Columbus found caribbean gold, the English would continue on. If one Englishman saw Tenochtitlan, they would invade until they conquered it. For first colonies though, i don't see a ton of English settlements or Spanish conquests. French style trading posts devoted to selling goods to the natives and enabling further explorers or conquerors are likely.

We have to think about the other European powers too. The Portuguese found Brazil in 1500, and that likely goes the same as OTL. The Spanish were less navally focused than the Portuguese, but they have the Canaries as a base and a surplus of cash from the Reconquista, so they would be soon behind. If the English have claimed the Bahamas by now, Spanish conquest and conversion efforts are more focused on the Northern coast of South America than the Carribean. Since the English wouldn't have intensively settled North America, you could still see French, Portuguese, or other powers setting up colonies there. It is important to note that the First English Colonies had the Irish plantations as a model, but this exploration predates those, so it is unlikely English efforts would resemble OTL British Colonization.

Since i don;t see the discovery of the Americas affecting Henry VIII's genetics, there is a good chance the Protestant Reformation(which did and would have happened independent of American events) still comes to England, so Catholic exodus might drive real settlement colonies. For Conquest, the Spanish Colonies were mostly rules by whoever conquered them until the 1580s when the crown slowly took control. However, Henry VII, Henry VIII, and Elizabeth I all heavily restricted noble powers so they might not be cool with lower class merchant basically establishing military dictatorships across the sea. On the other hand, the English monarchs had much less ability to raise money without parliament then the Spanish monarchs did, so they might grant more independence to conquerors in return for running the Colonies. OTL, the Spanish taking control of their colonies was a huge financial mistake because they didn't pay for themselves until the Bourbon reforms in the 1760s.

It wasn't part of the question, but the English colonizing North America, Central America, and most of the Caribbean would be a disaster for Native Americans because the English were not very interested in converting, were the worst to the natives IRL, and looked down on Interracial marriages more stridently. You can look to their policy of putting down an Irish revolt every hundred years by slaughtering 1/3 of the Islands population for evidence of this.

This would have massive and escalating consequences in Europe. First, England would have the money and necessity to possess the largest navy in Europe, and if they wanted to overtake the Portuguese in the East indies once they finish conquering the great Native American Countries in the 1570s, they could probably do it with ease. You might think this would devastate Spain, but the Spanish were far less dependent on new world wealth, with treasure shipments only ever making up a fifth of Spain;s treasury. Spain funded the largest army in Europe through insanely high taxes that squashed the original thriving manufacturing of Aragon, and then through the massive selling of noble titles, which encouraged the wealthy to spend money on those instead of the economy. All this crippled Spanish wealth. Charles V would probably still happens because his existence was the result of political planning that predated 1492, but his wars were unavoidable. Francis I of France wanted to dominate Italy, no matter the cost, he Ottomans were surging, and the reformation happens. This might lead to a French dominated Europe, which is an entire other really complicated scenario. But otherwise, Charles V reign is hard to tell. If England is much stronger, he might bide his time to marry an English princess, which would lead to a less devout Philip II, which might lead to Spain avoiding all of its devastating wars. The point is, anything beyond the 1550s is really hard to predict in Europe.

I do not think England would have fought a ton of wars with Europe under Elizabeth or James because both reliably avoided foreign war, which Probably leads to a much stronger England. If the Stuart monarchs start a civil war, it might go very well because they have New World wealth to fund armies instead of relying on Nobles, so perhaps and Absolutist England like France?

The main reason why England was so dominant after 1650 was because they copied Dutch capitalism and mercantilism more effectively and used central banking to dominate the world. But, with a POD of 1489, the Dutch might never be formed. The English still have the Hanseatic legacy, but they rise of banking and joint stock companies that allowed Britain to run a profitable empire might not happen. If they do develop a strong capitalism and mercantilism society while also holding most of the new world, then Britain is the world's superpower by the 1600s. Beyond that, it is difficult to tell how the would effect English society long term.

Getting back to the Americas, we probably see slower colonization in non-British America, and maybe an earlier development of slavery. If British conquerors take the Incas and find Bolivian Silver, that region goes to Britain. They would probably conquer Mexico from the Aztecs and take Columbia to connect their colonies. I imagine English searches for a northwest passage, English naval dominance, and their head start would lead England to Dominate North America. Portugal would probably still settle Brazil similarly unless they got into a big war with England, or some other naval power.

Long term, it is extremely difficult to say what would happen to the Americas. Since there aren't many colonies left in the Americas, i would bet these would eventually become independent, but probably in a completely different form to our America. The enlightenment might not even have existed if the circumstances were right. As for Russia, this timeline lead to them not even getting to the Bering strait, and they never colonized it instensilvely.

Overall, it is hard to say how the English discovering America would have effecting the world in the long term, but it is highly unlikely this would have closely resembled Spanish colonization, or OTL British Colonization.
 
@TheLaterAlligator wow determinist much? What academic basis do you have for assuming how England would settle the Americas, treat the Natives worse than the Iberians despite a century-long difference in start date (and don't give me that bullhockey about fighting in Ireland, this POD happens before then, thus a butterflyable element), discourage racial mixing despite literally zero historical precedent for such objections pre-1500, etc?

Oh wait, it's the English, therefore they must invariably be smallpox-blanket-tossing, tropics-dodging, Papist-burning piratical prudes :rolleyes:. I may be a bit hyperbolic here, but this concept of inalterable outlook WRT an English colonial empire never ceases to annoy.

EDIT: For the record, my take on said Columbus' hiring by England would yield either Canada/New England, the West Indies/Mesoamerica, or (depending on allocated resources and usage of friendly foreign ports) both. That being said, I can see them having one or two large colonies and a handful of smaller ones at most BECAUSE of the ongoing fighting with France and/or the War of the Roses. Not that a divergence of funds or post-conflict recovery couldn't happen, it depends on how said conflicts end I think (e.g. the Tudors lose). On the balance I imagine something like the Portuguese or Dutch empires, only perhaps with an earlier start they may have more room to consolidate.
 
Last edited:
The initial funding of the Columbian ventures would probably be from the Bristol Society of Merchant Venturers before Henry VIII's more bombastic government can fund more journeys to the west.

Mexico is easier to conquer given that the Aztec Alliance was hated by nearly every neighbour available. All the English had to do was replicate what the OTL Spanish did: ally with thousands of anti-Aztec-Alliance soldiers and take the Aztecs head on. Divide and conquer.

The Incas would definitely survive. They were only conquered by the Spanish due to civil war and was technically a fluke. I could see an English Mexico but an independent Incan Empire coming into fruition.
 
@TheLaterAlligator wow determinist much? What academic basis do you have for assuming how England would settle the Americas, treat the Natives worse than the Iberians despite a century-long difference in start date (and don't give me that bullhockey about fighting in Ireland, this POD happens before then, thus a butterflyable element), discourage racial mixing despite literally zero historical precedent for such objections pre-1500, etc?

Oh wait, it's the English, therefore they must invariably be smallpox-blanket-tossing, tropics-dodging, Papist-burning piratical prudes :rolleyes:. I may be a bit hyperbolic here, but this concept of inalterable outlook WRT an English colonial empire never ceases to annoy.

EDIT: For the record, my take on said Columbus' hiring by England would yield either Canada/New England, the West Indies/Mesoamerica, or (depending on allocated resources and usage of friendly foreign ports) both. That being said, I can see them having one or two large colonies and a handful of smaller ones at most BECAUSE of the ongoing fighting with France and/or the War of the Roses. Not that a divergence of funds or post-conflict recovery couldn't happen, it depends on how said conflicts end I think (e.g. the Tudors lose). On the balance I imagine something like the Portuguese or Dutch empires, only perhaps with an earlier start they may have more room to consolidate.

I think you are right that it was aggressive of me to assume the English would treat the natives worse.
My thought process was that the Spanish Conquistadores were brutal towards the natives, but most of the opposition to this treatment came from priests. Specifically Bartholomew de las Casas lobbied and wrote about the treatment of natives. Additionally Ferdinand and Isabella, Phillip II, and to a lesser extent, Charles V, sought to protect natives on the grounds that they were converted Christians. I don't even think England had to become protestant. But the Catholic church did not have the prominence in England that they did in Spain because of distance and the English monarchs and the Pope. I also felt that the English monarchs would be less activist overseers of their colonies. I think the Reconquista in Spain just made the Spanish more comfortable with overtaking and assimilating people.

As for Empire, i specifically said this might lead to England barely colonizing their new territories like France because of little profit incentive. The Spanish or Portuguese or no one could have colonized the Aztec and Incan empires.
 
If England still goes Protestant (or pretty much Protestant, as in OTL), how would the residents of any potential American colonies would respond? They have close ties with England naturally, so I'm guessing they would convert more or less without fuss.
 

Kaze

Banned
There would be billions of dollars of gold and resources flowing into England much like the IRL British Empire of the 18th - early 20th cent.
The British were able to divide and conquer India and most of African native nations - it would be the same for the Aztec, Maya, and Inca but a lot harder. However, it would be likely that the Aztec and native Kings would end up much like the British Maharajas (prior and post the Sepoy Revolt) as puppet-rulers.
 
If England still goes Protestant (or pretty much Protestant, as in OTL), how would the residents of any potential American colonies would respond? They have close ties with England naturally, so I'm guessing they would convert more or less without fuss.
Yea. Im also wondering if it could be an EU4 scenario where the new world stays catholic while england goes protestant.
 
The initial funding of the Columbian ventures would probably be from the Bristol Society of Merchant Venturers before Henry VIII's more bombastic government can fund more journeys to the west.

Mexico is easier to conquer given that the Aztec Alliance was hated by nearly every neighbour available. All the English had to do was replicate what the OTL Spanish did: ally with thousands of anti-Aztec-Alliance soldiers and take the Aztecs head on. Divide and conquer.

The Incas would definitely survive. They were only conquered by the Spanish due to civil war and was technically a fluke. I could see an English Mexico but an independent Incan Empire coming into fruition.

- I realize he was coronated in 1509, but if we're going with a pre-1500 POD (which would be the case in a Columbus sailing timeline) who's to say Arthur Prince of Wales ever contracts sweating sickness and dies? Hell that may end up a butterfly of Columbus' sailing for England, but then again I guess I just like the idea of that fat fuck Hank never getting the crown :p

- And given England's role in the Third Crusade, they've done this exact thing with a culture/region as alien to them as the Moors were to the Castillians. Again, there's NO REASON WHATSOEVER for England to do anything different from Spain given the same resources UNLESS one devises a reason for it in-narrative.

- I don't know about "definitely", but the Tawantinsuyu stood the best chance of any of the Indigenous nation-states of retaining independence from European conquest IMO, due to its geography and sophistication. I do think one or both of the Iberian kingdoms will end up colonizing eventually (they'd have no reason not to), and South America is more easily reachable for them than England is (though, again, not impossible). Reason I bring that up is that you'd probably see SOME influences on the Incans that might help them modernize against further Euro incursion (think there's a TL on here about that very thing).

I think you are right that it was aggressive of me to assume the English would treat the natives worse.
My thought process was that the Spanish Conquistadores were brutal towards the natives, but most of the opposition to this treatment came from priests. Specifically Bartholomew de las Casas lobbied and wrote about the treatment of natives. Additionally Ferdinand and Isabella, Phillip II, and to a lesser extent, Charles V, sought to protect natives on the grounds that they were converted Christians. I don't even think England had to become protestant. But the Catholic church did not have the prominence in England that they did in Spain because of distance and the English monarchs and the Pope. I also felt that the English monarchs would be less activist overseers of their colonies. I think the Reconquista in Spain just made the Spanish more comfortable with overtaking and assimilating people.

As for Empire, i specifically said this might lead to England barely colonizing their new territories like France because of little profit incentive. The Spanish or Portuguese or no one could have colonized the Aztec and Incan empires.

- Fair enough, but is there any reason why the Iberians would be unique in this factor? I think not. The Jesuits weren't established until 1540 so don't trot them out as an example, they're post-POD. De las Casas was ONE man who's role in Spanish treatment of the natives was pretty much a one-man-show, thus an analogue in England isn't out of the question (and de las Casas was a Dominican, which were as prevalent in England as "Blackfriars" as they were in Spain). The idea of protecting the natives via Crown fiat is a nice legal fiction, but the encomendero AND repartimiento (which was functionally no better despite being a putative improvement over its predecessor) systems were both horribly brutal and exploitative all the way up to their full abolition, and even the New Laws AIUI were only nominally complied with by the Viceroyalties where strictly necessary or convenient.

- The hell are you talking about, England's distance from Rome mattering in Catholicness at all? Even after Henry VIII's establishment of the Anglican Church, the number of praticiing Catholics in England remained steady and high even up to the end of Mary's reign; the place had been Catholic in faith since the Sixth Century, which predates the County of Castille's existence by about three hundred years, and the Church was regularly involved in political developments, town growth, education, and resistance towards the Vikings. Seems pretty important an element to me! Activism in ruling the colonies was hardly uniform or rigorous in the Spanish Empire either, see my earlier comment about the encomiendas and repartimientos. And this notion of the Reconquista leading to cultural acceptance by the Spanish needs. To. DIE. The Moors and Arabs of al-Andalus were NOT that numerous in conquered territories under Castille-y-Leon, they were NOT generally accepted unless they converted to Catholicism and switched languages, and EVEN THEN were still under threat from the Inquisition (which led to a massive flight, not to mention EXPULSION, of crypto-Muslims and Jews from Spain to places like Ottoman Anatolia, Egypt, etc.).

- Bullshit, all of that. First of all, the English were looking for gold and silver just like the Spanish were, and that's what the Spaniards found in Mesoamerica; so, why would the English do anything different from Spain GIVEN THE SAME motives and ultimate goals in looking for the shinys? Second of all, fuck that "Spain/Portugal or nobody idea", just one more example of Hispano cultural chauvinism based on flawed premises and self-aggrandizing historiography (a concept that is, inherently, subjective and of limited academic value). As I said before, there's nothing factual about "Iberian cultural tolerance" that carried over into Portugal or Spain, it's an example of greed and opportunity winning out over trepidation towards "the others" in Africa and the New World. NOTHING MORE. I apologize if I come off rude, but you seem to believe in a historiography of Iberian "specialness" that I do not agree with nor see as having any validity to it.

There would be billions of dollars of gold and resources flowing into England much like the IRL British Empire of the 18th - early 20th cent.
The British were able to divide and conquer India and most of African native nations - it would be the same for the Aztec, Maya, and Inca but a lot harder. However, it would be likely that the Aztec and native Kings would end up much like the British Maharajas (prior and post the Sepoy Revolt) as puppet-rulers.

- Why? That happened almost two hundred years post POD.
 
Last edited:
England probably gets what they did OTL, plus Louisiana, Mexico, and more cards wan islands in NA, and in SA, they could colonize Argentina. If Scotland still tries a Panamanian colony but gets absorbed then the British will own that and the area around it also. Portugal still get Brazil since they would arrive there on their routes going south. Spain and France IMO are the real losers here. France is probably stuck with some carabbean islands, and maybe parts of Central America, while Spain probably gets Colombia, some carabbean islands, and if they try, Peru. Depending on if the British make an effort to colonize the west coast as the Spanish did, Russia may or may not get some more territory.
I could see America rising up if the situations are right, and if most of the founding fathers still exist (rather than just being spread across the British empire). It may not be exactly what we have IOTL, but would be close enough.
 
Spain bullies them out of mexico/the caribbean but the 13 colonies/canada get settled a century earlier by Enland.

Isn't pre-Protestant England more of a friend to Spain ? With ensuing butterflies and perhaps England staying Catholic ( idk, Arthur Tudor lives ), then surely Spain could be a friend to England long-term against France, which was especially true for the Italian Wars.
 
Last edited:
That's why they'd let england settle the east coast and pay them for "compensation" to give them mexico/peru instead of say doing an Armada. Perhaps Spain muscles portugal into letting the english have that island south of the east indies
Australia
, or say the cape of southern africa too in their colonial sphere.

My guess is England goes protestant still but it'd be more obviously 'anglo-catholic' with a bit less tension -- no Spain formally blocking them from the new world for a while, plus their "friend" say blocking the french. Probably less anti-catholicism too and the more ah firm/hardline strains of protestantism don't get to take root in england -- no calvinists allowed to go ot new england.
 
Spain bullies them out of mexico/the caribbean but the 13 colonies/canada get settled a century earlier by Enland.
How does spain do so exactly? And why exactly does spain want them? It seems doubtful if england gets to the new world first spain would find out about the gold in the caribbean and mexico first. Assuming columbus eventually makes it to the carabbean wouldnt england try to hold onto those colones with spain colonizing some other places?
 
How does spain do so exactly? And why exactly does spain want them? It seems doubtful if england gets to the new world first spain would find out about the gold in the caribbean and mexico first. Assuming columbus eventually makes it to the carabbean wouldnt england try to hold onto those colones with spain colonizing some other places?

I'd always assume Spain would be a bit busy with the Italian Wars. And without the New World wealth I'd expect France could put up a bigger fight, possibly keeping Milan in the Third of Fourth Italian war against the Habsburgs
 
I'd always assume Spain would be a bit busy with the Italian Wars. And without the New World wealth I'd expect France could put up a bigger fight, possibly keeping Milan in the Third of Fourth Italian war against the Habsburgs
So would Portugal get more land with spain out of the picture for some years, France being occupied with spain, and england probably focusing on North America?

Edit: Also, what places would spain and France be left with when they finally set their sites on the Americas (if they still do that is)
 
Top