WI: European Colonization of the Americas Without A Black Death?

As the tin says, what impact would the lack of a Black Death have on European immigration to the Americas? Assuming that a European nation discovered the Americas in the 1400s, would the higher population of Europe combined with more famines in Europe lead to larger settler populations heading west? Especially from countries that OTL didn't send as many settlers?
 
Without the black death, it's entirely possible that the Norse Greenland colony is never abandoned, or at least, that it's settlers do not return to Norway. Facing degrading conditions in Greenland but with no available land in Norway, members of the colony may decide to take a second crack at settling Vinland, landing in Labrador, Newfoundland or further south in the late 1300's. As more woods are chopped down in Europe and Iceland, they begin to trade timber and possibly furs and herring eastward to Iceland and Scandinavia; Greenland timber merchants, perhaps after drinking a little too much, boast of their rich land and freedom compared to the overcrowded peasants of Scandinavia and the British Isles (and probably leaving out the bits about freezing in the winter, catching an arrow to the gut at random intervals during Native raids, and the wolves and bears absolutely ravaging livestock). By the early to mid 1400's, boatloads of Irish, English, Norwegians and Swedes are making their way to Vinland looking to get in on this land.
 
Without the black death, it's entirely possible that the Norse Greenland colony is never abandoned, or at least, that it's settlers do not return to Norway. Facing degrading conditions in Greenland but with no available land in Norway, members of the colony may decide to take a second crack at settling Vinland, landing in Labrador, Newfoundland or further south in the late 1300's. As more woods are chopped down in Europe and Iceland, they begin to trade timber and possibly furs and herring eastward to Iceland and Scandinavia; Greenland timber merchants, perhaps after drinking a little too much, boast of their rich land and freedom compared to the overcrowded peasants of Scandinavia and the British Isles (and probably leaving out the bits about freezing in the winter, catching an arrow to the gut at random intervals during Native raids, and the wolves and bears absolutely ravaging livestock). By the early to mid 1400's, boatloads of Irish, English, Norwegians and Swedes are making their way to Vinland looking to get in on this land.

I do love a good Viking North America.
 

Deleted member 97083

Lack of the Black Death might lead to more serfdom and fewer emigrants to America due to less mobility and less developed urban centers.

Higher population didn't mean more colonization, look at the difference in Portuguese and English versus French colonization, despite France having a huge population.
 
Lack of the Black Death might lead to more serfdom and fewer emigrants to America due to less mobility and less developed urban centers.

Higher population didn't mean more colonization, look at the difference in Portuguese and English versus French colonization, despite France having a huge population.
That wouldn´t really be the case, more population and no plague would imply MORE urban centers, heck I´d argue we would see them approaching 17th century numbers if no population reduction disaster happens.

Nor IMO would serfdom be that tragic or decrease numbers of migrants, more so given the saturation of land back in Europe and the fact nobles might be compelled to invest in the new world.
 

Deleted member 97083

That wouldn´t really be the case, more population and no plague would imply MORE urban centers, heck I´d argue we would see them approaching 17th century numbers if no population reduction disaster happens.

Nor IMO would serfdom be that tragic or decrease numbers of migrants, more so given the saturation of land back in Europe and the fact nobles might be compelled to invest in the new world.
Increased population, even population density over a large area, doesn't necessarily mean more urbanization (observe India, with its higher proportion of rural population than many equally densely populated or less densely populated European countries). In that time there was excess uncultivated farmland.

The population became less rural after the Black Death because the increased wages of peasants (smaller supply of labor = more value per laborer = higher wages) allowed them to move into the cities in areas like the Netherlands. Decreased supply of labor led to new methods of social organization, and "innovation" into new methods of acquiring resources that increased productivity.

@LSCatilina has talked about the post-Black Death populational phenomena before, and can maybe explain this better.

edit: I was largely incorrect here, see later post.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Deleted member 97083

According to Blockman, Wim. "Urbanisation in the European Middle Ages, Phases of openness and inclusion", Living in the City, Urban Institutions in the Low Countries, Willems, New York, Routledge, 2011.

Bolded emphases mine:

"The relative overpopulation of the countryside, in the sense that there was a surplus of labour, was dealt with in a variety of ways. The existing social relations came under pressure, particularly the exploitation of farmers in the form of servitude with all its limitations on freedom and performance obligations. If the landlords wanted to maintain their position, they had to tolerate the fact that surplus workers were no longer tied to their farm, but could leave. Where they went depended on the possibilities that the environment had to offer. The most obvious choice was to cultivate the as yet unexploited landscape in the immediate vicinity, by clearing forests and draining land. In anticipation of higher yields, large land owners, such as abbeys, went so far as to offer ‘settlers’ favourable business terms for the uncultivated land. The main provisions had to do with personal freedom and lower duties, which were of particular importance in the development phase. As the availability of land in the vicinity dried up, then people moved further afield in order to cultivate land." (Blockman 1)

"A third possibility to escape overcrowding was the development of another economic activity, for example in fishing or the crafts. Maritime work supposed shipbuilding, which in turn required a multitude of small businesses. A large part of this remained tied to agricultural production such as forestry, sail making and rope making. Other resources, such as logs that were suitable for masts, nails and tar and pitch, had to be obtained from coastal areas via long distance trade. Special forms of craft and trade activities were effectively exercised by the concentration of housing and jobs which were clearly separated, but never disconnected, from the countryside. This particular reception of the overpopulation from the surrounding areas marks the origins of the first spontaneous growth of cities. Ultimately, because the migration to the cities entailed not only different economic activity but also a profoundly different way of life it was the least obvious but the most radical solution to the overpopulation." (Blockman 2)

"The long growth phase from the tenth to the thirteenth century was followed by a period of roughly one and a half centuries, from 1300 to 1450, during which a considerable reduction occurred in the total, but also in the urban, population. Without doubt, strong migration from the countryside to the cities was based on the phases of growth, in both the period until 1300 and again after 1450. But it is also highly probable that the outflow from the countryside persisted during the long period of depression from 1350 to 1450, although regional differences can be identified. The direction of the migration also changed, following a varying assessment of the unfolding opportunities. As a result, the explanation for the migration to the city demands a different answer for each of these three periods. The first phase is characterized by the formation and growth of cities out of small old centres by foundations that appeared from nowhere. During the later phases urban institutionalization had already occurred, which may have exerted its own pulling-power. This could include the institutional social services which built up over time in the cities. It remains, then, to explain the causes of these significant regional differences and why migration persisted, both during times of growth and times of decline." (Blockman 2)

"Environmental historians have put yet more fundamental aspects of urbanization on the agenda. They point to the vital link between a city and its surrounding areas. In the most general sense, the constant supply of potable water, food, energy and materials is essential to a concentrated urban population; at the same time, in order to keep the environment viable, they must be able to eliminate waste. In biological terms, a permanent and relatively large population concentration is only possible if the surrounding area can be intensively exploited. Thus, the interaction between urban and rural stimulates the intensification and diversification of agricultural production. An urbanized society brings about a transformation in the ecosystem, both in the countryside and in the city. In such a society, the space, matter, energy, the exchange of information and the allocation of time are designed in a new and particular way. In biological terms, the urban way of life offers the human species the information processes that make it possible to multiply and to accelerate. The size, density and diversity of an urban population increase the effectiveness of sexual contacts and, therefore, reproduction. This boosts cultural performance, leading to an increased exploitation of natural resources and manpower." (Blockman 2)

"Also in the period of a strong overall decrease in population, from around 1348, people continued to move away from the countryside. They settled in cities, despite the chances of dying clearly being greater. " (Blockman 10)

While the increase in population in the early Middle Ages did increase urbanization, urbanization continued through the the High and Late Middle Ages and the period of decreased population, due to new pulling power of urban institutions and growing links between rural and urban economies. So I was partially wrong before.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: wtw
Without the black death the economy and politics of western Europe would be very different. It is quite plausible that ship building skills are retarded, Spain is never formed and Portugal in personal union with England still locked into war with France.
And nobody knows what the American native civilizations would be like in a hundred years.
 
According to Blockman, Wim. "Urbanisation in the European Middle Ages, Phases of openness and inclusion", Living in the City, Urban Institutions in the Low Countries, Willems, New York, Routledge, 2011.

Bolded emphases mine:

"The relative overpopulation of the countryside, in the sense that there was a surplus of labour, was dealt with in a variety of ways. The existing social relations came under pressure, particularly the exploitation of farmers in the form of servitude with all its limitations on freedom and performance obligations. If the landlords wanted to maintain their position, they had to tolerate the fact that surplus workers were no longer tied to their farm, but could leave. Where they went depended on the possibilities that the environment had to offer. The most obvious choice was to cultivate the as yet unexploited landscape in the immediate vicinity, by clearing forests and draining land. In anticipation of higher yields, large land owners, such as abbeys, went so far as to offer ‘settlers’ favourable business terms for the uncultivated land. The main provisions had to do with personal freedom and lower duties, which were of particular importance in the development phase. As the availability of land in the vicinity dried up, then people moved further afield in order to cultivate land." (Blockman 1)

"A third possibility to escape overcrowding was the development of another economic activity, for example in fishing or the crafts. Maritime work supposed shipbuilding, which in turn required a multitude of small businesses. A large part of this remained tied to agricultural production such as forestry, sail making and rope making. Other resources, such as logs that were suitable for masts, nails and tar and pitch, had to be obtained from coastal areas via long distance trade. Special forms of craft and trade activities were effectively exercised by the concentration of housing and jobs which were clearly separated, but never disconnected, from the countryside. This particular reception of the overpopulation from the surrounding areas marks the origins of the first spontaneous growth of cities. Ultimately, because the migration to the cities entailed not only different economic activity but also a profoundly different way of life it was the least obvious but the most radical solution to the overpopulation." (Blockman 2)

"The long growth phase from the tenth to the thirteenth century was followed by a period of roughly one and a half centuries, from 1300 to 1450, during which a considerable reduction occurred in the total, but also in the urban, population. Without doubt, strong migration from the countryside to the cities was based on the phases of growth, in both the period until 1300 and again after 1450. But it is also highly probable that the outflow from the countryside persisted during the long period of depression from 1350 to 1450, although regional differences can be identified. The direction of the migration also changed, following a varying assessment of the unfolding opportunities. As a result, the explanation for the migration to the city demands a different answer for each of these three periods. The first phase is characterized by the formation and growth of cities out of small old centres by foundations that appeared from nowhere. During the later phases urban institutionalization had already occurred, which may have exerted its own pulling-power. This could include the institutional social services which built up over time in the cities. It remains, then, to explain the causes of these significant regional differences and why migration persisted, both during times of growth and times of decline." (Blockman 2)

"Environmental historians have put yet more fundamental aspects of urbanization on the agenda. They point to the vital link between a city and its surrounding areas. In the most general sense, the constant supply of potable water, food, energy and materials is essential to a concentrated urban population; at the same time, in order to keep the environment viable, they must be able to eliminate waste. In biological terms, a permanent and relatively large population concentration is only possible if the surrounding area can be intensively exploited. Thus, the interaction between urban and rural stimulates the intensification and diversification of agricultural production. An urbanized society brings about a transformation in the ecosystem, both in the countryside and in the city. In such a society, the space, matter, energy, the exchange of information and the allocation of time are designed in a new and particular way. In biological terms, the urban way of life offers the human species the information processes that make it possible to multiply and to accelerate. The size, density and diversity of an urban population increase the effectiveness of sexual contacts and, therefore, reproduction. This boosts cultural performance, leading to an increased exploitation of natural resources and manpower." (Blockman 2)

"Also in the period of a strong overall decrease in population, from around 1348, people continued to move away from the countryside. They settled in cities, despite the chances of dying clearly being greater. " (Blockman 10)
But you overdramatize it, it doesn´t follow that internal decrease of migration would stop any intercontinental migration to the new world.

And am I reading it wrong or does the text argue for MY case, when it talks about how overpopulation would lead people to rely on fishing(thus increasing the capabilties of maritime travel), diversify the economy etc.

And in any case bringing up India is not helpful because in the case of Europe, the Black Death ultimately hit urban centers way harder, at least in the short term.


http://www.paolomalanima.it/default_file/Papers/THE_ECONOMIC_CONSEQUENCES.doc.pdf

It took Europe a century and a half to reach the same urbanization rate they had at the dawn of the 14th century.


The population became less rural after the Black Death because the increased wages of peasants (smaller supply of labor = more value per laborer = higher wages) allowed them to move into the cities in areas like the Netherlands. Decreased supply of labor led to new methods of social organization, and "innovation" into new methods of acquiring resources that increased productivity.

@LSCatilina has talked about the post-Black Death populational phenomena before, and can maybe explain this better.
Your statement is factually wrong, by "after" you would have to wait a century and a half of population regrowth in the countryside before you see something similar to pre-black death Europe.

Citing the Netherlands is a bit weird because Flanders alone carried a big urban population during the era before and after the black death without any of the shenanigans of the black death. Without it I don´t see why the same process would not happen nevertheless, more so when the economy would not be set back of a century and a half.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 97083

But you overdramatize it, it doesn´t follow that internal decrease of migration would stop any intercontinental migration to the new world.

And am I reading it wrong or does the text argue for MY case, when it talks about how overpopulation would lead people to rely on fishing(thus increasing the capabilties of maritime travel), diversify the economy etc.

And in any case bringing up India is not helpful because in the case of Europe, the Black Death ultimately hit urban centers way harder, at least in the long term.


http://www.paolomalanima.it/default_file/Papers/THE_ECONOMIC_CONSEQUENCES.doc.pdf

It took Europe a century and a half to reach the same urbanization rate they had at the dawn of the 14th century.
Yeah I know, I am providing information relevant to the discussion, whether or not it supports my argument. I was partially wrong in my first post so I provided some relevant passages in my second post.
 
According to the dread Wiki in the first 100 years less than 250,000 Europeans travelled to america. I wonder how many died and how many returned home. Most growth seems to have come from large families and or intermarriage. More settlers might not have made south and central America more profitable . Now more slaves.... but that is a different argument.
 
According to the dread Wiki in the first 100 years less than 250,000 Europeans travelled to america. I wonder how many died and how many returned home. Most growth seems to have come from large families and or intermarriage. More settlers might not have made south and central America more profitable . Now more slaves.... but that is a different argument.
That seems really low, I read somewhere else that like half a million Castillian alone in the same time migrated to the colonies, but I can´t attest to the truthfulness of this claim either.

I guess one can argue that you would see more indentured servitude given lower peasant´s rights and more availability, but I doubt you would see Europeans replace Africans in most fields, only some and probably only for a small frame of time until it becomes more profitable and more "moral" to use Africans instead.
 
Hm all of the comments are interesting.

With regards to slaves and indentured servants, what if we saw more miscegenation among the lower classes?
 
Without the black death, it's entirely possible that the Norse Greenland colony is never abandoned, or at least, that it's settlers do not return to Norway. Facing degrading conditions in Greenland but with no available land in Norway, members of the colony may decide to take a second crack at settling Vinland, landing in Labrador, Newfoundland or further south in the late 1300's. As more woods are chopped down in Europe and Iceland, they begin to trade timber and possibly furs and herring eastward to Iceland and Scandinavia; Greenland timber merchants, perhaps after drinking a little too much, boast of their rich land and freedom compared to the overcrowded peasants of Scandinavia and the British Isles (and probably leaving out the bits about freezing in the winter, catching an arrow to the gut at random intervals during Native raids, and the wolves and bears absolutely ravaging livestock). By the early to mid 1400's, boatloads of Irish, English, Norwegians and Swedes are making their way to Vinland looking to get in on this land.
i seem to remember reading that the Little Ice Age was actually a result of the Amerindians themselves over-logging and it brought on that bout of climate change. perhaps an earlier colonization resulting in many more forests being chopped down would worsen that?
 
i seem to remember reading that the Little Ice Age was actually a result of the Amerindians themselves over-logging and it brought on that bout of climate change. perhaps an earlier colonization resulting in many more forests being chopped down would worsen that?

Eh, weather butterflies are pretty tricky things. But I'd think that forest lost would lead to increased global warming, as there are fewer trees to absorb CO2, no?
 
Eh, weather butterflies are pretty tricky things. But I'd think that forest lost would lead to increased global warming, as there are fewer trees to absorb CO2, no?
iirc the boreal forest has more trees than the Amazon (or matches it) so i don't think a global warming effect would start up like that for those reasons

keep in mind, i could very well be wrong on the Little Ice Age point, but if true then that's the one that has precedent IOTL for roughly that period as opposed to the current climate change crisis
 
How would the lack of the Black Death impact Native Americans? Wasn't the Bubonic Plague one of the diseases they fell victim to after European colonization began
 
How would the lack of the Black Death impact Native Americans? Wasn't the Bubonic Plague one of the diseases they fell victim to after European colonization began


Bubonic plague did break out, but this was in areas where they were already at risk from European violence and diseases-areas where the environment was disrupted and European ships were pouring in (both good for rats and very bad for Natives) so I don't think that the lack of bubonic plague will do much to bolster the numbers of the Indians. Typhus and the sword will have a similar impact on their numbers even if the black death spares them.

The question for the Natives is, how does colonization go forward? The pattern of who is settling where, what their goals are, and even the culture of the invaders has been irrevocably altered without the black death. ITTL instead of Indian Wars we may get religious wars, with mainland Europeans and Christian converts fighting 'heretics, reverted pagans and old pagans' among non-converted Indians and the Greenland settlers. OTL saw defections from settler populations to the Indians; ITTL, those numbers may be much higher, as settlers from a massively more stratified society realize that in the new world they don't need to kowtow to the feudal authorities trying to assert authority on them from across the ocean. Realizing this, perhaps European authorities will try to limit emigration. While they probably can't eliminate it, they can turn a flood of settlers into a trickle which is not able to call on European soldiers to defend their colonies and so will have to play nice with the Natives for far longer than OTL.
 
Bubonic plague did break out, but this was in areas where they were already at risk from European violence and diseases-areas where the environment was disrupted and European ships were pouring in (both good for rats and very bad for Natives) so I don't think that the lack of bubonic plague will do much to bolster the numbers of the Indians. Typhus and the sword will have a similar impact on their numbers even if the black death spares them.

The question for the Natives is, how does colonization go forward? The pattern of who is settling where, what their goals are, and even the culture of the invaders has been irrevocably altered without the black death. ITTL instead of Indian Wars we may get religious wars, with mainland Europeans and Christian converts fighting 'heretics, reverted pagans and old pagans' among non-converted Indians and the Greenland settlers. OTL saw defections from settler populations to the Indians; ITTL, those numbers may be much higher, as settlers from a massively more stratified society realize that in the new world they don't need to kowtow to the feudal authorities trying to assert authority on them from across the ocean. Realizing this, perhaps European authorities will try to limit emigration. While they probably can't eliminate it, they can turn a flood of settlers into a trickle which is not able to call on European soldiers to defend their colonies and so will have to play nice with the Natives for far longer than OTL.

To be fair, wasn't the "flood" of settlers more in the Anglo colonies than others?
 
Another thing, but, without the huge deaths of the nobility in the Black Death, would we see more lesser nobles and second sons in the colonies?
 
Top