WI: The Americas discovered in the Middle Ages
- Thread starter Emperor Norton I
- Start date
It wasn't figured out to be a whole new landmass, though. I doubt the Vikings knew their explored area as much more than a new island.
The distinction between periods wasn't so clear that after 1453 everyone was like "Hey guys, let's leave this whole Middle Ages thing and enter the Renassiance". For hundreds of years after 1492 the feudal system was alive and well.
I don't think a whole lot would have been done until 1453. Wasn't it the fall of Constaninople that spurred voyages of exploration to find alternate routes to India and China? Most people don't explore just for the sake of it; there has to be something gained. Gold hording nations in the Americas might get some of their attention, but invading across the Atlantic would be challenging.
I remember stumbling across something that claimed Columbus learned about Vinland and used that to fudge his numbers when it came to figuring out the distance to China. If he assumed those lands the Vikings discovered where northeastern Asia his skewed number crunching might have made sense, especially since Polo overestimated the distance he traveled.
I remember stumbling across something that claimed Columbus learned about Vinland and used that to fudge his numbers when it came to figuring out the distance to China. If he assumed those lands the Vikings discovered where northeastern Asia his skewed number crunching might have made sense, especially since Polo overestimated the distance he traveled.
katchen
Banned
seehttp://www.cristobalcolondeibiza.com/eng/eng04.htm.
There is some fairly substantial evidence that Columbus's 1492 voyage to the Americas was not his first. There is intriguing evidence that Columbus sailed on an joint Danish-Portuguese expedition in 1475 that discovered "Terranova" extending BEYOND Vinland and whose natives were of Asian appearance. If Columbus had indeed reached what is IOTL Nova Scotia, he can be excused for believing that in the North, Asia extended far to the east, all the way to the Atlantic (which geologically and tectonically it indeed does). Columbus's voyage along the more southern "trade winds" would have been sold to his real backer, Diego de Santangel (who was a Spanish converso (converted Jew and possibly secret Jew) as a way to avoid northern Terranova and reach "Cipangu" (Japan), which Columbus erroneously believed to be in the tropics, and may have been hoping would be a refuge for Jews being expelled from Spain. How was Columbus to know that Terranova extended all the way to 54 degrees South?
There were, of course, other contacts. Both the English and the Basques reached the Grand Banks of Newfoundland and no doubt, Newfoundland itself. But contacts by common people were kept secret and did not tend to be shared with Church and State.
There is some fairly substantial evidence that Columbus's 1492 voyage to the Americas was not his first. There is intriguing evidence that Columbus sailed on an joint Danish-Portuguese expedition in 1475 that discovered "Terranova" extending BEYOND Vinland and whose natives were of Asian appearance. If Columbus had indeed reached what is IOTL Nova Scotia, he can be excused for believing that in the North, Asia extended far to the east, all the way to the Atlantic (which geologically and tectonically it indeed does). Columbus's voyage along the more southern "trade winds" would have been sold to his real backer, Diego de Santangel (who was a Spanish converso (converted Jew and possibly secret Jew) as a way to avoid northern Terranova and reach "Cipangu" (Japan), which Columbus erroneously believed to be in the tropics, and may have been hoping would be a refuge for Jews being expelled from Spain. How was Columbus to know that Terranova extended all the way to 54 degrees South?
There were, of course, other contacts. Both the English and the Basques reached the Grand Banks of Newfoundland and no doubt, Newfoundland itself. But contacts by common people were kept secret and did not tend to be shared with Church and State.
It would still have been pretty bad, with diseases likely taking about the same death toll. The main difference might have been the flow of settlers, since the population of Europe was lower and the journey would have been much more difficult. But OTL European colonies in the Americas had extremely high natural growth rates, so the natives would still be in trouble if Europeans manage to set up permanent settlements.
The best thing for the natives would be if Europeans made contact, but the trip was so perilous and difficult that contact was only through occasional trade and exploration for hundreds of years. Maybe with Europeans at medieval ship-building technology that could happen.
For minerals, yes, but what about plants and a few animals? The tomato, the potato, peppers, maize, turkeys? All of those would have been valuable in Europe. Though once they get a hold of them, they won't need to make return trips.
I specified North America for a reason.
Seriously, Central America and south is gold (literally and metaphorically), but North America in general is - while wonderful for settler colonies (not really desirable until populations climb) - not really offering a whole hell of a lot by comparison - furs and timber aren't in short supply yet, to name two things it supplied a lot of OTL.Maize and turkeys would probably be welcome, but I don't see anyone being enthusiastic about North America if that's all they bring home.
The Kiat: To beat Flubber to it: No, no, and no. 1453 did nothing of the sort.
Well, North American colonization would have been different.
First, think about how Vikings vs Beothuks turned out. The Vikings, with steel, warships and armor, were completely crushed by a force using mostly wood, animal product weaponry and the canoe.
Native Americans at the time had the numbers, the knowledge of the land, and experience fighting in North American conditions. Basically, if they choose to resist colonization, the colonists are screwed with medieval technology. The reason the natives were overcome OTL was because much greater levels of settlers landed, native americans died out en mass from disease.
Europeans were less numerous, so they probably weren't looking for land alone. The reasons for settling would have to be economic. For example, there's evidence the Norse traded with the Dorset for ivory, and interest in North American shifted when elephant ivory became more available. Europeans could also be interested in slaves; in Eastern Europe slavery was rare because the church wasn't a fan on Christian slaves.
Basically, I think that trading posts could be feasible. Large scale settlement won't happen until Europe reaches higher population; so the earliest I see settlement is just prior to the Black Death.
By this point, European diseases would probably have spread among the natives through the trade routes, and they'd have become more disease resistant. Bad news for Europeans interested in taking over the continent.
Also, a lot of areas that do end up with European-style settlement would be Metis in nature. OTL a lot of Europeans defect to native tribes as they found conditions there more pleasant that Europe, and Europeans aren't likely to bring their wives on trading missions.
First, think about how Vikings vs Beothuks turned out. The Vikings, with steel, warships and armor, were completely crushed by a force using mostly wood, animal product weaponry and the canoe.
Native Americans at the time had the numbers, the knowledge of the land, and experience fighting in North American conditions. Basically, if they choose to resist colonization, the colonists are screwed with medieval technology. The reason the natives were overcome OTL was because much greater levels of settlers landed, native americans died out en mass from disease.
Europeans were less numerous, so they probably weren't looking for land alone. The reasons for settling would have to be economic. For example, there's evidence the Norse traded with the Dorset for ivory, and interest in North American shifted when elephant ivory became more available. Europeans could also be interested in slaves; in Eastern Europe slavery was rare because the church wasn't a fan on Christian slaves.
Basically, I think that trading posts could be feasible. Large scale settlement won't happen until Europe reaches higher population; so the earliest I see settlement is just prior to the Black Death.
By this point, European diseases would probably have spread among the natives through the trade routes, and they'd have become more disease resistant. Bad news for Europeans interested in taking over the continent.
Also, a lot of areas that do end up with European-style settlement would be Metis in nature. OTL a lot of Europeans defect to native tribes as they found conditions there more pleasant that Europe, and Europeans aren't likely to bring their wives on trading missions.
I would agree that there would be a large mixing with any settlement and any advance in claiming lands would be very slow. I shudder to think if the Black Death had broken out in thesame numbers as happened in Europe. Though with the lack of trade routes it would burn itself out rather than spread coast to coast.
potatoes were limited to a few places deep in the Andes, and didn't get around until the Spanish took over. A few contacts in N. America won't find them yet. The rest of that list... sure, the Europeans should find them. Will they regard maize as all that valuable though?
I think the question would be if the knowledge was either kept or widespread, or if the Americas were discovered by the Francosphere (read: France, the Empire, England, and thereabouts)
I've been playing with a timeline like this, but there is a large settlement movement with the Famine of 1315. I agree with you about Metis-ization and the developing resistance to diseases, although I think there are areas, (Great Plains and/or Great Basin) where the population densities aren't high enough to maintain resistance to the diseases.
If its pre-Black Death, would anyone try to flee the plagues to America?
Or, conversely, would the American Indians be even more ravaged by the plague brought along with refugees?
Or, conversely, would the American Indians be even more ravaged by the plague brought along with refugees?