raharris1973
Well-known member
What if Columbus and his whole crew were either stranded or dead before they could return to Spain in 1493?
But, Europeans still "discovered" and recorded their discovery of America, not in the Caribbean, but in Newfoundland (1497) with the voyage of John Cabot, or in Brazil (1500) with the accidental discovery and landfall of Alvaro de Cabral?
This map illustrates an important fact to reference, within fifty years after Columbus a majority of America's tropical and temperate shores were charted. By 1543, fifty year after Columbus hit the Bahamas, all of the American coasts from Labrador and the St. Lawrence in the northeast, around Cape Horn and the whole southern continent, and then the west coast of North America up to the latitude of northern California were known to Europeans and charted. Only the Arctic coasts of North America and the Pacific Northwest remained to be discovered after that 50-year spurt.
But this raises the question- did the speed of the initial navigation (which also sponsored permanent and non-permanent colonial efforts every couple hundred miles) depend on the initial landfall being in the Caribbean, so we would expect follow-up to not be so fast if first landfall was in cold Newfoundland, or in Brazil, which some interesting trees but no gold on the coast? Were the coasts explored so fast within fifty years only because the first natives Columbus happened upon had ornamental gold, and then Mexico turned out to have so much?
People have made this assertion in the past, that whereas Newfoundland and Brazil were "boring" discoveries by countries like England and Portugal, without precious metals, who were not very interested (like England) or far more interested in other things (like Portugal) that initial contact with the Americas by these short routes would have been less momentous and less of a cause for rapid exploration and empire-building than the voyage of the hungry and aggressive Castilians to the Caribbean, were they found enslavable natives, adorned with gold!, and step by step went to mainland where they found empires and cities decorated with gold.
Or ,would public announcement of a landfall *anywhere* on the American coast, even if there were no gold or rich cities to plunder (like in Newfoundland or Brazil), have caused the Europeans to explore the American coasts so comprehensively, simply because of the Europeans readiness to take risks, the prospect of potential profit from any commodities, or of a another route to Asia, and because navigational tech was up to the task in the late 1400s early 1500s?
Map illustrating OTL's first fifty years of exploration is below:
But, Europeans still "discovered" and recorded their discovery of America, not in the Caribbean, but in Newfoundland (1497) with the voyage of John Cabot, or in Brazil (1500) with the accidental discovery and landfall of Alvaro de Cabral?
This map illustrates an important fact to reference, within fifty years after Columbus a majority of America's tropical and temperate shores were charted. By 1543, fifty year after Columbus hit the Bahamas, all of the American coasts from Labrador and the St. Lawrence in the northeast, around Cape Horn and the whole southern continent, and then the west coast of North America up to the latitude of northern California were known to Europeans and charted. Only the Arctic coasts of North America and the Pacific Northwest remained to be discovered after that 50-year spurt.
But this raises the question- did the speed of the initial navigation (which also sponsored permanent and non-permanent colonial efforts every couple hundred miles) depend on the initial landfall being in the Caribbean, so we would expect follow-up to not be so fast if first landfall was in cold Newfoundland, or in Brazil, which some interesting trees but no gold on the coast? Were the coasts explored so fast within fifty years only because the first natives Columbus happened upon had ornamental gold, and then Mexico turned out to have so much?
People have made this assertion in the past, that whereas Newfoundland and Brazil were "boring" discoveries by countries like England and Portugal, without precious metals, who were not very interested (like England) or far more interested in other things (like Portugal) that initial contact with the Americas by these short routes would have been less momentous and less of a cause for rapid exploration and empire-building than the voyage of the hungry and aggressive Castilians to the Caribbean, were they found enslavable natives, adorned with gold!, and step by step went to mainland where they found empires and cities decorated with gold.
user DJ03:
The reason for this is that by the 1500s the portuguese and english seem just too likely to stumble into south and north america respectively to prevent the notion of lands beyond the Atlantic from spreading, but not the notion that said land is of any interest
w/o Columbus, we can remove the Caribbean (and by extension Mesoamerica) from the equation, which prevents the short to mid term discovery of large empires and/or gold and silver deposits
it's likely the portuguese still discover Brazil, but see little point in penetrating much further west, thus slowing down their exploration of south america sgnfcntly
if at some point someone other than fishermen were to stumble upon Newfoundland &co, they'd prbbly just report of a cold, lightly populated, forested backwater and not spark any interest in european courts
Or ,would public announcement of a landfall *anywhere* on the American coast, even if there were no gold or rich cities to plunder (like in Newfoundland or Brazil), have caused the Europeans to explore the American coasts so comprehensively, simply because of the Europeans readiness to take risks, the prospect of potential profit from any commodities, or of a another route to Asia, and because navigational tech was up to the task in the late 1400s early 1500s?
Map illustrating OTL's first fifty years of exploration is below: