If Columbus failed, but Cabral or Cabot discovered America, would the hemisphere be as well charted/exploited as OTL by 1550?

[raharris1973]

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.

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:

 

[Husky_Khan]

I'd agree with the assessment that the Discovery of North America was a boring discovery. After Columbus' discovery, fleets were willing to make the journey across the North Atlantic, but it was mostly just for fishing, not settlement. I think it's telling it took a full century before the British and Dutch and French really established themselves in North America despite the climate being far more hospitable to them not dying of disease and the like.

The economic opportunities the Spanish exploited with plundering and mining gold and silver was a pretty big motivator, much like how Portuguese expansion to India was a great method of bypassing the "Silk Road" and gaining access to spices and silk and porcelain etc.

So I do feel that the "discovery" of North America proper would delay exploitation and colonization of the New World by more then just the several years between 1492 and whenever Cabot decides to make the journey. Plus I'm not sure as to the certainty of Cabral's discovery of Brazil in 1497 or so. The New World was known to exist in 1492-93 and while Cabral reportedly sighted land during an Expedition following da Gama's route, I'm not too certain that they would risk drifting so far into the South Atlantic without the knowledge that there could be something there besides death. This might be true even if Cabot's discovery is established prior to Cabral's journeys. Plus the South Atlantic I feel is far more hazardous then the North Atlantic IMHO.

And just because of the existence of the Azores and Canary Islands (and Madeira etc) the Spanish and Portuguese are just better set up to eventually discover and exploit and colonize the Caribbean and Latin America eventually. France and England at the time were smaller powers and couldn't invest as much as the Spanish and Portuguese could anyways in cross-Atlantic expeditions AFAIK.

 

[raharris1973]

Great response, so what is your answer to the poll question

 

[Husky_Khan]

Great response, so what is your answer to the poll question

Yeah I think the charting would've lagged a decade or two behind naturally since Spain and Portugal would have to come from behind for a bit and generate actual interest in what was going on in the New World so that would take some time. Columbus did have a real force of personality and presence which helped actually get the initial explorations going I feel after the first one.

But generally speaking I do think that Colonization would've more or less converged by 1650 or so. That seems reasonable. Decades lag... but nothing too serious. I don't think there will be any significant delays to Britain and France doing their things in the New World, it'll mostly be Spain and Portugal lagging a bit initially.

 

[ATP]

Yeah I think the charting would've lagged a decade or two behind naturally since Spain and Portugal would have to come from behind for a bit and generate actual interest in what was going on in the New World so that would take some time. Columbus did have a real force of personality and presence which helped actually get the initial explorations going I feel after the first one.

But generally speaking I do think that Colonization would've more or less converged by 1650 or so. That seems reasonable. Decades lag... but nothing too serious. I don't think there will be any significant delays to Britain and France doing their things in the New World, it'll mostly be Spain and Portugal lagging a bit initially.

Agree - but,it still slow colonization of Mexico and Peru.
In case of Mexiso,Aztecs should fall there by the time european come,so instead of one big battle with help of locals we would have conqer city by city.
They would all eventually fall,but later,maybe even till 1700.

Even better in Peru case - Pizarro could pull his stunt only becouse he faced dude who kill rightfull Inca after plague.
Her,they would hold at least till modern rifles were invented,which mean - after 1850.
Or,even to our times.

Result - poor Spain without gold would not fuck itself,and rest of Europe,with additional gold.They would still procucing things,not buing them.

England would never become so powerfull here,becouse others would fight it earlier instead of spaniards.
America here would belong to brits,french and spaniards,maybe dutch and swedes,too - but nobody would take majority of continent.

As a result - no USA,or much smaller ones.Certainly no world superpower.