What if the first band of Siberians who crossed into the Americas didnt make it, and no other ones bothered to attempt it until it was too late?

What if Europeans reached an Americas that was still full of Megafauna but had no human occupants? how would things have turned out?

What if the first band of Siberians who crossed into the Americas didnt make it, and no other ones bothered to attempt it until it was too late?

What if Europeans reached an Americas that was still full of Megafauna but had no human occupants? how would things have turned out?

Well there is considerable evidence of waves staggered over millenia and people coming along the coast in canoes (and it would take a huge gap to keep them out), but if you want to handwave and prevent it all together...

Colonization would have been considerably slower due to europeans not knowing where the gold and silver deposits were, what foodstuffs are edible and being able to move into abandoned villages.

The Megafauna would have been eaten within a few centuries, perhaps leaving some interesting flags and national symbols behind.

I wonder would it have been considered worthwhile to colonise it at all? at least until many years later....

Well, I doubt it. Thousands of Siberians were crossing into America via boat, way earlier than the supposed Beringia idea.

Maybe the Norse settlements would've took hold- the "Skraelings" were often cited as part of the reason for their abandonment- and some European colonisation would've always been present, albeit greatly limited until the Age of Discovery. After that, I'd imagine that European expansion would've been a bit smoother, given the lack of natives except for the Vinlanders, who, being white, Christian and having retained European contact, would've co-operated and traded more easily with the settlers.
Vinland, which I'd imagine to be a string of independent domains by that point, may either have adopted more modern European technology and became the major North American power, or have become dominated by the European powers- although more likely through trade and diplomacy than by force- and eventually been absorbed into their empires.

Another thing you must remember is that the Polynesians have landed in the America's to.

They traded with the natives there, and now they are thinking they actually settled the america's because the people who live near the chicken bone(south america) and canoe(california) findings are mixed blood between Polynesians and native americans.

The Polynesians were already very organised and developing rapidly. The only factor stopping them from organizing into a full civilization, is the lack of room on the islands. If they could send enough settlers, and were organized enough, you could see various polynesian settlements in the andes and california.

Interesting how this would turn out, as the Polynesians were not united, we'd have peoples like the Tonga, New Caledonians, and French Polynesianer's having rivalring settlements, and i wonder how the Polyenesians contact with Europeans would end out being. Most likely first contact would be in Central and South America, where i think they'd be trading. The Polynesians adapt easily to the enviroment, and to technology(as was demonstrated in the Musket Wars) so they'd take european technology and use it for their own gain (then probably trade it with their fellow Californians).

At the end, i'm unsure who would gain control of the continent. Most likely in South America, the Europeans will take control, but in California, by the time the Europeans reach there, i think the Polynesians would be to advance and strong enough to defend themselves successfully.

Interesting how this would turn out, as the Polynesians were not united, we'd have peoples like the Tonga, New Caledonians, and French Polynesianer's having rivalring settlements, and i wonder how the Polyenesians contact with Europeans would end out being. Most likely first contact would be in Central and South America, where i think they'd be trading. The Polynesians adapt easily to the enviroment, and to technology(as was demonstrated in the Musket Wars) so they'd take european technology and use it for their own gain (then probably trade it with their fellow Californians).
I'd like to see a combination of our two proposals... Norse meeting Polynesians in Central America would make for an interesting scenario.

I'd like to see a combination of our two proposals... Norse meeting Polynesians in Central America would make for an interesting scenario.
I wonder what the first meeting would look like, Norse people in heavy fur coats meeting topless men with shorts, 1 on a giant canoe, another on a giant wooden boat.

:bump: pretty interesting, any more discussion?

Colonization would have been extremely slow, not just because there wouldn't be people to point out where the resources were, but because the Europeans had an immense amount of help by having the natives before them have areas set apart capable for founding villages- land cleared for homes and agriculture, however limited it may have been. Plus not knowing where to go for anything -food, water, what was over the next hill, all that would have to be learned by themselves, plus some of the animals that made it through may have been less than hospitable to their arrival.
If the Norse set up settlements that lasted, I still doubt they would have expanded very much, though some may have just wondered off.
And same with the Polynesians, and if we look at Australia as a comparison, then just because they had a lot of land doesn't mean they necessarily would have become a thriving civilization.
Both the Norse and and Polynesians would have had little time to do much, but certainly would have made some sort of lasting culture.

That and a lot of angry people up in Siberia who hate boats.

Just this week there was a History channel program on regarding the settling of America. One theory is that the Clovis people came via the sea from Europe to the eastern seaboard and then spread westwards. If there was no competition from the Bering peoples then they would have been the inhabitants when the Euorpeans came.

Colonization would have been extremely slow, not just because there wouldn't be people to point out where the resources were, but because the Europeans had an immense amount of help by having the natives before them have areas set apart capable for founding villages- land cleared for homes and agriculture, however limited it may have been. Plus not knowing where to go for anything -food, water, what was over the next hill, all that would have to be learned by themselves, plus some of the animals that made it through may have been less than hospitable to their arrival.
If the Norse set up settlements that lasted, I still doubt they would have expanded very much, though some may have just wondered off.
And same with the Polynesians, and if we look at Australia as a comparison, then just because they had a lot of land doesn't mean they necessarily would have become a thriving civilization.
Both the Norse and and Polynesians would have had little time to do much, but certainly would have made some sort of lasting culture.

That and a lot of angry people up in Siberia who hate boats.

Polynesia didn't settle Australia. And Australia is much, much different from the Americas. Also the Polynesians were imo more then capable of building a thriving civilization, if the europeans didn't came, and they weren't stuck on small islands.

Just this week there was a History channel program on regarding the settling of America. One theory is that the Clovis people came via the sea from Europe to the eastern seaboard and then spread westwards. If there was no competition from the Bering peoples then they would have been the inhabitants when the Euorpeans came.
I saw something like that- IIRC, archaeologists first noticed a similarity between the stone tools used by the pre-historic people of Europe and the Clovis culture, backed up by some genetic similarities between some Native Americans and modern Europeans.
*wikis*
Yup, here it is- the Solutrean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solutrean_hypothesis)hypothesis. If true, it could've meant a pre-Norse European population in North America inhabiting this alternate world...

Polynesia didn't settle Australia. And Australia is much, much different from the Americas. Also the Polynesians were imo more then capable of building a thriving civilization, if the europeans didn't came, and they weren't stuck on small islands.
True- the Polynesians were the result of much later migrations that the Aboriginal Australians (the Polynesia's ancestors arrived in the second millennium BC, around 40,000 years after those of the Aborigines reached Australia), and their settled, neolithic culture was far more advanced than that of the paleolithic Aborigines. The Western Polynesians, in particular, had well established political and judicial systems by the time the Europeans arrived.
Given the time, space and resources (which the Americas clearly had) to developed urbanised civilisation- the begginings of which were arguably seen in the tribal hill-forts of the Maori, not dissimilar to those of early European cultures- they had the potential to develop a true civilisation.

What if the first band of Siberians who crossed into the Americas didnt make it, and no other ones bothered to attempt it until it was too late?

What if Europeans reached an Americas that was still full of Megafauna but had no human occupants? how would things have turned out?

Brasil would be better without 13% of it's territory occupied by a superior cast that represents less than 0.5% of the population, pays no taxes, receives all sorts of free government services, cannot be criminally persecuted, and yet promotes all sorts of riots demanding even more benefits.

Would BRazil even be Brazil in this alternative history?

Would the seas around the americas be inhabited by mega fauna? giant sharks and sea dwelling dinosaurs would make sea travel interesting.

Would BRazil even be Brazil in this alternative history?

I don't see why not. Brazil is not Mexico or Peru; the indians are in fact a very small part of our national heritage. Things would be pretty much the same, except in the North where most people are mixed indian/portuguese.

Would the seas around the americas be inhabited by mega fauna? giant sharks and sea dwelling dinosaurs would make sea travel interesting.

No. You're about 65 million years off.

Brasil would be better without 13% of it's territory occupied by a superior cast that represents less than 0.5% of the population, pays no taxes, receives all sorts of free government services, cannot be criminally persecuted, and yet promotes all sorts of riots demanding even more benefits.
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: you really are a loathsome piece of work, arent you?

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: you really are a loathsome piece of work, arent you?

You're the stalinist here, pal. Don't try to have opinions on issues you don't understand.

I don't see why not. Brazil is not Mexico or Peru; the indians are in fact a very small part of our national heritage. Things would be pretty much the same, except in the North where most people are mixed indian/portuguese.

Actually the vice-royality of Brazil, the southern one of the several that existed prior to the 1775 unification, got its start through exploration and trade with/assualt upon the Indians of the interior. Without them you'd only have the Captaincy of Pernambuco succeeding at the start leading into a 'brazil' (might not be called that) that had a much less diverse and smaller economy and one that will probably loose most of its original timeline southern portions to the spanish.

Actually the vice-royality of Brazil, the southern one of the several that existed prior to the 1775 unification, got its start through exploration and trade with/assualt upon the Indians of the interior. Without them you'd only have the Captaincy of Pernambuco succeeding at the start leading into a 'brazil' (might not be called that) that had a much less diverse and smaller economy and one that will probably loose most of its original timeline southern portions to the spanish.

Um, no. Trade with the indians was never particularly important. In the South, or rather specifically in the São Vicente Captaincy, what was relatively important to the economy was the "indian bandeiras", where bandeirantes would essentially "hunt down" indians and sell them as slaves. However, indian slavery was condemned by the Church, and soon even in São Vicente african slaves arrived in considerable numbers, and they became the basis of brazilian economy untill circa 1850.

The Southeast only begun to really develop after gold was discovered in Minas Gerais; the paulistas may be proud of their slave hunting forefathers (I wouldn't), but fact is they had a small impact on the formartion of the national economy. The only economic cycle that indians played a significant role was the first one, brazilwood. But that was by far the least important - in fact Brazil wasn't even settled during it. All other cycles of the colonial period - namely sugarcane and gold - were based on african slaves (during the imperial period slave labour was gradually replaced by free labour of european immigrants, particularly italians).

Your claims about losing the southern provinces to Spain is even more puzzling. The portuguese, particularly the Marquis of Pombal, thought of the indians living there as a threat to the borders of Brazil. The borders were defined after centuries of skirmishes between the portuguese and the spanish, and later the brazilians and argentinians.

So coastal brazil will still be portuguese and would be pretty much the same. Going inland would've been less of a problem, and in South America it would pretty much be Spain having troubles with the unconquerable (or hard to conquer) Polynesians.

Actually, given everything, you'd have a much less developed America, and probably a much worse off world in general. No Natives means no maize or potatoes being domesticated until relatively late; both of those crops have been boons to the world. Also, the Natives did quite a lot that impacted the landscape. The rainforest, for one, would be much more hostile to human settlement; farming would be much harder in the Andes; the forests of North America would be much thicker and the plains much more dispersed, and so on.