Alternate History Exercise #2: America without people

[Winner]

Premise: Americas are never populated by humans. Let's say the land bridge from Asia never forms, the ice doesn't melt in time, simply put the ancestors of ancient Native Americans never make it to Americas. Moreover, no people arrive until say AD 1000, so no Polynesians, no Inuit, no nobody. North and South America remain a pristine continent in its natural form, without any human interference. Yes, it is unlikely, but that's the basic point of this thread, so please do not try to find ways around it.

My questions:

1) would large mammals, possibly some of the Pleistocene megafauna, survive if there were no humans over-hunting them?

2) given that there was no real contact between the Old World and the New World until the 15th century, would history be altered somehow or would it be the same until the point of discovery?

3) could colonization of Americas begin in AD 1000 with the arrival of Vikings? I understand they evacuated Vinland settlements (well, camps) because of their conflicts with native tribes. If there had been no such tribes, could the Vikings have begun colonizing Newfoundland and the lands around the Gulf of Saint Lawrence in the 11th century? Was it even possible, given the distances from Europe? Would the knowledge of the new continent in the West spread? Historically, the discoveries faded into obscurity and the later explorers had no idea the Vikings got so far.

4) how would the absence of Nat. Americans affect European colonization beginning in the 15th century? After all it was originally motivated by gold, which was being extracted from conquered peoples in Mesoamerica, Caribbean and the Andes, right? Would it be faster, or slower? Historically, Native Americans were both fierce enemies and good trading partners, so there's room for many interpretations.

5) How would the lack of gold/silver imported from Americas affect Europe and the rest of the Old World? What important events would not have taken place?​

Discuss

 

[Masada]

so no Polynesians

Wasn't possible Polynesian contact post-1000AD?

4) how would the absence of Nat. Americans affect European colonization beginning in the 15th century? After all it was originally motivated by gold, which was being extracted from conquered peoples in Mesoamerica, Caribbean and the Andes, right?

Gold was certainly important, but it wasn't the sole reason, dyes and drugs were fairly significant in the period between the exhaustion of the easily accessible (and quite small) Caribbean gold and silver deposits and the discovery of the major deposits in Mexico and Chile. In any case, if they had made it inland its within the realm of possibility that the alluvial gold would have been found anyway. I understand there were workings right near the coast in the very early days, it stands to reason that production would have followed the rivers to the source, eventually. Certainly there might have been a time-delay between discovery - but I'm fairly sure that the presence of gold in streams was noted even before the Spaniards were aware of the Aztecs.

5) How would the lack of gold/silver imported from Americas affect Europe and the rest of the Old World? What important events would not have taken place?

I think the significant of the 'Price Revolution' argument has been diluted somewhat by recent scholarship which has begun to take serious chunks out of it. For instance there is research which seems to show that prices didn't rise as much as was previously thought. There's also been some serious work done in numismatics which would seem to indicate that the majority of the imported flowed out of Europe quite rapidly fueling a pre-existing European trade deficit. There also seems to be some evidence that the number of coins in circulation might not have grown as much as was previously thought, all that may have happened was that the velocity of coins in circulation increased. It's a murky issue at the moment, if you had asked a decade ago there would have been a ready answer, there isn't any more

 

[Winner]

Wasn't possible Polynesian contact post-1000AD?

No idea, actually

Gold was certainly important, but it wasn't the sole reason, dyes and drugs were fairly significant in the period between the exhaustion of the easily accessible (and quite small) Caribbean gold and silver deposits and the discovery of the major deposits in Mexico and Chile. In any case, if they had made it inland its within the realm of possibility that the alluvial gold would have been found anyway. I understand there were workings right near the coast in the very early days, it stands to reason that production would have followed the rivers to the source, eventually. Certainly there might have been a time-delay between discovery - but I'm fairly sure that the presence of gold in streams was noted even before the Spaniards were aware of the Aztecs.

Dyes and drugs - wasn't it all taken from the Indians? If there were no natives, it might take some time to find and domesticate the useful plants/animals.

As for the gold, you're probably right. On the other hand, the Spanish would be terribly short on manpower, at least initially. I understand they used to rely on natives at first, before they died of European diseases and Africans began to be imported in sufficient numbers.

I think the significant of the 'Price Revolution' argument has been diluted somewhat by recent scholarship which has begun to take serious chunks out of it. For instance there is research which seems to show that prices didn't rise as much as was previously thought. There's also been some serious work done in numismatics which would seem to indicate that the majority of the imported flowed out of Europe quite rapidly fueling a pre-existing European trade deficit. There also seems to be some evidence that the number of coins in circulation might not have grown as much as was previously thought, all that may have happened was that the velocity of coins in circulation increased. It's a murky issue at the moment, if you had asked a decade ago there would have been a ready answer, there isn't any more

Is it safe to say that without the Aztec/Inca gold/silver, Spain would never have become a major European power? This would of course totally alter European history, and it could slow down colonization of Americas significantly. Also, without the precious metals to trade with (real) Indians and Chinese for their luxury goods, would Portugal and later the Netherlands (and England) have become a major trade/maritime powers?

Or would Portugal have benefited much more from the Exploration, since there were some people to trade with in India?

 

[Tee Kay]

Dyes and drugs - wasn't it all taken from the Indians? If there were no natives, it might take some time to find and domesticate the useful plants/animals.

Indeed. For a start we might not have some of the vegetables and fruits from the Americas we now take for granted, or they will be available later. I think maize is the biggest one here.

 

[Masada]

Dyes and drugs - wasn't it all taken from the Indians? If there were no natives, it might take some time to find and domesticate the useful plants/animals.

I have dim memories that some of the dyes and drugs were analogous to European plants... but I'm inclined to believe your right.

As for the gold, you're probably right. On the other hand, the Spanish would be terribly short on manpower, at least initially. I understand they used to rely on natives at first, before they died of European diseases and Africans began to be imported in sufficient numbers.

I don't think they relied significantly on native labour initially at least in the Carribean. But your probably right about the big mines in Mexico and Peru. However, that said, there is still a ready supply of slave labor in the Philippines and Africa respectively. An African and Asian American's would be interesting. But there would be lag probably quite significant - certainly measured in hundreds of years and not decades.

Is it safe to say that without the Aztec/Inca gold/silver, Spain would never have become a major European power?

I don't think the loot from the Inca and Aztecs was really all that large, not compared to what was mined later. Remember, that the Inca and Aztecs only had rudimentary mining and they couldn't separate most silver from the ore. But it would be delayed, I guess. I'm really more interested in the macro historical factors which can be gauged far more accurately that the micro aspects. Spain as a super-power was certainly influential in central Europe say, but the effects of the massive inflows of silver had global implications.

This would of course totally alter European history, and it could slow down colonization of Americas significantly.

Colonization under the Iberians was always kind piss-poor anyway. I doubt you'd see anything like the level of OTL population.

Also, without the precious metals to trade with (real) Indians and Chinese for their luxury goods, would Portugal and later the Netherlands (and England) have become a major trade/maritime powers?

Portugal was never a major trade power. It's given way to much importance for its own good. In any case, I don't think so. Europe had managed reasonably well for the last thousand years and if I remember correctly there the invention of the mercury method of silver production was going to open up mines in Central Europe anyway. They obviously weren't all that good compared to the New World ones (they were on life support for two centuries) but they were probably adequate for the task.

Or would Portugal have benefited much more from the Exploration, since there were some people to trade with in India?

They weren't really all that interested in India. It was stepping stone to China and the Spice Island really. I guess the diversion of funds to the Estado de India might have had some tangible benefit, but they were never going to get what they wanted - a blockade of Egypt.

Indeed. For a start we might not have some of the vegetables and fruits from the Americas we now take for granted, or they will be available later. I think maize is the biggest one here.

I'm going to go with potatoes, maize increased production, but potatoes could opened up new land and increased production. Ireland would have been significantly less populous than OTL for instance

 

[LightSpectra]

Counter-factuals of even small things are already silly because of the butterfly effect, but there is almost nothing you can say when you're asking about such a colossal change.

It's like asking "what would bananas taste like if they weren't a fruit?" You can't answer it because the hypothetical alteration is so drastic thast the original circumstances are no longer recognizable.

 

[Winner]

Counter-factuals of even small things are already silly because of the butterfly effect, but there is almost nothing you can say when you're asking about such a colossal change.

It's like asking "what would bananas taste like if they weren't a fruit?" You can't answer it because the hypothetical alteration is so drastic thast the original circumstances are no longer recognizable.

No. It's not that colossal, the real changes begin when the Old World meets the new one. And I am not asking for a whole new detailed timeline, just few thoughts about the things I listed in the OP.

 

[TheLastOne36]

I think the Polynesians would've colonized the Americas eventually, pre or after Europeans. I believe numerous trips were made throughout history.

3) could colonization of Americas begin in AD 1000 with the arrival of Vikings? I understand they evacuated Vinland settlements (well, camps) because of their conflicts with native tribes. If there had been no such tribes, could the Vikings have begun colonizing Newfoundland and the lands around the Gulf of Saint Lawrence in the 11th century? Was it even possible, given the distances from Europe? Would the knowledge of the new continent in the West spread? Historically, the discoveries faded into obscurity and the later explorers had no idea the Vikings got so far.

You have to know that, once a significant population reaches the new world, it could survive and reproduce until larger numbers are reached, and unlike Greenland or Iceland, the lands were probably much more attractable and could sustain much larger population.

Also, the discoveries of other land have stayed in Europe. It is said that the company that backed financially Columbus was aware of such lands. Not to mention that when explorers from France reached Newfoundland and areas, they recorded some Basque fisherman fishing off the coast.

I'm sure the knowledge of the new world would spread from Viking discovery once the Scandinavians had a big enough colony to report back to Europe, 'Hey we exist!'. Trade relations would certainly form.

Also, no natives means that there would be no Popcorn , and that the Mexican desert would be a more fertile place if there was no Anasazi to destroy it.

 

[Quackers]

Dunno. Europeans have an easier time taking over the continent?

Is that alright?

 

[Winner]

TheLastOne36:

It's not that easy. You read Collapse, so you know how distances helped to seal the fate of the Greenland colony. Lack of trade led to isolation and eventual demise of Norse colonies in Greenland. Also, the Little Ice Age made seafaring there dangerous due to floating ice, fogs and other unfavorable conditions.

Vinland and Markland (today's Newfoundland and Labrador respectively) were explored by Norse from Greenland, not mainland Europe, and afaik their discovery wasn't really a big news in contemporary Europe, suggesting the information didn't get there in time or it wasn't considered as very reliable. This means there would hardly be any waves of colonists leaving for the new promised land. The technology probably didn't allow any massive colonization effort so far from Europe at that time.

BUT, it is likely that some settlements would have been established in Vinland/Markland, if only to obtain certain necessities like wood or foodstuffs. For some time, trade could surely have worked between Vinland and Greenland. But what would the Vinlanders have done after the Little Ice Age (and the Black Death in Norway/Iceland and the political changes there) had severed their contacts with Europe through Greenland? Perhaps Greenland could have been evacuated and the people would have moved to Vinland in search of more favorable natural conditions.

But that would have meant inevitable loss of technology and divergences in culture, language and religion. Even if they had multiplied for few centuries in isolation, without competition from any natives, they could hardly have settled more than just few lands adjacent to the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Then the other Europeans would have arrived and I doubt the consequences for the Vinlanders would be good. Not nearly as devastating as the contact was for OTL Native Americans, but not good either.

--

This is actually the most interesting part of this "what-if" scenario, the Norse exploration has always fascinated me

 

[TheLastOne36]

On the contrary, it is also possible that trade between Greenland and Markland/Vinland could've kept the Greenland colony alive.

Why would they not go further south? They knew of more fertile lands of New England.

 

[Winner]

On the contrary, it is also possible that trade between Greenland and Markland/Vinland could've kept the Greenland colony alive.

Personal question: would you stay in Greenland, freezing and hungry most of the time, dependent on annual deliveries of wood, iron and other stuff, or move to the land from which these things are being imported?

Tough question

Why would they not go further south? They knew of more fertile lands of New England.

Well, they initially established colonies in Newfoundland, because it was close enough to Greenland to maintain lines of communication. I assume that if they evacuated most of Greenland's population, they wouldn't be able to move it too far. So the center of the North American colonization by the Norse would have been Newfoundland, probably. Later they'd probably explore lands further south, but with their rather limited technology, population and resources, I doubt they could have built permanent settlements too far from the "base camp". But New England is possible, definitely. Further south, they could have encountered problems with the climate - their animals and crops were only suitable for colder climate, I suppose. If they had any crops at all...

 

[innonimatu]

I don't think they relied significantly on native labour initially at least in the Carribean.

They did. It was just that it was wiped out very quickly and they had find other sources of labour.
I thing that the greatest handicap of a lack of native population would be the delay in exploration, not the lack of labour. The point raised by Winner about the difficulty in finding the most useful plants and animals is important. And also important is the fact that all exploration beyond the thin coastal strip of land depended on incentives, information, and communications. The spanish conquest of the american tribes and empires, notably the Inca, gave it roads, cities, information about where there were resources to exploit, animals and plants adequate to the local climate, cleared farming land, and an existing administrative structure. Control over enormous areas of the Andes was gained in some 30 years, with few soldiers and administrators necessary. Brazil, where there was little of this initially, took about 300 years to explore.
Even so, to give a better idea of the difficulty of exploring the territory, we know that some independent Inca communities survived in the Andes for hundreds of years because they were not found by the colonial authorities!

Colonization under the Iberians was always kind piss-poor anyway. I doubt you'd see anything like the level of OTL population.

Yeah, right. The first courts, largest cities, first universities, etc. And what were the british and French building in North America in the meanwhile? Plantations...
The US rose during the 19th century more because it was blessed by nature than anything else: it had readily accessible in its eastern states exactly what was necessary for the industrial revolution, unlike all other countries in the Americas.

Portugal was never a major trade power.

It was for about a century, from the early-middle 16th to the middle of the 17th. More so and for a longer time than the dutch. Those, however, had for them the proximity to the wealthiest markets in Europe, and took good advantage of that position.

Europe had managed reasonably well for the last thousand years and if I remember correctly there the invention of the mercury method of silver production was going to open up mines in Central Europe anyway. They obviously weren't all that good compared to the New World ones (they were on life support for two centuries) but they were probably adequate for the task.

I very much doubt it. Do not forget that most of the american silver was traded to Asia, for chinese and, to a lesses extent, indian products. Except for gold and silver, there was nothing Europe had to offer to China for its products. And no european nation was going to be able to impose on China any unequal treaty or pull an Opium War before the Industrial Revolution. It's quite simple: no american precious metals, practically no trade with China and a harder time in India. That would have had an impact on Europe.

They weren't really all that interested in India. It was stepping stone to China and the Spice Island really. I guess the diversion of funds to the Estado de India might have had some tangible benefit, but they were never going to get what they wanted - a blockade of Egypt.

Not true. The interest in India was very real, and there were good motives for that. Taxes levied in the territories controlled in India were more profitable that the pepper trade by the mid-16th century. The viceroy in the East had his seat in India. Ceylon, another very rich territory, was nearly conquered, the portuguese king having forced most of the cingalese nobles to accept him as king of Ceylon. There was a real intention of conquering the whole island, as there was one of expanding the territories in India. There, however, lack of manpower and the collapse of the Empire of Vijayanagara in the south forced a shift to a defensive strategy. In the north the rise of the Mughal Empire prevented also any further expansion. Trade with China (and not only from Europe to China, but also between China and India and Japan) was also important, but in all this India was the center of the eastern trade network. Even the cotton cloth from India became increasingly important for trade with Africa. Control over regional trade in the Indian Ocean might actually be more important that trade between that whole region and Europe.

Finally, the blockade of the eastern trade of Egypt only failed because Adem and the zoe around that strait was not captured. The egyptian/turkish fleets were destroyed, and other key points (Malaca, Ormuz, Julfar, Qeshm, Muscat, several east african cities, etc) were conquered. And while Egypt itself was never threatened, at least its trade and its expansion into Ethiopia was checked.

 

[Yui108]

Islam would be the most populous religion.

 

[TheLastOne36]

Oh true... Morroccan and Andalucian explorers probably got to the Americas around 1100-1400 AD

 

[Tee Kay]

Oh true... Morroccan and Andalucian explorers probably got to the Americas around 1100-1400 AD

That's ridiculous. Zheng He would've got there way before them.

 

[say1988]

Dunno. Europeans have an easier time taking over the continent?

In some ways, but European colonization was initially highly dependent on Native assistance.

Most of my knowledge is based on North America, but I believe much also applies to South America.

Most explorers relied on Native knowledge to find routes through the interior of the continent and to locate resources. The relied on Native knowledge for medicines (in the north, particularly the source of vitamin C to stave off scurvy) and such.

The fur trade in Canada likely would never have established to the extent it did. It was always primarily the realm of the natives, yes some Europeans got directly involved, but used native knowledge, techniques, and equipment (i.e. birchbark canoes) and interior trading posts relied on natives to supply food, removing the incentive for colonizing New France (even after the conquest its economy was primarily the fur trade and the military) and without the trading posts agriculture and other interests likely wouldn't have developed for a long time.

Another question is how much role did the Natives play in the development of major crops (i.e. corn, potatoes, tobacco), and without native usage would the Europeans have noticed and developed these resources? For example, I believe corn was heavily influenced by native groups, and due to their efforts was far different from its wild ancestors and spread across the continent. Without these, does corn remain a unknown, not significantly productive (when compared to European grains) crop that Europeans ignore?

 

[TheLastOne36]

That's ridiculous. Zheng He would've got there way before them.

Not to ridiculous, it was certeinly possible, and the coast of Brazil, Venezuela and some Caribena islands are on some Moorish maps of the era. You can read about it in Wikipedia.

 

[Lord Baal]

Islam would be the most populous religion.

Just like it is in OTL?

I just had a thought; When did the Eskimoes make it to North America?

 

[ParkCungHee]

Just like it is in OTL?

I just had a thought; When did the Eskimoes make it to North America?

That's a very good thought. The answer is that they never "made it" to North America, becuase they never saw it as a place to "make it" to. Trade and travel between North America and Asia never stopped.