The New World Never Existed...

[Sharwood]

Yeah, I posted a reply to this before I read the rest of the thread. I will admit my ignorance.

On-topic: I think Europe would be far more feudal than it is today?. Because the New World was the major thing that broke that system up.

I'm just wondering where all the population run-off would have gone. Siberia may well be far more heavily populated, or there could have been a few more genocidal regimes than the Nazis.

 

[TheLastOne36]

Yeah, I posted a reply to this before I read the rest of the thread. I will admit my ignorance.

On-topic: I think Europe would be far more feudal than it is today?. Because the New World was the major thing that broke that system up.

Based on that, then Poland would've remained strong in the 1600's all the way to WWI, and would've never been partitioned(atleast not successfully) From WWI over, i'm not sure what would happen. WWI would obviously be more bloody and last longer.

Then again, with Poland still strong, Prussia would've never manage to partition poland, stay as a vassal of Poland, and never unite Germany, and Austria-Hungary would never be as strong without the partition of Poland. I think that a WWI would only have a European Campaign in the Balkans and Anatolia.

Germany would be a ton of different German states, and with such a huge death toll, the Soviets would never be able to take power, as they wouldn't get enough support from the people, and since Germany didn't participate in the war or even have a united empire, i think WWII wouldn't happen, and Poland would be one of the strongest, biggest country in europe excluding russia.

Interesting to see how important Poland played a role in modern Europe.

Well here's another scenerio. What if Prussia tried to partition poland with Russia and Austria, and fail, but what if prussia manage to remain independent?

I'll let you guys figure that one out.

 

[obliterate]

I'm just wondering where all the population run-off would have gone. Siberia may well be far more heavily populated, or there could have been a few more genocidal regimes than the Nazis.

The Far East had massively concentrated growth and they never really expanded anywhere. So I just assume we can look at the Far East to see what would happen in Europe.

Maybe Africa would be a lot different.

 

[obliterate]

Based on that, then Poland would've remained strong in the 1600's all the way to WWI, and would've never been partitioned(atleast not successfully) From WWI over, i'm not sure what would happen. WWI would obviously be more bloody and last longer.

Then again, with Poland still strong, Prussia would've never manage to partition poland, stay as a vassal of Poland, and never unite Germany, and Austria-Hungary would never be as strong without the partition of Poland. I think that a WWI would only have a European Campaign in the Balkans and Anatolia.

Germany would be a ton of different German states, and with such a huge death toll, the Soviets would never be able to take power, as they wouldn't get enough support from the people, and since Germany didn't participate in the war or even have a united empire, i think WWII wouldn't happen, and Poland would be one of the strongest, biggest country in europe excluding russia.

Interesting to see how important Poland played a role in modern Europe.

Well here's another scenerio. What if Prussia tried to partition poland with Russia and Austria, and fail, but what if prussia manage to remain independent?

I'll let you guys figure that one out.

Yeah, Poland become a superpower. Tsarist Russia wasn't very strong. Particularly economically. At the start of the war Russia had 5,000,000 troops and only 4,500,000 rifles in total.

 

[TheLastOne36]

Yeah, Poland become a superpower. Tsarist Russia wasn't very strong. Particularly economically. At the start of the war Russia had 5,000,000 troops and only 4,500,000 rifles in total.

a superpower means something like America or the Soviet Union. Poland would only be like power in europe.

 

[mitsho]

The Far East had massively concentrated growth and they never really expanded anywhere. So I just assume we can look at the Far East to see what would happen in Europe.

Maybe Africa would be a lot different.

I agree with you certainly on Africa. It would have been settled and developed earlier. Interest in India and the Molucces would be great as well. Australia would be discovered earlier perhaps. Or perhaps not, as the "well, but not so large"-profits wouldn't have naturally lead to more expansion.

It's really difficult to say, and as you point out, China used up its advantage on itself, pretty much (when you take their power in comparison to Europe)

 

[TheLastOne36]

I think Australia and Indonesia would be divided up and fought over many european nations, we could have a dutch side, english side, french side and spanish part of Australia. Portugal would be to busy meddling with Africa to pay attention though.

 

[obliterate]

What about the Middle East? With no where east to go, European Christians may have started migrating there creating worse religious conflicts than today.

 

[Steph]

I think you missed a few important points (although I must confess I did not read all the posts in details).

The new wolrd was virtually inhabited in the North, and in Central America / South America, there were vast empire, but that were vulnerable to disease, lack horses, and so were unable to resist the European invasion.

This allowed European powers to establish colonies relatively easily, and to gain a vast amount of resources for a relatively low cost.

This in turn allowed a quicker development of Europe, to the point were Europe had a sufficient techological advantage to subude asian countries.

And then, not all of them. Japan was forced to open again only in mid 19th century.

Without the American continents, European power would have reached India / China / Japan, and trade with them, but it would not have yield such a large advantage, becuase these countries new horses, were less vulnerable to disease, and had large and organized armies that were a serious match for the European powers (remember Europe could get the upper hand only 300 or 350 years after the discovery of America).

Beside, in the rush to Asia around Africa, Iberian countries had a slight advantage. If there were a direct route from Europe to Asia via the Atlancific (or is it the Pacitlantic?) ocean, then UK / France are on equal footing as Spain / Portugal.

So... I think that Europe would have kept some advtanges, but not as big as it was, and perhaps the whole colonial system would have not happened, or been delayed for a long time.

Ie. no colonization of India / Asia, little colonization of Africa.

 

[innonimatu]

The new wolrd was virtually inhabited in the North, and in Central America / South America, there were vast empire, but that were vulnerable to disease, lack horses, and so were unable to resist the European invasion.

This allowed European powers to establish colonies relatively easily, and to gain a vast amount of resources for a relatively low cost.

This in turn allowed a quicker development of Europe, to the point were Europe had a sufficient techological advantage to subude asian countries.

Sorry, but this is absolutely wrong. To start with, North America did not contribute in any relevant way to european expansion in Asia. In fact it even acted as a drain on british and french resources. The French would have hung to eastern India, the british might have meddled in Africa (and they did meddle in India anyway, and beyond). The dutch and the portuguese were active in Asia before they started exploiting the new world's resources. And the spanish would also go east if they couldn't expand into the new world.
During the whole 17th century only Spain really profited in a relevant way from America. And that came at the cost of draining most of their resources, so it actually led to less european pressure upon Asia.

Without the American continents, European power would have reached India / China / Japan, and trade with them, but it would not have yield such a large advantage, becuase these countries new horses, were less vulnerable to disease, and had large and organized armies that were a serious match for the European powers (remember Europe could get the upper hand only 300 or 350 years after the discovery of America).

All relevant commercial outposts in south Asia's cost were occupied by europeans during the 17th century. Most of south India was also occupied, as well as Ceylon, parts of the indonesian archipelago and Malaysia, and portions of Africa.
Large territorial occupation would happen only after the industrial revolution, but that was a creation of England, not of the Americas. Americans only started expanding and playing an active role in the world stage during the late 19th century. It's prior influence was mainly by diverting european efforts.

Beside, in the rush to Asia around Africa, Iberian countries had a slight advantage. If there were a direct route from Europe to Asia via the Atlancific (or is it the Pacitlantic?) ocean, then UK / France are on equal footing as Spain / Portugal.

That would strongly depend on the existence of islands where ships could resupply.
Anyway, once the initial investment was made to get around Asia the race was on and all atlantic european nations were on an equal footing. As the dutch showed with their success in asia.

 

[Steph]

Sorry, but this is absolutely wrong. To start with, North America did not contribute in any relevant way to european expansion in Asia.

Yoou missed my points. The resources in America, and the competition the New World forced the European powers into, played a role in forcing the European powers to modernize their navy, their armies, etc. and help them develop a military / technical advantage that would allow them to subdue Asia, but only 200 -300 years after the discovery of the new world. Europe in 1500, could not have done that easily.

And the spanish would also go east if they couldn't expand into the new world.

Or they could have been dragged into European wars, without the gold from Americas to help them.

All relevant commercial outposts in south Asia's cost were occupied by europeans during the 17th century. Most of south India was also occupied, as well as Ceylon, parts of the indonesian archipelago and Malaysia, and portions of Africa.

That's just outpost, not a complete occupation. Without America, I don't think this would have been very different.

Large territorial occupation would happen only after the industrial revolution, but that was a creation of England, not of the Americas. Americans only started expanding and playing an active role in the world stage during the late 19th century. It's prior influence was mainly by diverting european efforts.

Yes, but this was also thanks to the progresses made in Europe because of the resources gained from America, and the competition in Europe.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Sorry, I can't let the "natural history" angle go. You cannot discuss alternate "humanities" history without accounting for alternate "natural history."

If we're talking about a hypothetical Earth that is smaller -- that is, smaller by the width of the North/South American continental shelf, you need to account for the tectonic plate activity as well. Western North/South America is where you find a series of mountain ranges spanning Alaska to Tierra del Fuego. Some of these mountains are still-active volcanoes that have an effect on land-building and what natural resources exist. Take those away or move them, and you have completely redrawn what natural resources are available to whoever can find and exploit them.

So... without North/South America, what happens to the tectonic plates? Just taking a quick guess, we're down an entire ocean, with no large landmass to break up whatever underground/underwater activity may be going on.

Just as a speculation, how would the commercial, industrial, and military aspects of the Old World change if the West coasts of Europe and Africa contained a lot of volcanic mountains and were part of a "Pacific Ring of Fire"? The new kinds of minerals, metals, and plant-related goods available would be staggering.

 

[Steph]

Just as a speculation, how would the commercial, industrial, and military aspects of the Old World change if the West coasts of Europe and Africa contained a lot of volcanic mountains and were part of a "Pacific Ring of Fire"? The new kinds of minerals, metals, and plant-related goods available would be staggering.

What prevents the mountain range / volcanos of America to exist, but in fact be underwater?

 

[Disenfrancised]

I think Australia and Indonesia would be divided up and fought over many european nations, we could have a dutch side, english side, french side and spanish part of Australia. Portugal would be to busy meddling with Africa to pay attention though.

Indonesia was divided and fought over in real history, and the Dutch won. Australia is only viable once complex 18th century farming techniques are developed and you are in a habit of systematicly exporting population (like pretty much only portugal and the British were).

There would be no additional africa meddling* - the europeans went as far as they could before disease knocked them out even with the presence of the americas.

*Well maybe north of the atlas and south of the Orange river.

I'm just wondering where all the population run-off would have gone. Siberia may well be far more heavily populated, or there could have been a few more genocidal regimes than the Nazis.

It was only about 50-60 million that went overseas pre-1900 (they just had a lot of kids ), they'd probably just stay at home and not be able to afford as many children as they did in the new world. Plus this increase would be offset by the famines and lower productivity caused by lacking new world supercrops.

 

[Dachs]

On-topic: I think Europe would be far more feudal than it is today?. Because the New World was the major thing that broke that system up.

The "new monarchies" were already extant before Columbus. The disintegration of the feudal system might have been slowed by the lack of increased specie (which would mean less power in the hands of merchants), but the Asian trade would have been plenty profitable, and feudalism was primarily a defensively oriented system anyway and thus has less merit as soon as the Great Barbarian Threat disintegrated.

And since much of the New World specie, in the early days anyway (the ones that matter, since we're talking about the disintegration of feudalism), was in the hands of the Spanish and Portuguese monarchs and went towards fueling military conquest instead of stimulating trade, I think that the impact wouldn't be so great in the anti-feudal field. Of more import would be the decreased strength of Spain, and its forced reorienting towards the Far East and Africa, which aren't as immediately profitable due to Portugal's preexisting advantages IMHO. So Spain (as previously noted by more than one person in this very thread) has less ability to maintain a war machine in Europe. They won't be trying to smash France all the time, meaning that the burden of taxes won't be so heavy on the Netherlands. Maybe they won't revolt after all, leaving a more powerful Spain in the mid-term as opposed to being crippled by revolts all over its European empire in the late 16th century and throughout the 17th century.

Based on that, then Poland would've remained strong in the 1600's all the way to WWI, and would've never been partitioned(atleast not successfully) From WWI over, i'm not sure what would happen. WWI would obviously be more bloody and last longer.

*sigh*

Poland's decentralization issues in relation to those of other countries won't magically be overcome by slightly less power in the hands of the merchant classes of Western Europe. Key instruments in Polish destruction, viz. Sweden, Russia, and the HRE, won't have particularly less power, and Russia in fact may become more important due to its impending control over land routes to the East. So Poland will still be a country stuck on the steppe between multiple enemies with more and better resources, and will still likely be smashed.

Interesting to see how important Poland played a role in modern Europe.

Most countries have played a rather important role in modern Europe, even ones outside of Europe itself. Anyone saying that Poland hasn't played a key role in MEH doesn't know what the hell he or she is talking about.

Well here's another scenerio. What if Prussia tried to partition poland with Russia and Austria, and fail, but what if prussia manage to remain independent?

Why would a Partition of Poland ever fail, especially with Prussia, Austria, and Russia cooperating? Specifics plz...is this in your magical "Poland beats all" world, or in the OTL 18th century?

This in turn allowed a quicker development of Europe, to the point were Europe had a sufficient techological advantage to subude asian countries.

Nah. Europe's technological advantage stems from the fact that it's not united, but in fact split between many competing nation-states, all of whom are trying to beat the other ones. What incentive do the Mughals have to technologically improve? The Chinese? In the critical 16th century, neither of these is particularly threatened and thus has no reason to develop. I mean, sure, the fact that all that handy specie and new resources stimulated added European development, but that was more of an acceleration as compared with the proximate cause.

And during the 16th and 17th centuries, Europe is already dabbling in Africa, the Indian Ocean, and the Far East, providing some handy technological developments to their clients (like Oda Nobunaga) and proving that Europe already had an advantage. Sure it won't be a blatant conquest and colonization like it was in the Americas (but then again that was never part of the question) except in the case of Africa, but Europeans will still seize key trade posts and resource repositories, as they did in OTL, and due to increased concentration may even gain more than they did.

 

[Steph]

I mean, sure, the fact that all that handy specie and new resources stimulated added European development, but that was more of an acceleration as compared with the proximate cause.

This in turn allowed a quicker development of Europe

Could it be that "added", "acceleration", and "quicker" mean the same thing, and so you are agreeing with me, despite the "nah" in the beginning of your sentence?

 

[qoou]

I think the (most interesting) scenario is:

Ia The new World doesn't exist.
Ib The area that would now be water doesn't exist either. The Earth has shrunk so to say:
II But everything does develop as normal. Meaning, it is the world we know.

mik

The Earth would be locked in synchronous rotation with the moon = on one side of the earth eclipses would be a lot more common while on the other they would never happen = it'd be harder to colonize the other side.

Or they [Spain] could have been dragged into European wars, without the gold from Americas to help them.

Don't you mean silver?

 

[Steph]

Don't you mean silver?

No, I just check in Europa Universalis, the icon representing money at the top of the screen is definitely golden, not silver.

 

[mitsho]

The Earth would be locked in synchronous rotation with the moon = on one side of the earth eclipses would be a lot more common while on the other they would never happen = it'd be harder to colonize the other side.

You guys really don't get it, do you? I'm not interested in natural science changes... !

 

[qoou]

No, I just check in Europa Universalis, the icon representing money at the top of the screen is definitely golden, not silver.

Sorrry for my ignorance, but what is "Europa Universalis"? AFAIK, silver was the most valuable thing the Spanish could get from the New World (and in fact there was so much silver filtering into the rest of the world that it caused massive inflation in some places).

You guys really don't get it, do you? I'm not interested in natural science changes... !

Sorry: I was just giving you a hard time since most of the things I would've said have already been said in this thread.