Alternate Americas: questions.

[Ares Land]

I'm exploring an alternate history where European presence in the Americas remains restricted to Quebec, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and New England in the 16th and 17th centuries (of course it's a continuation of the Roman alternate history!)

Needless to say, that scenario raises a lot of questions and I'd like the opinion of people more knowledgeable than I am.
To begin with:

- Would the smallpox epidemic have proceeded as it did?
- Would horses have spread to Meso-America?
- How about pigs? Cattle?
And finally, would the Europeans (well, the Romans) in that scenario ever hear about the Mexica ? Or the Quechua even?

[Nortaneous]

I'm exploring an alternate history where European presence in the Americas remains restricted to Quebec, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and New England in the 16th and 17th centuries (of course it's a continuation of the Roman alternate history!)

Why does it remain so restricted?

Not only is land a valuable resource in and of itself, it contains many valuable resources. What reason do Europeans have for not bothering to try to obtain those resources? And what resources are there in the frozen north that are so compelling that Europeans settle there? (Fur?) New England can barely grow tobacco, can't grow cotton at all, and AFAIK doesn't have any gold or silver. What that region does have is timber, and a scarcity of wood in Europe is easily plausible... but one would expect logging to expand.

- Would the smallpox epidemic have proceeded as it did?

Probably.

- Would horses have spread to Meso-America?
- How about pigs? Cattle?

If an animal is introduced to North America and traded, it'll probably make its way to Mesoamerica. Remember that trade routes in the Old World linked Rome to as far east as Palau.

And finally, would the Europeans (well, the Romans) in that scenario ever hear about the Mexica ? Or the Quechua even?

If they decide to go exploring - and why wouldn't they?

[Ares Land]

I'm exploring an alternate history where European presence in the Americas remains restricted to Quebec, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and New England in the 16th and 17th centuries (of course it's a continuation of the Roman alternate history!)

Why does it remain so restricted?

Not only is land a valuable resource in and of itself, it contains many valuable resources. What reason do Europeans have for not bothering to try to obtain those resources? And what resources are there in the frozen north that are so compelling that Europeans settle there? (Fur?) New England can barely grow tobacco, can't grow cotton at all, and AFAIK doesn't have any gold or silver. What that region does have is timber, and a scarcity of wood in Europe is easily plausible... but one would expect logging to expand.

A good question. In the alternate timeline, Romans discover the Americas through a northwestern route, which means they first land in Newfoundland and then proceed to Canada and New England. Thay don't even really settle there, I think; they just establish trading outpost for fur, possibly tobacco, and others.

They don't expand beyond that because, mostly, they're not that interested. As you said, there's nothign that compelling there, and their attentions soon focus to the East (gold they can obtain through Africa, and they establish a trade route to India by taking over Egypt.)

If they don't expect to find gold, or spices, I don't think there'd be a very strong incentive for exploring. I suppose some would go explore nonetheless.

[Nortaneous]

A good question. In the alternate timeline, Romans discover the Americas through a northwestern route, which means they first land in Newfoundland and then proceed to Canada and New England. Thay don't even really settle there, I think; they just establish trading outpost for fur, possibly tobacco, and others.

They don't expand beyond that because, mostly, they're not that interested. As you said, there's nothign that compelling there, and their attentions soon focus to the East (gold they can obtain through Africa, and they establish a trade route to India by taking over Egypt.)

If they don't expect to find gold, or spices, I don't think there'd be a very strong incentive for exploring. I suppose some would go explore nonetheless.

Would they have been able to trade for tobacco that far north? (Probably, but I'm not certain.) If they were able to trade for tobacco, wouldn't they want to go south to expand the tobacco trade, or even get tobacco plants themselves? In OTL, the land around the Aegean grows a lot of tobacco. Turkey is a well-known tobacco producer, apparently the fifth largest of any country (after China, India, Brazil, and the US), and apparently there's some tobacco production in Italy (the eighth largest) and Spain as well. Turkey, Italy, and Greece combined produce more tobacco than the US. So if the Romans hold those countries, they could have a domestic tobacco industry instead of relying on far-off imports. (But how much modern technology is necessary for those yields? How close are European cultivars to American ones?)

If there are other areas for Rome to expand into, it's possible that they wouldn't bother with large-scale settlement of America. But even absent an economic motive in the usual sense (is there a wood shortage? a lot of early modern Europe was worried about a wood shortage, although it's debated to what extent this was real), what do the younger sons of aristocrats do? In OTL, the answer was "go to South Carolina or Barbados". But maybe they go to Egypt instead. Alexandria was a cosmopolitan port city until Nasser, so if it isn't very developed before the Romans, they could do that... but that's only one city. And if any other powers become interested in North America, why wouldn't the Romans become involved in the scramble for it?

As for the smallpox epidemic, I don't think Norse contact caused any epidemics, so if Roman contact is small-scale and out of the way, that may not cause a continent-wide epidemic. But as soon as there's large-scale contact, or contact that's less out of the way...

[Moose-tache]

Tobacco was routinely traded throughout Quebec in OTL. Technically you can grow it there, though I don't know how feasible that is without modern agriculture. Think wine in Norwich.

As for the Norse and disease, there are some theories about that. Apparently the Norse may have introduced typhus to the New World, but they didn't spread smallpox or measles. This may have been because they simply didn't have it. Crowd diseases require large populations to remain constantly in circulation; in very small populations they flare up and then burn themselves out. The small contingent of people from a tiny outpost of one of Europe's minor kingdoms just might not have been a big enough petri dish to provide a reliable host for all the major European diseases. That certainly wouldn't be true for large settlements of French and English up and down the east coast.

[Ares Land]

Thank you both!

Would they have been able to trade for tobacco that far north? (Probably, but I'm not certain.) If they were able to trade for tobacco, wouldn't they want to go south to expand the tobacco trade, or even get tobacco plants themselves?

On second thought, let's forget about tobacco. (It grows very well in Europe)

If there are other areas for Rome to expand into, it's possible that they wouldn't bother with large-scale settlement of America. But even absent an economic motive in the usual sense (is there a wood shortage? a lot of early modern Europe was worried about a wood shortage, although it's debated to what extent this was real), what do the younger sons of aristocrats do? In OTL, the answer was "go to South Carolina or Barbados". But maybe they go to Egypt instead. Alexandria was a cosmopolitan port city until Nasser, so if it isn't very developed before the Romans, they could do that... but that's only one city. And if any other powers become interested in North America, why wouldn't the Romans become involved in the scramble for it?

I'm not sure yet if there's a wood shortage. (If it comes to that, the Romans have plenty of coal available.)

The younger sons of aristocrats would have several options, I believe. The main one would be to go to Syria-Palestine and Egypt, a fairly lucrative career, and the empire would have a great need of troops. The more adventurous would head for the Pontic steppe or Africa.
(Egypt is conquered entirely in the ATL, but I think holding on to it would require an important military presence).

I don't know yet if other powers take an interest in North America, but indeed if they did, the Romans would get a lot more involved.

[Whimemsz]

The Norse may or may not have transmitted any diseases, but there were plenty of cases in OTL of horrifically devastating pandemics that were the result of fairly limited contact. For instance, the epidemic which swept down coastal New England from 1616-1619 and virtually depopulated the region (the identity of the disease is controversial, but it seems pretty clear it wasn't smallpox; it may have been plague or leptospirosis) was acquired from rather limited trading contacts with European fisherman (probably off Maine). And of course the first epidemics which devastated the Aztec and Inca Empires and the Caribbean were the results of brief initial contact with a few hundred Europeans. Realistically, if you have a colony of Romans living on North America, they're going to transmit a virgin soil disease to the Natives fairly quickly, probably many diseases which strike over and over again, unless the Romans like, literally wall themselves off from the outside world and miraculously manage to never trade or even interact with anyone throughout the entire life of the colony. (And even then, some diseases could and almost certainly would break the confines; if the 1610s New England pandemic was leptospirosis or plague, it wouldn't have required any direct contact between Europeans and Indians at all, merely escaping infected rats!)

[zompist]

Oh wow. There are so many contingencies to think about.

The major export of Brit and French colonies (outside the Caribbean) was fur. That encourages a good deal of exploration. (I don't think timber was shipped back to Europe, was it?)

Did anyone go to Africa for the gold? That (and slaves) was what made the Portuguese exploration profitable; that in turn helped them keep going to the east to get spices, silk, and porcelain.

If they did, recall that the Portuguese found that you could get to southern Africa faster by using the ocean currents, swinging far west of Africa. Basically they discovered Brazil that way, by accident.

How are the Chinese doing? They were exploring Africa themselves half a century before the Portuguese. If they had been a little more profit-minded, they might have been the colonialists. (In OTL they didn't need much from the west, except silver. Maybe if they found Potosi...?)

Are the Aztec and Incas the same as in OTL up to this point? If they still don't have iron and gunpowder, they're screwed. OTOH if wild horses get loose and there's no Spanish empire, maybe you get a native horselord empire from Mexico to Canada.

One reason Spain/Portugal were so interested in slaves and colonialism was because they'd spent 700 years fighting Muslims, and therefore ready to conquer and convert "pagans" wherever they found them. I don't know if that dynamic exists in your timeline.

[Nortaneous]

The major export of Brit and French colonies (outside the Caribbean) was fur. That encourages a good deal of exploration.

Also encourages a good deal of going native - what's the dynamic there? (Especially if there's no missionary effort.)

[dhok]

Note that the American fur trade was driven in large part by falling stocks of furry critters in Scandinavia, Russia and the Baltic that had previously supplied Europe's coats and hats. That hadn't happened yet when Leif Erikson arrived in Newfoundland.

[Ares Land]

Oh wow. There are so many contingencies to think about.

The major export of Brit and French colonies (outside the Caribbean) was fur. That encourages a good deal of exploration. (I don't think timber was shipped back to Europe, was it?)

Did anyone go to Africa for the gold? That (and slaves) was what made the Portuguese exploration profitable; that in turn helped them keep going to the east to get spices, silk, and porcelain.

If they did, recall that the Portuguese found that you could get to southern Africa faster by using the ocean currents, swinging far west of Africa. Basically they discovered Brazil that way, by accident.

Oh, neat! That's a very good point. Trade with Africa is important in that timeline, so probably the same would occur.

How are the Chinese doing? They were exploring Africa themselves half a century before the Portuguese. If they had been a little more profit-minded, they might have been the colonialists. (In OTL they didn't need much from the west, except silver. Maybe if they found Potosi...?)

Pretty much the same as in OTL.

Are the Aztec and Incas the same as in OTL up to this point? If they still don't have iron and gunpowder, they're screwed. OTOH if wild horses get loose and there's no Spanish empire, maybe you get a native horselord empire from Mexico to Canada.

Yes, they're exactly the same. I do wonder if pigs and horses could spread to Mesoamerica before the European get there though, in which case the power dynamics would be greatly change. Maybe desert nomads could take over Mexico; also would human sacrifice continue with access to better sources of protein?

One reason Spain/Portugal were so interested in slaves and colonialism was because they'd spent 700 years fighting Muslims, and therefore ready to conquer and convert "pagans" wherever they found them. I don't know if that dynamic exists in your timeline.

Not really. The Romans, like Byzantines in OTL don't particularly care for wars of conquest, and when they do take over, it's usually after long dithering; they'd rather establish puppet states whenever possible. They're not used to religious conversion, either. The people that do convert do so out of their own accord, to share into Roman prestige, like the Rus' , the Berbers or the Manden.

I think the empire is more like Ming China than OTL 16th century Europe anyway, with all attention committed to keeping the empire together.

[Moose-tache]

would human sacrifice continue with access to better sources of protein?

You realize the Aztecs were not a calorically significant part of the Aztec diet, right?

[Ares Land]

would human sacrifice continue with access to better sources of protein?

You realize the Aztecs were not a calorically significant part of the Aztec diet, right?

Calorically significant, no. But according to Marvin Harris it has some importance in terms of nutrition, and served as a means of redistribution for the Aztec elites. His full thesis is in Cannibals and Kings, but there's a good summary here: https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1979/0 ... -exchange/

Basically, human beings value meat as an efficient source of amino-acids. (It's wasteful in terms of calories per acre of farm land, but it combines amino acid in an efficiently packaged form). Religion may use sacrifice as a means of meat (hence, wealth) redistribution from elite to commoners; the unique scale of human sacrifice in Meso-America coincides with an equally unique lack of game and domesticable farm animals in the area.

[Pedant]

I'm exploring an alternate history where European presence in the Americas remains restricted to Quebec, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and New England in the 16th and 17th centuries (of course it's a continuation of the Roman alternate history!)

Needless to say, that scenario raises a lot of questions and I'd like the opinion of people more knowledgeable than I am.
To begin with:

- Would the smallpox epidemic have proceeded as it did?
- Would horses have spread to Meso-America?
- How about pigs? Cattle?
And finally, would the Europeans (well, the Romans) in that scenario ever hear about the Mexica ? Or the Quechua even?

In my own Blessed Cold timeline I try to explore a similar question, and I can see about answering a few of these:

1. Almost certainly. Unless there's some slowing mechanism (the spread of livestock, for example, and thus cowpox to help counteract the smallpox), the natives aren't going to be any more resistant to Old World diseases than they were OTL. And if even one group is in contact, then it doesn't take much for the diseases to spread continent-wide.
2. It's possible livestock might be traded across the continent, passing from one group to another--it might take a while, however. Mustangs wandered up and down the plains once released into the wild, so it's not unfeasible that they might be captured by local northern tribes and brought back to the Mesoamerican agricultural civilizations. Pigs and cattle might be trickier; both have wild competitors, and take up a lot of space in domestic terms.
3. It's not unreasonable that the Romans might learn about civilizations further to the south, so long as they were able to contact people who knew about them. This means doing a touch of world-building on the other civilizations, seeing whether or not their reach could be expanded. The Aztecs (or some similar group; I personally chose to enlarge the Maya, à la Archaic Greece gone nuts and also tropical) might at some point expand their naval capabilities to wander around the Gulf of Mexico, coming into contact with the Mississippians, who might pass the stories on to their more northerly neighbours.

(For the record, here's a map of Blessed Cold's East Tortolia, 1500 AD for reference.)