• Hi Guest!

    The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress

What if England Got To The New World First?

ChrisNuttall

Well-known member
Pretty much what it says on the tin. Christopher Columbus goes to the England of Henry Tudor (Henry VII) and convinces him to fund a small fleet to explore the great ocean depths. He stumbles into the New World as OTL, but it is England that is first aware of the West Indies and the first one to start exploring the rest of the region, eventually meeting the Aztecs and Incas ...

What happens then?

Chris
 
Pretty much what it says on the tin. Christopher Columbus goes to the England of Henry Tudor (Henry VII) and convinces him to fund a small fleet to explore the great ocean depths. He stumbles into the New World as OTL, but it is England that is first aware of the West Indies and the first one to start exploring the rest of the region, eventually meeting the Aztecs and Incas ...

What happens then?

Chris

On another forum, a user suggested an interesting PoD of Richard III winning at the Battle of Bosworth Field and thus eliminating the Tudors via the death of Henry VII:
I've always been very interested by this particular generation that tends to be vilified and over-shadowed by their sons and grand-sons and whatnot. We always focus on Henry VIII and Charles V and the Protestant Reformation getting kicked off, and sure, that's all fascinating. But let's go back a bit, and we have Richard III -- possibly the most 'modern' monarch of his day -- and we have Pope Alexander VII -- vilified by his opponents, but actually a capable reformer, whose proposals could have helped prevent the Reformation -- and we have Maximilian I -- who was both the "last knight" of old Europe and the first Emperor to being truly modern reforms. In addition, the age of exploration is about to kick off, but the deck hasn't been shuffled yet.​
It's a given that if Richard III wins and survives, he's going to act against France (which harboured his enemies and will continue to be a threat). Battle-hardened and experienced, he has an excellent shot at coming out the winner in that pursuit. Maximilian I has every reason to support Richard, and their victory will result in him getting to marry Anne of Brittany (whereas in OTL, Charles VIII forced that to be annulled so he could marry Anne himself). These factors alone will produce major ramifications, but we're hardly done. Richard himself was set to be married to Joanna of Portugal, which would strengthen ties between Portugal and England. This offers fascinating perspectives for an Anglo-Portuguese alliance to rival Spain in the New World, at a time when France has been recently humbled in war.​

An English controlled "North America" and a Portuguese "South America" seems possible, while also keeping England (and thus likely the British Isles as a whole) Catholic.
 
The English state invests in a strong navy earlier for treasure fleet protection, whether it is run by the dynasty of Henry VII or Richard III, and instead of the English being the early pirates, it is Castilians, Frenchmen, Dutchmen, Flemings who are the early pirates trying to steal from the English.

To follow Columbus's desired route in the right latitudes to approach Cipangu (Japan), he will advocate for making stops in the Castilian Canaries or Portuguese Madeira, or the Portuguese Azores. Once that yields discovery of the Caribbean, England will have a vested interest in being able to continue to use those spots to re-provision, since direct trips from England to the Caribbean aren't possible to supply with the technology of that time. In the beginning this shouldn't be too problematic, because England didn't have any direct conflicts of interest with either Portugal or Castille.

The English would have to generously pay their port dues and the like. I could easily see the English being agreeable to a Tordesillas-like division of the globe with the Portuguese, yielding the eastern hemisphere to them, since the English have no developed interests in Africa or Asia yet.

By the way, this scenario is *only* interesting if the bolded part happens
Pretty much what it says on the tin. Christopher Columbus goes to the England of Henry Tudor (Henry VII) and convinces him to fund a small fleet to explore the great ocean depths. He stumbles into the New World as OTL, but it is England that is first aware of the West Indies and the first one to start exploring the rest of the region, eventually meeting the Aztecs and Incas ...
...by Columbus making first contact with the Caribbean.

When people speculate upon a Columbus getting a more northerly patron, they often assume he *must* take a more northerly route and *must* land much further north in the Americas (tracing the lines of his route x amount north), but that makes little sense, because he had a definite target zone in Asia in mind, in certain latitudes. But people have an allergy to thinking he could go from England to the Caribbean, as if he can only go from an English port to the Western Hemisphere and back, because somehow international trade or stops in other other countries' territory are verboten and every country is autarkic.

Besides, what does Columbus getting to America under English patronage, via the northern route, to New England, or to Newfoundland, get you?

A big fat boring nothingburger, a mere recreation of the OTL Cabot voyages that Henry VIII had no interest in continuing.
 
Is it pretty plausible to keep Castille from poaching on any of this hemisphere?

Would their ambitions be limited to the round Africa route, or even closer to home, just to North Africa and the Med?
 
I for one think we should not assume that the first wave of English cavalier/conquistador/traders in the American tropics would be too racially arrogant to not do intermarriage and mestizaje. I think we cannot assume automatically they would have the pattern of bringing their women with them like 1600s religiously motivated New England settlers.
 
I think we cannot assume automatically they would have the pattern of bringing their women with them like 1600s religiously motivated New England settlers.

Agreed, having wondered about this premise on and off for some time. My guess is that mestizaje happens as OTL, because I think English *Mexico will happen in the first place due to a coup by *Caribbean adventurers or merchents. But IMO this would be followed by "American"-type settler colonialism, because I assume the Crown and/or Parliament will still be open to financial ventures like letting people try to grow more cash crops in this strange new *Jalisco/*Tamaulipas/*Texas place, which will make *Mexico whiter over time, though it will vary by region. Anybody's guess what results from the founding "English" being significantly mixed-race but followed by ones who largely aren't. Could be a Spanish-style caste, a crackdown like that which followed Bacon's Rebellion, maybe even a 16th/17th-century-plausible form of tolerance. By this point, the butterflies abound...
 
Is it pretty plausible to keep Castille from poaching on any of this hemisphere?

Would their ambitions be limited to the round Africa route, or even closer to home, just to North Africa and the Med?

If we use the PoD I quoted from earlier, Castile would be cut off from such by the strong Anglo-Portuguese alliance. The "Spanish" or Castile could thus re-direct its energies into the Mediterranean basin. Andalusi Arabic speaking and Catholic North Africa, with Spanish missionaries and military expeditions into the interior to get at the gold there and convert the populace, would be a possible ramification.

I for one think we should not assume that the first wave of English cavalier/conquistador/traders in the American tropics would be too racially arrogant to not do intermarriage and mestizaje. I think we cannot assume automatically they would have the pattern of bringing their women with them like 1600s religiously motivated New England settlers.

Modern evidence seems to indicate there was no real difference in effective policy, the degree of intermixing that occurred in Latin America was just due to the large numbers of surviving natives post disease given their larger populations to begin with.
 
Modern evidence seems to indicate there was no real difference in effective policy, the degree of intermixing that occurred in Latin America was just due to the large numbers of surviving natives post disease given their larger populations to begin with.

Really?

Who's been doing scholarship on this comparative mestizaje question that you could point me to?
 
Back
Top