150 is more "realistic" than 300 just because its easier to handle atleast on the America side.
The use of metals was already a thing in the Andes and Mesoamerica, with the former having thousands of years of work and the later having about 700 years, but mostly in the west. The Mexica empire had some re-structuring at the time but would probably have undergone campaigns in Oaxaca and the Maya port cities during Moctezuma II. Oaxacan lands were a source of unrest so they may have become a burden.
The Tawantisuyu or Inca Empire would have solidified in Ecuador, and had the posibility of either going south or east, both areas they had been repelled prior. Ecuador is mostly understood to have been a source of maritine trade that went as far as West Mexico, perhaps in 150 years this connection is not only realized but made permanent so both soirces of civilization finally meet.
The bigger change for both is that 150 years later the main actors and reasons for Spanish aid would be gone: The Mexica would not have the passive Moctezuma, many of the possible allies of Spain would be dead and the chances of another freak accident(Spaniards crashed years prior to Cortes and became their translators) is slim. Of course other Iberian chances could have existed by that point.
Out of all i see the Inca surviving the longest as their administration was more sophisticated and had annexed all major civilizations in their area in under 90 years. It is understood that the death of the Inca emperor and his heir that started the civil war only happened because of european diseases killing both in the first place while they were conquering Ecuador so another 100 years is not out the question, spreading their use of metals all over the pacific coast.
What would your take on North American be? Colonization happened at a bit of a strange time bc the continent would’ve been still dealing with the collapse and dispersal of the mound builders.
Copper and Zinc can be found in the far north, as well as the American Southwest. But I don’t believe either area really have the populous to build a societal empire size structure around. Both were capable of copper working as they could produce things like ornamental bells, awls, knives and spear and arrowheads. Theorhetically, there could’ve been a brass age opposed to bronze.
Less interested in the effects on the Americas and more on Europe. The Americas are too large and too depopulated to create the hyper competitive environment we saw fuel European growth, expansion and war. The Americas would see the Aztecs and Inca flourish for another century or so but it has been argued these empires had already reached their zenith and were pushing the geographical limits of what they could control. The Incas having fought a civil war and the Aztecs dealing with rebellious subjects and a northern frontier devoid of large populations. The Mayans collapse still due to environmental issues and the Mound Builders were on their way out also for similar reasons. Maybe the Iroquois develop a stronger confederation but that’s it.
The natives of the New World aren’t going to transition to metal weapons. If they hadn’t done it on a large scale for a few thousand years a few centuries doesn’t change this. While the Meso-Americans had limited knowledge of metalworking they didn’t apply it to their military. That had obsidian arguably an equally effective tool when it comes to stabbing, cutting and killing. Why change if there is no need. That’s the key. Without the extreme hyper competition between large empires forcing enemies to get an edge on their enemies like in Europe, technological growth is stunted.
Simply put no radical change happens in the Americas. Discovering it in 1492, 1592, 1692, etc has no significant change. Maybe the tribal power dynamics shift slightly or an alternative leader is in power but no radical technology shift happens.
As for Europe… the absence of colonies in the 1500 and 1600s means about 200 years of continental wars are significantly altered. Spain is not the powerhouse we saw in our timeline without these colonies which fundamentally shifts the balance of power in the European Wars of Religion, the Anglo-Spanish Rivalry, Hapsburg Century (in which they controlled the Holy Roman Empire, Iberian Union and could significantly challenge most of Europe and win). The Nordic Nations will not magically make an effort to go find the long lost colony of Vinland which has become a legend few people outside of Iceland knew about or cared about. Besides Sweden they were largely irrelevant in these centuries and Sweden was never a real colonial player so this isn’t changed. France, England, Spain, the Germans however? Absolutely in ways I can’t predict.
Ironically in trying to have a scenario where the Americas become extremely altered you get the opposite result… an extremely altered Europe that I can’t predict
Not arguing against the fact radical changes happened. They did. I can point out numerous examples supporting the development of the hunter-gatherer tribes from the Ice Age into various agrarian societies across the two continents. What I will argue however is that the old world, especially Europe in this certain discussion, had far more radical and swift progress in comparison to their American counterparts largely due to the above factors I mentioned. What would spur hyper development within 150-300 years in the Americas? Barring some alternative change other than contact with the old world? We aren’t seeing the natives master metal working and get to Middle Ages technology in one or two centuries without contact which is my point. Even if they are left alone 100-300 years they aren’t so radically different that colonization plays out differently. They still aren’t immune to old world diseases, they still don’t have horses, guns or plate armor so the results are the same.
Edit: As I’ve been thinking on this. Perhaps a 500-1,000 years of growth without Europeans gives way to the radical changes we are looking for; the key here is the time gap from the POD and first contact. Europe however is fundamentally shifted with no colonies in the 1500s and beyond so no matter what colonization is different and Europe is different
150 years of divergence on both sides of the Atlantic means that the ultimate outcome would bear very little resemblance to our timeline. We’re talking about significantly different Europeans stepping into wildly different cultural and power dynamics.
My argument is the Americas are largely the same facing the same results. No matter who is doing the colonizing you are still getting smallpox and shot with guns. I don’t see a realistic way Native Americans catch up technology wise to Europe in 150 years if the only difference is a later contact. That said I agree with the rest. Europe is so different it’s not even worth speculating what it looks like. Basically all you can say is France, England, Spain, the Netherlands and Portugal all colonize but who gets what, who owns what and who is the dominate power is up in the air. You can even throw in some minor powers like Scotland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark and the German states.
Most of the major players the Europeans first contacted did not exist 150 years prior, and the Europeans who approached them were doing so under political and economic circumstances that likewise did not exist before then either.
The mindsets and incentives that shaped early contact with North America *would not exist*. You can’t even say that it would be France, England, Spain, the Netherlands and Portugal. Some of them might not even exist! Some of them might not feel the need to colonize, or if they did, not in the way they did so historically. They wouldn’t be seeking the same objectives, making the same alliances, or settling down in the same way.
Absolutely agree with you, the time difference is quite literally the time jump from the Darl ages to the very beginnings of Italian renaissance. You can’t tell me that level is insignificant. By the time major new world exploration happens, you’d be looking at the main timeline equivalent of the Reformation and 30 yrs war. Say for example, Sweden, Norway and Denmark had established successful colonies in Vinland. The possibility of Northern Europe not getting involved in the 30 yrs war, b/c of their focus on Vinland would have drastic consequences even into the modern day.
The only difference is phrasing and level of knowledge on the subject. Outside of maybe one or two ppl besides myself, no one else knew the Americas had metallurgy outside of the Inca.
For context, Viking culture settlements were found to be dated back to the 1020’s. Spanish conquistadors explored all throughout the 1500’s. The UK didn’t get involved until the 1600’s.
So let’s just say in this timeline; the rulers of the northern European countries band together in an effort to rekindle the same forces that pushed their great-grandfathers into exploring the known world. But they wish to go somewhere new. Just like the current timeline they find Iceland Greenland and Vinland. What would the advancement of technology at this point mean and how would it affect the Americas?
The settlement in Vinland was a failure from the very beginning and once the ones in Greenland ended up dying, the road to Vinland was permanently closed.
Even if the leadership of Nordic countries are going to tell themselves "I'm going to send a bunch of resources on an adventure that I have no idea if it's going to succeed with no substantial gains achievable apart from depleting the treasury" they can't change the fact that going to Vinland has become impossible.
I’m more meant from the Native American side of things. Is 200 to 250 years enough time to go from wood and stone weapons to metal? I’m not saying they would be using iron all of a sudden, but what about copper?
Is there a metallurgy industry that can develop itself amongst the various tribes of North America? I'm pretty doubtful.
Maybe if they managed to reach more sedentary entities in Central/Southern America.
There were things such as copper bells being created in theAmerican Southwest. And I also know of the far north peoples using copper for things like spear and arrowheads for aquatic mammal hunting. However, outside of those people groups there is not a lot of copper deposits in the US. which would mean that they would somehow need to skip copper and bronze and start working directly with iron
North Americans natives peoples around the Great Lakes actually used copper and cooper tools around the same time if not earlier than people in the old world. Now, they kinda cheated using native copper already found in pure form that they just pounded into shape without actually smithing or smelting for ore. Eventually the use mostly fell off because it was just more efficient to use faster to create stone and bone tools that could be easily replaced.
Seems like it was more of a mindset then a accessibility issue. I wonder what the reason for it would be? There had to be a few within the tribes that thought, 'maybe since I found it in the dirt, I can find more in the dirt if I dig.'
Doesn't seem like much of a stretch to say that the, "gopher/marmot clan." would be the providers of Copper, zinc, tin or whatever other ore you'd need.
So yes it is a mindset thing but you are thinking of technology as some linear march of progress, when in reality it’s just people making the most out of what they have for what they need to do. They used copper tools and even traded them all across the Mississippi watershed for centuries, but eventually they found and decided that it was a better use of their time to change make their arrow heads or other tools out of bone or stone as they were faster to make and replacing them was that big of a deal. One of the reasons those ancient copper cultures in the Americas used copper at all was because they *lacked* the other stones that were best for the tools they used. Eventually trade with outside areas brought those stones in.
Copper, bronze, and even eventually iron are better performing tools than stone and bone, but for what Natives in the Americas were doing, not by much and not really enough to make the incredibly hard work that goes into them worth it except as luxury items (which is how they ended up). Honestly, I would suspect that the reason metal tools *did* become so prominent in the old world is because of the role they played in religious traditions. Mesopotamians saw gold and silver as materials of the gods and thus sought them out. Incas had a similar belief of gold and were some of the most advanced metal smiths in the new world.
Copper and bronze are similarly shiny and often seen of the gods (tons of bronze through Greek mythology for example) and their added efficiency *is* useful in larger inter human conflicts. With domesticated animals, the old world had larger settlements and more people fighting over resources, and so they needed far more advancements in warfare to get the upper hand over each other. Meanwhile warfare in the new world, while still prevalent, seems smaller in scope and even in Mesoamerica much of it was for captives and likely prearranged in the Mayans case. Eventually the rarity of tin made the more common iron a more desirable tool, which is notably stronger and more useful than other material discussed but still requires a lot of labor to extract smelt and forge. Native Americans just didn’t need to, and so didn’t. There’s also to note that metal is heavy, and when your best pack animal is dogs or llamas you aren’t gonna be lugging a lot of metal ore and products around.
TLDR; Technology isn’t a linear line, peoples who lived just fine without metallurgy never needed to develop it. Also it likely has far more to do with either religion, the domesticated animals of the old world compared to the new, or more likely a combination and more
Beforehand. When I say northern peoples, I mean the Arctic Circle. so what is today far north Alaska and the northern territories. After looking into it, the majority of tin deposits are within Alaska as well.
Tin however is much more plentifully found on the continent. So, it’s possible that North American peoples, mainly the Inuit Alaskan and American Southwest, could’ve gone through a Brass Age. Which would actually explain rumors of “the cities of Gold” in the americas.
There were metallurgy industries in mesoamerica and in the Pacific Northwest. The Purepecha worked bronze as well as any Europeans at the time and iron knives were relatively common in the PNW.
No "What If" questions, Shitposts, and Memes
150 is more "realistic" than 300 just because its easier to handle atleast on the America side. The use of metals was already a thing in the Andes and Mesoamerica, with the former having thousands of years of work and the later having about 700 years, but mostly in the west. The Mexica empire had some re-structuring at the time but would probably have undergone campaigns in Oaxaca and the Maya port cities during Moctezuma II. Oaxacan lands were a source of unrest so they may have become a burden. The Tawantisuyu or Inca Empire would have solidified in Ecuador, and had the posibility of either going south or east, both areas they had been repelled prior. Ecuador is mostly understood to have been a source of maritine trade that went as far as West Mexico, perhaps in 150 years this connection is not only realized but made permanent so both soirces of civilization finally meet. The bigger change for both is that 150 years later the main actors and reasons for Spanish aid would be gone: The Mexica would not have the passive Moctezuma, many of the possible allies of Spain would be dead and the chances of another freak accident(Spaniards crashed years prior to Cortes and became their translators) is slim. Of course other Iberian chances could have existed by that point. Out of all i see the Inca surviving the longest as their administration was more sophisticated and had annexed all major civilizations in their area in under 90 years. It is understood that the death of the Inca emperor and his heir that started the civil war only happened because of european diseases killing both in the first place while they were conquering Ecuador so another 100 years is not out the question, spreading their use of metals all over the pacific coast.
What would your take on North American be? Colonization happened at a bit of a strange time bc the continent would’ve been still dealing with the collapse and dispersal of the mound builders. Copper and Zinc can be found in the far north, as well as the American Southwest. But I don’t believe either area really have the populous to build a societal empire size structure around. Both were capable of copper working as they could produce things like ornamental bells, awls, knives and spear and arrowheads. Theorhetically, there could’ve been a brass age opposed to bronze.
Less interested in the effects on the Americas and more on Europe. The Americas are too large and too depopulated to create the hyper competitive environment we saw fuel European growth, expansion and war. The Americas would see the Aztecs and Inca flourish for another century or so but it has been argued these empires had already reached their zenith and were pushing the geographical limits of what they could control. The Incas having fought a civil war and the Aztecs dealing with rebellious subjects and a northern frontier devoid of large populations. The Mayans collapse still due to environmental issues and the Mound Builders were on their way out also for similar reasons. Maybe the Iroquois develop a stronger confederation but that’s it. The natives of the New World aren’t going to transition to metal weapons. If they hadn’t done it on a large scale for a few thousand years a few centuries doesn’t change this. While the Meso-Americans had limited knowledge of metalworking they didn’t apply it to their military. That had obsidian arguably an equally effective tool when it comes to stabbing, cutting and killing. Why change if there is no need. That’s the key. Without the extreme hyper competition between large empires forcing enemies to get an edge on their enemies like in Europe, technological growth is stunted. Simply put no radical change happens in the Americas. Discovering it in 1492, 1592, 1692, etc has no significant change. Maybe the tribal power dynamics shift slightly or an alternative leader is in power but no radical technology shift happens. As for Europe… the absence of colonies in the 1500 and 1600s means about 200 years of continental wars are significantly altered. Spain is not the powerhouse we saw in our timeline without these colonies which fundamentally shifts the balance of power in the European Wars of Religion, the Anglo-Spanish Rivalry, Hapsburg Century (in which they controlled the Holy Roman Empire, Iberian Union and could significantly challenge most of Europe and win). The Nordic Nations will not magically make an effort to go find the long lost colony of Vinland which has become a legend few people outside of Iceland knew about or cared about. Besides Sweden they were largely irrelevant in these centuries and Sweden was never a real colonial player so this isn’t changed. France, England, Spain, the Germans however? Absolutely in ways I can’t predict. Ironically in trying to have a scenario where the Americas become extremely altered you get the opposite result… an extremely altered Europe that I can’t predict
The idea that there was no radical changes in North America before the Europeans is pretty ahistorical.
Not arguing against the fact radical changes happened. They did. I can point out numerous examples supporting the development of the hunter-gatherer tribes from the Ice Age into various agrarian societies across the two continents. What I will argue however is that the old world, especially Europe in this certain discussion, had far more radical and swift progress in comparison to their American counterparts largely due to the above factors I mentioned. What would spur hyper development within 150-300 years in the Americas? Barring some alternative change other than contact with the old world? We aren’t seeing the natives master metal working and get to Middle Ages technology in one or two centuries without contact which is my point. Even if they are left alone 100-300 years they aren’t so radically different that colonization plays out differently. They still aren’t immune to old world diseases, they still don’t have horses, guns or plate armor so the results are the same. Edit: As I’ve been thinking on this. Perhaps a 500-1,000 years of growth without Europeans gives way to the radical changes we are looking for; the key here is the time gap from the POD and first contact. Europe however is fundamentally shifted with no colonies in the 1500s and beyond so no matter what colonization is different and Europe is different
150 years of divergence on both sides of the Atlantic means that the ultimate outcome would bear very little resemblance to our timeline. We’re talking about significantly different Europeans stepping into wildly different cultural and power dynamics.
My argument is the Americas are largely the same facing the same results. No matter who is doing the colonizing you are still getting smallpox and shot with guns. I don’t see a realistic way Native Americans catch up technology wise to Europe in 150 years if the only difference is a later contact. That said I agree with the rest. Europe is so different it’s not even worth speculating what it looks like. Basically all you can say is France, England, Spain, the Netherlands and Portugal all colonize but who gets what, who owns what and who is the dominate power is up in the air. You can even throw in some minor powers like Scotland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark and the German states.
Most of the major players the Europeans first contacted did not exist 150 years prior, and the Europeans who approached them were doing so under political and economic circumstances that likewise did not exist before then either. The mindsets and incentives that shaped early contact with North America *would not exist*. You can’t even say that it would be France, England, Spain, the Netherlands and Portugal. Some of them might not even exist! Some of them might not feel the need to colonize, or if they did, not in the way they did so historically. They wouldn’t be seeking the same objectives, making the same alliances, or settling down in the same way.
Absolutely agree with you, the time difference is quite literally the time jump from the Darl ages to the very beginnings of Italian renaissance. You can’t tell me that level is insignificant. By the time major new world exploration happens, you’d be looking at the main timeline equivalent of the Reformation and 30 yrs war. Say for example, Sweden, Norway and Denmark had established successful colonies in Vinland. The possibility of Northern Europe not getting involved in the 30 yrs war, b/c of their focus on Vinland would have drastic consequences even into the modern day.
Great discussion here but r/HistoryWhatIf is the more appropriate place for this.
The only difference is phrasing and level of knowledge on the subject. Outside of maybe one or two ppl besides myself, no one else knew the Americas had metallurgy outside of the Inca.
For context, Viking culture settlements were found to be dated back to the 1020’s. Spanish conquistadors explored all throughout the 1500’s. The UK didn’t get involved until the 1600’s. So let’s just say in this timeline; the rulers of the northern European countries band together in an effort to rekindle the same forces that pushed their great-grandfathers into exploring the known world. But they wish to go somewhere new. Just like the current timeline they find Iceland Greenland and Vinland. What would the advancement of technology at this point mean and how would it affect the Americas?
The settlement in Vinland was a failure from the very beginning and once the ones in Greenland ended up dying, the road to Vinland was permanently closed. Even if the leadership of Nordic countries are going to tell themselves "I'm going to send a bunch of resources on an adventure that I have no idea if it's going to succeed with no substantial gains achievable apart from depleting the treasury" they can't change the fact that going to Vinland has become impossible.
I’m more meant from the Native American side of things. Is 200 to 250 years enough time to go from wood and stone weapons to metal? I’m not saying they would be using iron all of a sudden, but what about copper?
Is there a metallurgy industry that can develop itself amongst the various tribes of North America? I'm pretty doubtful. Maybe if they managed to reach more sedentary entities in Central/Southern America.
There were things such as copper bells being created in theAmerican Southwest. And I also know of the far north peoples using copper for things like spear and arrowheads for aquatic mammal hunting. However, outside of those people groups there is not a lot of copper deposits in the US. which would mean that they would somehow need to skip copper and bronze and start working directly with iron
When? Before or after the Europeans arrived?
North Americans natives peoples around the Great Lakes actually used copper and cooper tools around the same time if not earlier than people in the old world. Now, they kinda cheated using native copper already found in pure form that they just pounded into shape without actually smithing or smelting for ore. Eventually the use mostly fell off because it was just more efficient to use faster to create stone and bone tools that could be easily replaced.
Seems like it was more of a mindset then a accessibility issue. I wonder what the reason for it would be? There had to be a few within the tribes that thought, 'maybe since I found it in the dirt, I can find more in the dirt if I dig.' Doesn't seem like much of a stretch to say that the, "gopher/marmot clan." would be the providers of Copper, zinc, tin or whatever other ore you'd need.
So yes it is a mindset thing but you are thinking of technology as some linear march of progress, when in reality it’s just people making the most out of what they have for what they need to do. They used copper tools and even traded them all across the Mississippi watershed for centuries, but eventually they found and decided that it was a better use of their time to change make their arrow heads or other tools out of bone or stone as they were faster to make and replacing them was that big of a deal. One of the reasons those ancient copper cultures in the Americas used copper at all was because they *lacked* the other stones that were best for the tools they used. Eventually trade with outside areas brought those stones in. Copper, bronze, and even eventually iron are better performing tools than stone and bone, but for what Natives in the Americas were doing, not by much and not really enough to make the incredibly hard work that goes into them worth it except as luxury items (which is how they ended up). Honestly, I would suspect that the reason metal tools *did* become so prominent in the old world is because of the role they played in religious traditions. Mesopotamians saw gold and silver as materials of the gods and thus sought them out. Incas had a similar belief of gold and were some of the most advanced metal smiths in the new world. Copper and bronze are similarly shiny and often seen of the gods (tons of bronze through Greek mythology for example) and their added efficiency *is* useful in larger inter human conflicts. With domesticated animals, the old world had larger settlements and more people fighting over resources, and so they needed far more advancements in warfare to get the upper hand over each other. Meanwhile warfare in the new world, while still prevalent, seems smaller in scope and even in Mesoamerica much of it was for captives and likely prearranged in the Mayans case. Eventually the rarity of tin made the more common iron a more desirable tool, which is notably stronger and more useful than other material discussed but still requires a lot of labor to extract smelt and forge. Native Americans just didn’t need to, and so didn’t. There’s also to note that metal is heavy, and when your best pack animal is dogs or llamas you aren’t gonna be lugging a lot of metal ore and products around. TLDR; Technology isn’t a linear line, peoples who lived just fine without metallurgy never needed to develop it. Also it likely has far more to do with either religion, the domesticated animals of the old world compared to the new, or more likely a combination and more
Beforehand. When I say northern peoples, I mean the Arctic Circle. so what is today far north Alaska and the northern territories. After looking into it, the majority of tin deposits are within Alaska as well. Tin however is much more plentifully found on the continent. So, it’s possible that North American peoples, mainly the Inuit Alaskan and American Southwest, could’ve gone through a Brass Age. Which would actually explain rumors of “the cities of Gold” in the americas.
There were metallurgy industries in mesoamerica and in the Pacific Northwest. The Purepecha worked bronze as well as any Europeans at the time and iron knives were relatively common in the PNW.