Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Assuming the mountains went with, the new “East coast” would have fairly horrendous weather with a highly continental climate paired with elevation making some areas very brutal to live in. The new “West Coast” would be far more mild even as far inland as the Great Lakes as the Appalachians wouldn’t block as much of the moist warmer Pacific air as the Cascades and Sierra Nevadas do. However, there’s not as much to block other warm/cold fronts either so there could be a potential for extremes including polar vortices. Overall the new “west coast” and quite a ways inland would be more similar to Western Europe which doesn’t have many mountains until you hit the Alps.
Florida would be a total paradise. A dry, mild Florida with no bugs or swamps.
Actually, one other note: some of the more southern areas of the new “east coast” would have a very nice subtropical highland climate. This will be very localized and dependent on elevation. We don’t really have that climate in the US because the Appalachians aren’t high enough nor do they go south enough. It would be interesting because the inland areas at higher elevation would have the better weather while the coast would have the better scenery but hotter weather. In the southeast at least.
Well for one there are many variables involved with many butterfly effects and a lot depends on how and where you exactly you flip. One of the biggest changes is that the climates would swap as well, so the southeast would have a Mediterranean climate, California would have a humid subtropical climate, Peru would be a lush tropical rainforest while southern Brazil would be a dry barren desert just to name a few. also It's not certain if a land bridge would exist between N. America and Asia so horses, donkeys and camels may never have crossed over the land bridge to Asia, and that would have a huge impact on Eurasian civilizations, and then wolves, bears and large cats would never cross into the Americas and so the terror birds would probably still be the apex predator. So I'm not sure how many of these variables you want to take into account.
So for simplicity sake if all variables remain more or less the same. The climates are the same and the native Americans were able to settle the Americas in much the same way then the following can be deduced.
Firstly South America would be where Polynesia is today meaning the Polynesians would've made contact with Brazilian natives by around 1200 BCE and perhaps even settled the coastal areas depending on how much resistance they would've received and they most definitely would've sailed up the coast to the Caribbean and possibly up the Amazon river. Most of Asia however would still remain oblivious to the the Americas and vice versa, but the spread of technologies and domestic plants and animals and diseases would've peculated around, although I'm not sure if Polynesians had access to iron tools so I'm not sure how big of an impact this exchange would've been. In any case sea faring technology would've been introduced to the likes of the Maya so there would've been a lot more trade going on in the Caribbean and gulf of Mexico.
The other big difference would've been with the Aleutian Island extending quite far east and at about 1000 CE the Vikings would start to make contact with the Aleuts and settle Alaska. Because the Aleutian islands are much further south than Greenland it means the Viking colonies would've never collapsed and so Denmark would eventually inherit them, making Denmark the first European colonizer and they would get rich off of the furs and gold in Alaska.
It's hard to say how European colonization would play out after that but after the fall of Constantinople in 1453 Europeans were mostly cut off from the silk roads so the Europeans would've still looked for alternative routes and the age of discovery would've kicked off. Because the Americas would be so much further west, Christopher Columbus would've never made it across the ocean, so Portuguese and Spanish colonization of the America's wouldn't have occurred (or at least not to the same degree). So it would've been John Cabot's voyages in in 1497 that everyone would remember, all though perhaps Denmark would've sent expeditions further down the coast much earlier.
But as far as the territory of the US goes, the British probably would've still formed their version of the 13 colonies meaning that the Puget sound and Willamette valley would've had the highest population numbers. And the French may have also muscled their way in as well forming Quebec where modern day Vancouver is and used the Fraser river to access the furs further inland, while the British would've used the Columbia and Snake rivers for the same and then of course built many plantations in the Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys with the bay area being another large population center.
And then on the other side the Russians would've eventually make it to the east and northern coast of Canada and setting up colonies there in the 1800s unless the other European powers got there first. In any case Russia wouldn't have been able to send many settlers and wouldn't have a large population unless they successfully assimilated the natives, which they did in our timeline with the Aleuts to an extant.
I doubt that the English would have made much of a mark in this flipped scenario. The Cabots and the later Frobisher were separated by Henry VIII's reign. Henry VII was interested in exploration but died (1509) leaving Henry VIII to do whatever he wanted with wives, jousting, and religion. Elizabeth I revived an interest in exploration. Henry VIII set the country back at least a generation or two. Elizabeth, saddled with the religious conflicts and multiple invasion threats, still sent out some explorers.
But sailing west they would have run smack into the Aleutian Island chain, with a more temperate climate and probably well occupied by Scandinavians (Danes, Norse), and possibly some Irish missionaries, for many generations. It would not have been unknown lands. The eastern coast of North America would probably have developed into a kingdom or kingdoms before the English were ready to send out explorers or colonists. There probably would not be a USA as we think of it. The Atlantic would have covered almost half the planet so the coastal explorers, like the Vikings, would have beaten everyone else. If there was an indigenous population in North America, there is nothing to keep them from going to Europe, especially if there was a current even half as strong as the Gulf Stream.
If we include Greenland as part of North America and squeeze it in east of Siberia, that shoves the far Aleutians almost up into the Outer Hebrides. In that case there might have been some island-hopping Scots and Picts that found their way to the North American mainland. But the Vikings would have been much more at home in the fjords and inlets if the climate was temperate and would eventually overcome any defense the locals could have managed, being that far from their home base in Scotland. Perhaps a city or trading ports would have been established on one of the islands, like Amchitka or the Tanaga/Kanaga islands. The islands and the entire coastline from Kodiak to Portland, and the Columbia River, would have resembled Norway with maybe a better climate. There would be a city near Portland and at Vancouver. The Fraser/Thompson Rivers, the Columbia River and the Colorado River (flowing into the Gulf of California) would have led explorers and settlers into a slightly more hospitable interior. I suspect there would be coastal settlements in California and something larger, a city, on San Francisco Bay. One other possibility is whether there might have been crusades going west to convert the distant Viking settlements like there was in the Baltic region in the 1200s. That might have changed the picture of settlement and trade.
If we include Greenland as part of North America and squeeze it in east of Siberia, that shoves the far Aleutians almost up into the Outer Hebrides. In that case there might have been some island-hopping Scots and Picts that found their way to the North American mainland. But the Vikings would have been much more at home in the fjords and inlets if the climate was temperate and would eventually overcome any defense the locals could have managed, being that far from their home base in Scotland. Perhaps a city or trading ports would have been established on one of the islands, like Amchitka or the Tanaga/Kanaga islands. The islands and the entire coastline from Kodiak to Portland, and the Columbia River, would have resembled Norway with maybe a better climate. There would be a city near Portland and at Vancouver. The Fraser/Thompson Rivers, the Columbia River and the Colorado River (flowing into the Gulf of California) would have led explorers and settlers into a slightly more hospitable interior. I suspect there would be coastal settlements in California and something larger, a city, on San Francisco Bay. One other possibility is whether there might have been crusades going west to convert the distant Viking settlements like there was in the Baltic region in the 1200s. That might have changed the picture of settlement and trade.
I was trying to create a version of that but Greenland would abut Russia and looked a bit jarring, but I was able to create a more balanced and pleasing map by cutting Iceland in half (it is on the North American plate) and swapped it with the peninsula that sticks out in Chukotka Russia (which is also part of the North American plate). But in this scenario there would be no land bridge connecting the Americas with Eurasia and that opens a whole other can of worms.
The northwest would be the most economically powerful region in North America. Lots of flat land, and a mild climate for growing lots of wheat. Florida would be a desert peninsula like Baja California.
The east coast of the U.S. would be more like Japan & Korea. Mountainous and rainy with 4 seasons.
Attu Island, in Alaska's Aleutians, would find itself parked in downtown Glasgow or Oslo. That would significantly affect Euro exploration. Caesar would have Roman roads there.
There's a guy who did an extended post on this back in 2003. Here is his website. It's a total flip, so the U.S. is also in the southern hemisphere, but it would be basically the same in terms of climate as your scenario.
Looking at North America:
1. West coast is much wetter - not just the Pacific Northwest, but everything all the way down to Mexico. The climate further up into what would be Canada/Alaska is significantly colder than our world, edging into Siberian.
2. Interior portions of the West are also much wetter due to greater snowpack in the Great Basin.
3. Most of the U.S. between the Rockies and the Appalachians is a giant desert/semi-desert, save for the areas immediately around the Mississippi and its tributaries (which will be smaller than in our world).
4. The East Coast of the U.S. is the West coast here, with a similar climate. This means California-like around Savannah, edging into temperate rainforest in the Northeast. Eastern Canada is much warmer than our world due to the different ocean currents, with even parts of Greenland lacking glaciation.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
