If European explorers never settled in America, what would of happened? (Egypt, 80s)

[Watchman57]

Millions of native people wouldn't have been exterminated...

[SunGrins]

The Italians would never have had tomato sauce. There would never have been a potato famine in Ireland. Corn (Maize) based food would never have been developed. No Quinoa. No Chocolate.

The first explorers were not looking for the Americas. They were looking for a sea route to the far east. Columbus simply beat the rest of the bunch. He was looking for commerce with India or China. Marco Polo had been there and back by 1295. Commerce and industry were on the rise and ideas and inventions were going to be shared one way or another. Anyway, the Portuguese were fishing off the coast of Canada and sailing around Africa so it was likely just a matter of a few years if Columbus had never sailed (or had never returned). There were places out over the horizon that Europeans knew about -- Cape Verde, the Canary Islands, the Azores (not to mention Iceland and Greenland). We really don't know how many other people sailed over the horizon and never came back but the Azores were being shown on European maps in the 1420s.

[MinivanDriver]

Native Americans were conquering and exterminating one another for millennia before Columbus landed on San Salvador. The Incas and the Aztecs would have overrun huge portions of the Americas, then probably have been locked in a mortal death struggle somewhere around the Isthmus of Panama. If you think the Spanish, English, and French were harsh...

[mkwensky]

Originally Posted by MinivanDriver

Native Americans were conquering and exterminating one another for millennia before Columbus landed on San Salvador. The Incas and the Aztecs would have overrun huge portions of the Americas, then probably have been locked in a mortal death struggle somewhere around the Isthmus of Panama. If you think the Spanish, English, and French were harsh...

Unlikely. The jungles of central America presents a logistic nightmare that only 20th century technology can overcome. There's also no need to exaggerate NA cruelty to make the Europeans look good. The Incas in particular were for the most part pragmatic conquerors who didn't resort to psychological terror like the Mongols.

The Aztecs were a tribute empire based on an alliance of three city states. They could barely project their power into the Yucatan let along south into Guatemala.

There was nothing in NA history that resembled Spanish death factories the Potosi silver mines, except maybe Aztec human sacrifice.

[MinivanDriver]

Originally Posted by mkwensky

Unlikely. The jungles of central America presents a logistic nightmare that only 20th century technology can overcome. There's also no need to exaggerate NA cruelty to make the Europeans look good. The Incas in particular were for the most part pragmatic conquerors who didn't resort to psychological terror like the Mongols.

The Aztecs were a tribute empire based on an alliance of three city states. They could barely project their power into the Yucatan let along south into Guatemala.

There was nothing in NA history that resembled Spanish death factories the Potosi silver mines, except maybe Aztec human sacrifice.

Well, the Mayans did well for a while.



By the way, I'm not trying to softpedal what the Europeans did. All I'm trying to do is put paid to the ridiculous notion that pre-Columbian America was kind of this benign paradise. Indians were killing and conquering one another long before the Europeans. Further, who is to say that the Incas, Aztecs, or someone else would not have become more ruthless with time as their populations grew?

[Brave New World]

Originally Posted by 2x3x29x41

Beyond that, Mircea is ignorant of British overtures to the USSR. Rather ignorant of Churchill, too.

In 1940, MP Stafford Cripps, on behalf of Churchill, was in Moscow appealing to Stalin for both a trade pact and a non-aggression pact. In October of that year, Cripps assured Moscow that postwar, Britain would be amenable to accepting Soviet sovereignty where it had already seized entire countries (the Baltics) or chunks of them (Poland, Romania). Stalin spurned the UK, because he was bent on cozying up to Germany at the time (Stalin got played, and played badly, by Ribbentrop and Hitler).

In 1945, after Yalta, Churchill spoke to Parliament and was effusive in his opinion of Stalin honoring agreements regarding the postwar governments of places like Poland. The Prime Minister assured the MPs that Poland would be free and independent, and directly compared his trust of Stalin with Chamberlain's trust of Hitler, noting that while Neville was misguided he - Churchill - was confident that Stalin would reward his confidence. This is not the happy public face of someone dragged into something by an American President - Churchill was very much at the fore at Yalta, and he was certain that Stalin would respect the agreements made there.

Stafford Cripps never spoke for Churchill, indeed he was only sent to Moscow because he had deep Marxist Communist sympathies and might be better able to talk to Stalin. However to suggest he was even liked by Churchill would have been streching it.

As for Yalta, the US played a decisive role, as Britain a Naval Power did not have a strong hand to play at Yalta or Potsdam in terms of Stalin and the mighty Soviet Land Forces.

The most Churchill could do was to try and press for free elections and democratic governments in Eastern and Central Europe, including Poland.

[Ta-Seti]

Native American culture and civilization that was reinforced with African culture via the Olmecs and the Moors who long coexisted with the natives (hence why some Native Americans were found with Muslim names) in America would have continued to flourish. The Moors for example already had set up many of the coastal towns and cities like Charleston SC before the white Europeans finally ousted them from their established base in Europe, and took over their trade routes.

[thriftylefty]

Wouldn't you have to envision a series of events that would have prevented Europe from landing in the New Word? Like the Ottomans remained a world power or Europe was never part of the Roman Empire.

[homestead123]

Originally Posted by Ta-Seti

Native American culture and civilization that was reinforced with African culture via the Olmecs and the Moors who long coexisted with the natives (hence why some Native Americans were found with Muslim names) in America would have continued to flourish. The Moors for example already had set up many of the coastal towns and cities like Charleston SC before the white Europeans finally ousted them from their established base in Europe, and took over their trade routes.

Wow, I never knew this history? Can you back that up with some sources??

Back to the question, what would have happend? Hmmmm, Maybe the asians would have come and conquered them?

Someone would have, just as any other people group

[norman_w]

They probably would have anyway. Just because Scandinavia is so cold it provides reason to go exploring.