Not too long ago, Orson Scott Card, author of the Ender series of books, delved into the alternate history genre, creating "Pastwatch: The Redemption of Christopher Columbus". I thought I would tell you a little about it, because it poses a very interesting question.
I won't reveal the ending of the story; only the information leading up to the theory, which might make for an interesting EU scenario, and this is about 1/3 of the way through the book.
Ok, here goes:
A historian from our future, with the aid of a device that allows her to view the past somewhat directly, determines that there is entirely too much suffering in our history. When the Europeans started breaking out of Europe in the 1400's, they started conquering everyone they came across. Africa, the Americas, the Far East... You get the picture. The Europeans treated all they came across as being less than human, yet they still tried to Christianize them, and it made perfect sense to them that one Christian could so take advantage of another. This, along with diseases and culture shock, caused untold suffering and death among the non-Europeans.
She determines that there is a point in history where things can be turned by making one little change. Columbus' voyage was a major turning point in our history. Sure, others had sighted America, but no one wanted to bring large numbers of Europeans over until Columbus, with little in the way of proof, wrote in his logs about all the gold that was there for the taking, all the quiet savages waiting to become laborers and to learn the teachings of Christianity. This causes a veritable flood of Spanish, and then other Europeans, to come over to grab what easy riches they could and cart it back home.
So they study Columbus, trying to figure out why he decided to go west. They find that he actually wanted to go east, to free Constantinople and the Holyland from the Turk; that in a fight against some pirates (led by another man named Columbus) he swore to God that he would accomplish this great task if He let him live.
Upon reaching the shore, he sees a vision from God, as do the historians, telling him that he must go west, telling him about the gold and peoples waiting for him and God's word to reach them. (I presume a lot of this is the author embellishing; who really knows why he wanted to go west so bad?) So he dedicates his life to preparing himself for this great task, and spends years in the Spanish Court trying to convince the King and Queen to allow him to sail.
Well, the historians are suspicious about this vision from God, since they could see it too, and they discover it was produced by a holoprojector. They determine that people from another timeline sent that projector, and in so doing, destroyed themselves, so that the world might be changed for the better. So what was so bad about the world that they destroyed themselves to save humanity as a whole?
At first they thought Columbus, who had a very powerful presence and seemed capable of anything at all, had conquered the Turks and that made it easier to supplicate the Far East, and that some how, somewhere, things got really trashed up. But then some one else comes up with a different idea (and this is the thing for the potential EU scenario): while the Aztecs were known to be in decline, and about to fall, there were other tribes near the Aztecs who were more advanced in some ways, and had Cortez not found them, could have taken over from the Aztecs.
The Mexica were into human sacrifice in a big way. But their view on it was changing due to practicality; you couldn't conquer a land, kill all the best men there, and expect the new land to be productive. So their priests were coming up with the idea of needing sacrifices only AFTER a war. If you make peace, and are Diploannexed into the Mexica state, then there was no war, and no need to destroy your population, so it was an incentive for tribes to join with them.
The Mexica were learning about Bronze, and in a few years, once they reached more iron-rich areas, would surely have advanced out of the bronze age and into an iron age. But the Europeans arrived a few years too early. Had they not, the Mexica would have had basic iron weapons, and when the Europeans came, the Mexica would not have thought them gods; merely more advanced tribes. They would have easily massacred any expeditions and learned all about European technology, while Europe would see the continual loss of ships with no reply as further evidence that these expeditions had sailed off the edge of the world. It could have been maybe 50 years before the Europeans started sending larger forces over, if at all, and with the Mexica REQUIRING constant growth to maintain stability, they would have eventually crossed the Atlantic.
Additionally, the Mexica would have suffered, and then become immune to European diseases, while the opposite would not be true. The Europeans would suffer from plagues brought from the west, making it very easy to conquer some European or Africa territory, and thereby gaining a foothold.
Surely, once that happened, a European nation or two would have fallen to the savageness of the Mexica armies, and upon seeing that all the men in the best condition (the gods required healthy sacrifices, and lots of them) of the conquered areas were being slaughtered, then the other nations would have to make a choice. Ally with the Mexica and avoid the sacrifices or die. As we see in EU, Europe is quite fragmented, and alliances shift all the time as kings jockey for position and power, so there would not likely be a unified front against the Mexica, as there wasn't one against the Turk, who controlled the Holy Land.
He doesn't go into further detail about it, because it's rather moot. The Mexica are far bloodier than the Europeans, and may have conquered the world. There's a lot more book, of course, and it's a great read; Card is a potent writer in his prime.
So now comes the EU scenario part, which is all my conjecture, and the intended subject of further debate. How do we set it up? It would be difficult to model the unique alliance-building system of the Mexica, but I don't think that would really be a problem. They would have maps of Europe from the Portuguese at the least. From that knowledge, I suspect they would want to crack the more profitable target first: Europe, and they'd start with what they knew the most of: Portugal and Spain and probably northwest Africa (Morocco and Algiers area). Not many would mourn the loss of Spain and Portugal, so the Mexica can consolidate much of their gains by 1560. Let's say contact was made in 1550, so we know or can extrapolate what Europe should look like then.
In the Americas, they don't bother with the weak tribes of eastern North America, and probably don't penetrate the jungles of South America too deeply, though I think they might have absorbed the Incas and stayed along the west coast of the Americas (and would also own the Caribbean).
They generate lots of colonists, have a higher than normal rate of army generation, and have a large standing army. Their technology will be slightly less than most Europeans'. Their traders will be automatically banned in European CoTs, and this gives them a CB against every European state, and they have a CoT ban against all other European nations, but this does not give a CB against them.
Any other ideas, or thoughts? Discuss!
I won't reveal the ending of the story; only the information leading up to the theory, which might make for an interesting EU scenario, and this is about 1/3 of the way through the book.
Ok, here goes:
A historian from our future, with the aid of a device that allows her to view the past somewhat directly, determines that there is entirely too much suffering in our history. When the Europeans started breaking out of Europe in the 1400's, they started conquering everyone they came across. Africa, the Americas, the Far East... You get the picture. The Europeans treated all they came across as being less than human, yet they still tried to Christianize them, and it made perfect sense to them that one Christian could so take advantage of another. This, along with diseases and culture shock, caused untold suffering and death among the non-Europeans.
She determines that there is a point in history where things can be turned by making one little change. Columbus' voyage was a major turning point in our history. Sure, others had sighted America, but no one wanted to bring large numbers of Europeans over until Columbus, with little in the way of proof, wrote in his logs about all the gold that was there for the taking, all the quiet savages waiting to become laborers and to learn the teachings of Christianity. This causes a veritable flood of Spanish, and then other Europeans, to come over to grab what easy riches they could and cart it back home.
So they study Columbus, trying to figure out why he decided to go west. They find that he actually wanted to go east, to free Constantinople and the Holyland from the Turk; that in a fight against some pirates (led by another man named Columbus) he swore to God that he would accomplish this great task if He let him live.
Upon reaching the shore, he sees a vision from God, as do the historians, telling him that he must go west, telling him about the gold and peoples waiting for him and God's word to reach them. (I presume a lot of this is the author embellishing; who really knows why he wanted to go west so bad?) So he dedicates his life to preparing himself for this great task, and spends years in the Spanish Court trying to convince the King and Queen to allow him to sail.
Well, the historians are suspicious about this vision from God, since they could see it too, and they discover it was produced by a holoprojector. They determine that people from another timeline sent that projector, and in so doing, destroyed themselves, so that the world might be changed for the better. So what was so bad about the world that they destroyed themselves to save humanity as a whole?
At first they thought Columbus, who had a very powerful presence and seemed capable of anything at all, had conquered the Turks and that made it easier to supplicate the Far East, and that some how, somewhere, things got really trashed up. But then some one else comes up with a different idea (and this is the thing for the potential EU scenario): while the Aztecs were known to be in decline, and about to fall, there were other tribes near the Aztecs who were more advanced in some ways, and had Cortez not found them, could have taken over from the Aztecs.
The Mexica were into human sacrifice in a big way. But their view on it was changing due to practicality; you couldn't conquer a land, kill all the best men there, and expect the new land to be productive. So their priests were coming up with the idea of needing sacrifices only AFTER a war. If you make peace, and are Diploannexed into the Mexica state, then there was no war, and no need to destroy your population, so it was an incentive for tribes to join with them.
The Mexica were learning about Bronze, and in a few years, once they reached more iron-rich areas, would surely have advanced out of the bronze age and into an iron age. But the Europeans arrived a few years too early. Had they not, the Mexica would have had basic iron weapons, and when the Europeans came, the Mexica would not have thought them gods; merely more advanced tribes. They would have easily massacred any expeditions and learned all about European technology, while Europe would see the continual loss of ships with no reply as further evidence that these expeditions had sailed off the edge of the world. It could have been maybe 50 years before the Europeans started sending larger forces over, if at all, and with the Mexica REQUIRING constant growth to maintain stability, they would have eventually crossed the Atlantic.
Additionally, the Mexica would have suffered, and then become immune to European diseases, while the opposite would not be true. The Europeans would suffer from plagues brought from the west, making it very easy to conquer some European or Africa territory, and thereby gaining a foothold.
Surely, once that happened, a European nation or two would have fallen to the savageness of the Mexica armies, and upon seeing that all the men in the best condition (the gods required healthy sacrifices, and lots of them) of the conquered areas were being slaughtered, then the other nations would have to make a choice. Ally with the Mexica and avoid the sacrifices or die. As we see in EU, Europe is quite fragmented, and alliances shift all the time as kings jockey for position and power, so there would not likely be a unified front against the Mexica, as there wasn't one against the Turk, who controlled the Holy Land.
He doesn't go into further detail about it, because it's rather moot. The Mexica are far bloodier than the Europeans, and may have conquered the world. There's a lot more book, of course, and it's a great read; Card is a potent writer in his prime.
So now comes the EU scenario part, which is all my conjecture, and the intended subject of further debate. How do we set it up? It would be difficult to model the unique alliance-building system of the Mexica, but I don't think that would really be a problem. They would have maps of Europe from the Portuguese at the least. From that knowledge, I suspect they would want to crack the more profitable target first: Europe, and they'd start with what they knew the most of: Portugal and Spain and probably northwest Africa (Morocco and Algiers area). Not many would mourn the loss of Spain and Portugal, so the Mexica can consolidate much of their gains by 1560. Let's say contact was made in 1550, so we know or can extrapolate what Europe should look like then.
In the Americas, they don't bother with the weak tribes of eastern North America, and probably don't penetrate the jungles of South America too deeply, though I think they might have absorbed the Incas and stayed along the west coast of the Americas (and would also own the Caribbean).
They generate lots of colonists, have a higher than normal rate of army generation, and have a large standing army. Their technology will be slightly less than most Europeans'. Their traders will be automatically banned in European CoTs, and this gives them a CB against every European state, and they have a CoT ban against all other European nations, but this does not give a CB against them.
Any other ideas, or thoughts? Discuss!
