Without the massive die-off, native Americans are likely able to resist the Europeans much more effectively. Things would probably look more like how they approached Africa as opposed to what originally happened. This is a huge ripple effect that utterly changes how history progresses.
Yeah. TBH, the biggest thing up front is that it'll make plantation agriculture viable in a lot more places earlier on (particularly until yellow fever and malaria get established in the new world.) Cerro Rico not being as closely tied into the global economy will also have massive effects, but that's something for later.It might stunt or outright derail the whole age of European imperialism, since there wouldn't be 2 continents worth of easy conquest & expansion to get the ball rolling. It took a lot longer for European colonialism to expand into places like India; regions where the local people didn't mostly drop dead when they arrived.
Actually the OP goes much farther than that.Because even if you're cutting down the overall fatality rate from disease and knock-on effects to like a third of what we currently hold as a reasonable estimate, that's still a massive social disruption, because you've got the population declining by like 30% over a century.
In this scenario, they are actually much more resistant to European diseases than the Europeans themselves are.
Well then, it's just a continent-sized India, with pretty much everything outside of Central America and South America being legitimately worthless from an outside perspective. So, lots of conquest through various means there, and North America is a perpetual sideshow.Actually the OP goes much farther than that.
In this scenario, they are actually much more resistant to European diseases than the Europeans themselves are.
IIRC, the Maine/New Brunswick/Newfoundland area was too cold for maize agriculture and still inhabited by hunter-gatherers in the fifteenth century, .
I'm not too sure on it, this is what a quick Google search found:Having personally grown corn in Maine, I'm a little skeptical of this, got a cite?
Daniel E. Vasey said:Native North Americans lacked the potato, and maize has a high threshold temperature and a fairly high accumulated heat requirement. The northern limit of agriculture crosses southern Ontario, the upper St. Lawrence valley, and the south-central coast of Maine, where maize is still spreading northward at the time of colonial contact (Bennet, 1955:379).
No serious conquest of Central or South America is remotely plausible until the 18th century at least.Well then, it's just a continent-sized India, with pretty much everything outside of Central America and South America being legitimately worthless from an outside perspective. So, lots of conquest through various means there, and North America is a perpetual sideshow.
Wouldn't the time period in question have been during the Little Ice Age, hence colder than today?Having personally grown corn in Maine, I'm a little skeptical of this, got a cite?
Keep in mind that European colonization of Africa was accomplished a) after centuries of African economic collapse due to the ripple effects of the slave trade, b) after the establishment of a colonial mindset in Europeans due to the relatively easy colonization of the New World and c) with machine-guns. If B isn't true, then A is a lot less prominent and the economic and political situation that even makes C possible aren't there.
Many of the early European colonies in North America were straight-up established atop the corpses of natives dropping dead from disease, sometimes so rapidly that the Europeans could pick up agricultural processes where the dead and fleeing natives left off. The conquests of Cortex were accompanied by the virgin soil epidemics gutting the nobility of everyone involved. Europeans can form toeholds here or there on the continent, but they aren't going to take control. They'll have dominance of trade, but it won't be the gigantic economic advantage it was OTL.
And, most importantly, it'll probably take a lot longer to get the potato to Europe. Considering you can make a fair argument that the potato was integral to the Industrial Revolution...
Keep in mind that European colonization of Africa was accomplished a) after centuries of African economic collapse due to the ripple effects of the slave trade, b) after the establishment of a colonial mindset in Europeans due to the relatively easy colonization of the New World and c) with machine-guns. If B isn't true, then A is a lot less prominent and the economic and political situation that even makes C possible aren't there.
World War One was brought about partly through an intense sense of colonial rivalry among the various emerging European powers that simply won't exist in this timeline.Assuming minimal butterflies, World War one will possibly go in favor of the central powers, due to a lack of american aid. If it does end in an allied victory, the allies will likely have a less advantageous position resulting in a more equitable treaty. The world will likely loose much technological advancement, and will be poorer due to lacking an American superpower, unless the Iroquois, Inca, Cherokee, or some other group manages to conquer a significant portion of the continent. Communism will likely become a much more popular political system due to the lack of a capitalist superpower, and they may end up dominating the world without an enemy with nuclear weapons to oppose them.
A large part of that was from the Scramble for Africa and trade in Asia rather than American colonies, so their absence will likely not result in a change in WWI. On the other hand, the fact that parts of America will likely remain open for exploitation for much longer will likely mean that a large scale European war will occur sooner. On the other hand, the decreased rate of technological advancement will make the war shorter and less bloody.World War One was brought about partly through an intense sense of colonial rivalry among the various emerging European powers that simply won't exist in this timeline.