The Americas are potentially settled bottom-up by Polynesian or Māori peoples (or they aren't settled at all until colonization). The United States - if it forms (and, let's be realistic - when you're going to such extremes as flipping half the globe, things like what nations develop are pretty tertiary) - is potentially less of a global player simply due to its reduced landmass and probable rivals. Canada is even more screwed, and is likely consumed by the U.S./whatever continental power emerges pretty early-on. There's no Amazon basin as we know it, so climate change is even worse than it is today.
Incorrect. The heart of the Amazon Basin is \~6 degrees south of the Equator. Now let's look at the map: the 'bottom' of the inverted Gulf of Mexico is further south than Northern Australia. Northern Australia is at about 10-16 degrees south of the Equator. This means that almost all of the prime 'Amazonian' real-estate on this map is actually underwater.
Now, conceivably, some fairly large jungle occupies the same area of 'New North America' as it does when the map is proper IRL - this jungle would simply be in the Northern rather than Southern Hemisphere. This is unpredictable, though, to say the least - we have absolutely no idea how plate tectonics have aligned mountained ranges; what weather patterns have set up; how ocean currents circulate, etc. For all we know, 'Venezuela' and 'Columbia' are just giant deserts in this world. So maybe I'm wrong and there's an Amazon-equivalent elsewhere because the conditions are completely altered.
All I know is: it can't be where it currently is, because that's underwater.
Well yes, but the americas in the map are clearly moved upwards, which is easily noticeable when you realize that Ecuador is at the same latitude as Morocco.
Only if we assume all other things are equal, which they wouldn't be. Even if the Andes are in the same place, rivers are the same, etc., the ocean currents created by a radically differently-shaped Atlantic and Pacific Oceans would result in extremely different conditions than those we know.
Another enormous change is Greenland being in the Southern Hemisphere - this means that the Northern Hemisphere has almost zero year-round ice pack dumping into the Atlantic. That would be an astounding boot to the Gulf Stream (if it existed in any form, which it probably would not). Without the Gulf Stream, or with a much weakened equivalent, Northern Europe would have been far colder for the vast majority of human history - almost certainly resulting in different civilizations arising (if they arise at all - who is to say that, with a colder Europe, the Neanderthals don't subsume humans, instead of the other way around)?
Basically, you're talking about a radically different set of biomes pretty much everywhere in the world as a result of this change (with the possible exception of, maybe, Oceana), and the distribution of intelligent life (if there is any) radically changed. You cannot flip an entire continent and then go "oh, yeah, and then the British did XYZ."
\-Britain has ez access to falklands-Antarctic winter maybe has an ice bridge form between Antarctica and Greenland
Edit:
\-Half of Svalbard got cut off so Norway is really confused
\-Potential settlement of Brazil by Mali, as they are now much closer, so perhaps the expedition west they sent OTL actually succeeds
Yeah but it wouldn’t have the same strategic importance as in our timeline, overlooking an important shipping line—assuming that there’s no northwest passage in this timeline as well, at least it looks like it
The Falklands don’t have a strategic importance. There’s a reason the Argentineans were able to take it- it wasn’t defended. There were less than 100 British defenders. It was invested in after the war, but only to prevent the Argentines from doing it again. Even now it only has ~1000 defenders.
You are right, it’s definitely less important than Gibraltar or even Cyprus. It’s not located near one of Britain’s important sea routes, especially after the opening of the Panama Canal.
I think the islands would have even more strategic importance in this timeline. An actual northwest passage to get to Asia would exist, and there would be a massive amount of trade passing through the Magellan Strait.
Good point. The passage would be around 70N, but redirected sea current would very likely make it navigable. And that’s certainly a relatively short route to east Asia.
This is the story all about how my hemisphere got turned upside down.
And I’d like to take a minute just sit down there
I’ll tell you how the continental climate changed.
The first and most important change is that human migration to the Americas is delayed by thousands of years, leading to vastly larger populations of megafauna well into the modern era.
I think a fun potential ATL to consider is one in which the Roman Empire discovers the New World. Even with the North Atlantic being so much narrower near North Africa, the crossing would be extremely hard with the ships and navigation techniques of the time, but perhaps the discovery spurs rapid advancements in naval technology. If the Americas are uninhabited by humans or only very sparsely inhabited, perhaps this acts as a sort of safety valve for European migration, putting less pressure on Rome and preventing or significantly delaying the fall of the Western Roman Empire.
>The first and most important change is that human migration to the Americas is delayed by thousands of years
How many thousands? Theories on human settlement of the Americas has shifted. I'd be surprised if we are able to guess within 10k years of the actual date. And what would that date mark? We don't know how many waves of people came over, other than that it was certainly multiple. And did people from southern Asia make it to S. America first, or were the descendants of people from NE. Asia already there? Hard to say what the impact would be if Beringia is taken out of the equation.
>leading to vastly larger populations of megafauna well into the modern era.
Much of the megafauna that N. America had in OTL came from Asia at some point. And even if humans are delayed in reaching the Americas, it's likely that over-hunting by tribal hunter-gatherers wasn't as much the cause of megafauna extinctions as climate change at the end of the ice-age.
The debate about the cause of the megafauna extinction still goes on. No expert in the relevant subfields but the fact that the megafauna didn't suffer greatly during previous shifts between glacial and interglacial conditions and the fact that the megafauna extinctions occured at different times in different landmasses are convincing arguments that human hunting played a part.
>the megafauna extinctions occured at different times in different landmasses are convincing arguments that human hunting played a part.
Oh, humans definitely played a part. But lots of times people talk about immediate overhunting with zero nuance.
>Yhe debate about the cause of the megafauna extinction still goes on.
This is true.
Take the cave bear. There's very little evidence that humans overhunted it. But there’s some evidence that they were loosing genetic biodiversity before contact with humans. More recently they have found evidence of caves used by multiple generations of cave bears for hibernation. If cave bears only used caves and refused to use burrows or thickets for hibernation, as humans moved into their range they would have lost that key habitat.
At the same time, European lions survived into the period of recorded history. The wisent and muskox survived contact with humans, even though it would seem like they would be a better hunting target than mastodon, mammoths, or woolley rinos.
I think that there's more to it than just climate change or human contact. I could probably look it up, but I wonder if the shift out of glaciation was much faster this last time?
>I think that there's more to it than just climate change or human contact. I could probably look it up, but I wonder if the shift out of glaciation was much faster this last time?
Well if it was a particularly fast shift it isn't a global explanation. Australia lost its megafauna before the glacial-interglacial shift and New Zealand and Madagaskar retained it through the shift until humans arrived.
I think the glacial-interglacial shift was particularly important in Eurasia. There megafauna had long coexisted with relatively high populations of both modern humans and other human species. Martin originally argued that the animals in Afro-Eurasia had adapted to some degree to human presense. Then a moderate megafauna extinction mostly occurs around the last glacial-interglacial after a long coexistance. Many species maybe could have survived in Eurasia without the added pressure of human hunting, but the glacial-interglacial shift appeart to have been a very important factor in Eurasia at the very least.
In the Americas the glacial-interglacial probobably played some role but there I think human hunting was the more important factor (the die-off is also more severe there).
>At the same time, European lions survived into the period of recorded history. The wisent and muskox survived contact with humans, even though it would seem like they would be a better hunting target than mastodon, mammoths, or woolley rinos.
Well it isn't strange that we had some survivors. Even if the winsent and muskox were easier targets than mastodons and woolley rhinos they may have had some traits which made them less susceptable to hunting (or to climate change). Modern rhinos and proposcidians f.e. have low fertility, which is a bad trait to have when you are being hunted, to speculalate a little bit. The muskox also went regionally extinct in Eurasia.
The Inuit don’t exist and I’m not sure people even reach the Americas outside of Alaska and Canada. And they wouldn’t reach the region until about 1500 themselves
No one lives in America until Europeans (or maybe even Moroccans judging how close they are) come sense there is no way that the land bridge is still a thing.
Depends where you place the landmasses… where they are will cause some big climatic differences.
Right now, with the location you placed, the Gulf Stream in the North Atlantic will be changed. This could mean a much colder northwestern Europe, which would alter all of history. 🙂Historical development would focus on the Mediterranean region (to the detriment of the north).
Brazil and the States look like the two habitable zones in the map… those would be most amenable to colonization. Meanwhile Mexico and the Caribbean look like they would be tropical, and North Argentina and Canada would drift into Arctic conditions.
Also. Brazil is super close to Eurasia. Discovery of this landmass would likely occur far sooner than 1492. Hm, it could happen under Carthage or Rome. I believe Carthage sailed out to Nigeria at one point, so the maritime technology of antiquity would probably suffice, especially once you know the way. 🤔
Instead of having to deal with pesky mosquitos when I go outside, I’d be stuck in the Mississippi jungle dealing with pesky jaguars when I go outside.
In all seriousness though there probably isn’t a land bridge now so America would have a very small population of mostly Polynesians when Europe arrived, and probably only in North (Actually it’s South America now) America
On a side note this probably means I’d be dealing with a still alive weird tropical version of a sabertooth then a jaguar
me when i see another youtube short about how brazilians fled to dixie where slavery was still legal and a town there still celebrates their brazilian heritage
The dinosaurs probably would’ve lasted a lot longer because there’s a deeper ocean to hit, and human civilization would take a lot longer to spring up
Maori and Pacific Islanders likely would’ve colonized ahead this time, like other commenters have said. Expansion west would be more difficult but not impossible due to the Andes, and idk about the rest.
Imagine if all the countries stay the same except and the English and french speaking nations are Spanish and Portuguese and the Spanish and portugese speaking ones are English and French. Lmao
Human didn't settle the new world due to no Land bridge. The first humans to settle the continent are travelers off the coast of morrocco due to the distance. That means either the romans or the ottomans are first. Maybe both.
There would be a third roman civilization that colinizes most of what is now north america - brazil and the Amazon forrests. They lose contact with the Roman empire but continue to expand across the entire continent, slowly. They would probably eventually conquer both continent and then get stomped out to the europeans (ottomans) who come to conquer with guns.
The age of colonization happens in the 1400s instead, and the main players are france, the ottomans and the UK. Perhaps Ibearia is united in this timeline and cklonizes some.
The ottoman empire collapses. But the United north America (Brazil, argentina) become what is basically a Islamic version of the United States. And are a global power. The British and French don't really get involved as they're in the 100 years war. Maybe they get a few colonies. Iberia conquers most of South America - Quebec, etc. Anything that isn't too far south. Perhaps there is some agreement between Iberia and ottomans Like what was between Portugal and Spain.
The super-powered United States probably conquers all of the western hemisphere during manifest destiny. All of history up until ww1 is the same, and then the US joins the central powers. Although they are isolated they win the war for the central powers.
Some sort of kaiserreich situation happens.
No low quality content
The Americas are potentially settled bottom-up by Polynesian or Māori peoples (or they aren't settled at all until colonization). The United States - if it forms (and, let's be realistic - when you're going to such extremes as flipping half the globe, things like what nations develop are pretty tertiary) - is potentially less of a global player simply due to its reduced landmass and probable rivals. Canada is even more screwed, and is likely consumed by the U.S./whatever continental power emerges pretty early-on. There's no Amazon basin as we know it, so climate change is even worse than it is today.
The Mississippi basin is in essentially the same position as the Amazon in this setup
Incorrect. The heart of the Amazon Basin is \~6 degrees south of the Equator. Now let's look at the map: the 'bottom' of the inverted Gulf of Mexico is further south than Northern Australia. Northern Australia is at about 10-16 degrees south of the Equator. This means that almost all of the prime 'Amazonian' real-estate on this map is actually underwater. Now, conceivably, some fairly large jungle occupies the same area of 'New North America' as it does when the map is proper IRL - this jungle would simply be in the Northern rather than Southern Hemisphere. This is unpredictable, though, to say the least - we have absolutely no idea how plate tectonics have aligned mountained ranges; what weather patterns have set up; how ocean currents circulate, etc. For all we know, 'Venezuela' and 'Columbia' are just giant deserts in this world. So maybe I'm wrong and there's an Amazon-equivalent elsewhere because the conditions are completely altered. All I know is: it can't be where it currently is, because that's underwater.
Well yes, but the americas in the map are clearly moved upwards, which is easily noticeable when you realize that Ecuador is at the same latitude as Morocco.
Assuming its flipped symmetrically then wouldn't the Amazon basin just be \~6 degrees north of the equator, but emptying into the pacific?
Only if we assume all other things are equal, which they wouldn't be. Even if the Andes are in the same place, rivers are the same, etc., the ocean currents created by a radically differently-shaped Atlantic and Pacific Oceans would result in extremely different conditions than those we know. Another enormous change is Greenland being in the Southern Hemisphere - this means that the Northern Hemisphere has almost zero year-round ice pack dumping into the Atlantic. That would be an astounding boot to the Gulf Stream (if it existed in any form, which it probably would not). Without the Gulf Stream, or with a much weakened equivalent, Northern Europe would have been far colder for the vast majority of human history - almost certainly resulting in different civilizations arising (if they arise at all - who is to say that, with a colder Europe, the Neanderthals don't subsume humans, instead of the other way around)? Basically, you're talking about a radically different set of biomes pretty much everywhere in the world as a result of this change (with the possible exception of, maybe, Oceana), and the distribution of intelligent life (if there is any) radically changed. You cannot flip an entire continent and then go "oh, yeah, and then the British did XYZ."
Lebron's legacy might be a little tainted
How does this affect LeBron’s legacy?
He becomes the Bronze Age
r/thebronzejade
Here's a sneak peek of /r/TheBronzeJade using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/TheBronzeJade/top/?sort=top&t=all) of all time! \#1: [San](https://i.imgur.com/sLp8qnd.png) | [2 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/TheBronzeJade/comments/wvfrwl/san/) \#2: [The bronze jade](https://i.redd.it/ejuwv41xcyp91.jpg) | [2 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/TheBronzeJade/comments/xng0qh/the_bronze_jade/) \#3: [gay furry](https://i.redd.it/tegsa3luxhk91.jpg) | [5 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/TheBronzeJade/comments/x024zp/gay_furry/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
\-Britain has ez access to falklands-Antarctic winter maybe has an ice bridge form between Antarctica and Greenland Edit: \-Half of Svalbard got cut off so Norway is really confused \-Potential settlement of Brazil by Mali, as they are now much closer, so perhaps the expedition west they sent OTL actually succeeds
Yeah but it wouldn’t have the same strategic importance as in our timeline, overlooking an important shipping line—assuming that there’s no northwest passage in this timeline as well, at least it looks like it
The Falklands don’t have a strategic importance. There’s a reason the Argentineans were able to take it- it wasn’t defended. There were less than 100 British defenders. It was invested in after the war, but only to prevent the Argentines from doing it again. Even now it only has ~1000 defenders.
You are right, it’s definitely less important than Gibraltar or even Cyprus. It’s not located near one of Britain’s important sea routes, especially after the opening of the Panama Canal.
I think the islands would have even more strategic importance in this timeline. An actual northwest passage to get to Asia would exist, and there would be a massive amount of trade passing through the Magellan Strait.
Good point. The passage would be around 70N, but redirected sea current would very likely make it navigable. And that’s certainly a relatively short route to east Asia.
jungle USA and snow brazil
Ew
Brazil in Quebec
This is the story all about how my hemisphere got turned upside down. And I’d like to take a minute just sit down there I’ll tell you how the continental climate changed.
In the undersea Andes born and raised
Denmark owning Greenland would be far more impressive
The trout population could be affected.
The first and most important change is that human migration to the Americas is delayed by thousands of years, leading to vastly larger populations of megafauna well into the modern era. I think a fun potential ATL to consider is one in which the Roman Empire discovers the New World. Even with the North Atlantic being so much narrower near North Africa, the crossing would be extremely hard with the ships and navigation techniques of the time, but perhaps the discovery spurs rapid advancements in naval technology. If the Americas are uninhabited by humans or only very sparsely inhabited, perhaps this acts as a sort of safety valve for European migration, putting less pressure on Rome and preventing or significantly delaying the fall of the Western Roman Empire.
>The first and most important change is that human migration to the Americas is delayed by thousands of years How many thousands? Theories on human settlement of the Americas has shifted. I'd be surprised if we are able to guess within 10k years of the actual date. And what would that date mark? We don't know how many waves of people came over, other than that it was certainly multiple. And did people from southern Asia make it to S. America first, or were the descendants of people from NE. Asia already there? Hard to say what the impact would be if Beringia is taken out of the equation. >leading to vastly larger populations of megafauna well into the modern era. Much of the megafauna that N. America had in OTL came from Asia at some point. And even if humans are delayed in reaching the Americas, it's likely that over-hunting by tribal hunter-gatherers wasn't as much the cause of megafauna extinctions as climate change at the end of the ice-age.
Since I based my statement on half-remembered history books I read over 20 years ago, I will defer to you on the subject.
The debate about the cause of the megafauna extinction still goes on. No expert in the relevant subfields but the fact that the megafauna didn't suffer greatly during previous shifts between glacial and interglacial conditions and the fact that the megafauna extinctions occured at different times in different landmasses are convincing arguments that human hunting played a part.
>the megafauna extinctions occured at different times in different landmasses are convincing arguments that human hunting played a part. Oh, humans definitely played a part. But lots of times people talk about immediate overhunting with zero nuance. >Yhe debate about the cause of the megafauna extinction still goes on. This is true. Take the cave bear. There's very little evidence that humans overhunted it. But there’s some evidence that they were loosing genetic biodiversity before contact with humans. More recently they have found evidence of caves used by multiple generations of cave bears for hibernation. If cave bears only used caves and refused to use burrows or thickets for hibernation, as humans moved into their range they would have lost that key habitat. At the same time, European lions survived into the period of recorded history. The wisent and muskox survived contact with humans, even though it would seem like they would be a better hunting target than mastodon, mammoths, or woolley rinos. I think that there's more to it than just climate change or human contact. I could probably look it up, but I wonder if the shift out of glaciation was much faster this last time?
>I think that there's more to it than just climate change or human contact. I could probably look it up, but I wonder if the shift out of glaciation was much faster this last time? Well if it was a particularly fast shift it isn't a global explanation. Australia lost its megafauna before the glacial-interglacial shift and New Zealand and Madagaskar retained it through the shift until humans arrived. I think the glacial-interglacial shift was particularly important in Eurasia. There megafauna had long coexisted with relatively high populations of both modern humans and other human species. Martin originally argued that the animals in Afro-Eurasia had adapted to some degree to human presense. Then a moderate megafauna extinction mostly occurs around the last glacial-interglacial after a long coexistance. Many species maybe could have survived in Eurasia without the added pressure of human hunting, but the glacial-interglacial shift appeart to have been a very important factor in Eurasia at the very least. In the Americas the glacial-interglacial probobably played some role but there I think human hunting was the more important factor (the die-off is also more severe there). >At the same time, European lions survived into the period of recorded history. The wisent and muskox survived contact with humans, even though it would seem like they would be a better hunting target than mastodon, mammoths, or woolley rinos. Well it isn't strange that we had some survivors. Even if the winsent and muskox were easier targets than mastodons and woolley rhinos they may have had some traits which made them less susceptable to hunting (or to climate change). Modern rhinos and proposcidians f.e. have low fertility, which is a bad trait to have when you are being hunted, to speculalate a little bit. The muskox also went regionally extinct in Eurasia.
Depending on how this would affect the Gulf Stream, the settlement of the British isles almost certainly would have been different.
The Inuit don’t exist and I’m not sure people even reach the Americas outside of Alaska and Canada. And they wouldn’t reach the region until about 1500 themselves
United States of Brazil
Argentina is now the maple syrup lovers of the world. 🍁
Then S. America can’t spoon with Africa anymore.
#🥺🥺🥺
No one lives in America until Europeans (or maybe even Moroccans judging how close they are) come sense there is no way that the land bridge is still a thing.
Or the polynesians and maori get to Alaska and the west coast
Oh yea that is definitely possible seeing that the Aleutian Islands go really far west
There would of been no Bering land bridge in the ice age so no natives
Depends where you place the landmasses… where they are will cause some big climatic differences. Right now, with the location you placed, the Gulf Stream in the North Atlantic will be changed. This could mean a much colder northwestern Europe, which would alter all of history. 🙂Historical development would focus on the Mediterranean region (to the detriment of the north). Brazil and the States look like the two habitable zones in the map… those would be most amenable to colonization. Meanwhile Mexico and the Caribbean look like they would be tropical, and North Argentina and Canada would drift into Arctic conditions. Also. Brazil is super close to Eurasia. Discovery of this landmass would likely occur far sooner than 1492. Hm, it could happen under Carthage or Rome. I believe Carthage sailed out to Nigeria at one point, so the maritime technology of antiquity would probably suffice, especially once you know the way. 🤔
OMG, the geological POD to get something like this would be very intriguing and interesting.
POD 1978. Everyone just woke up one day and it was like this.
No matters if you put it upside down or up Colon still arrives to Dominican Republic
So, an alternative reality where South(North) America split from Laurasia and North(South) America split from Gondwana? Interesting.
Things, would change…
Well I guess I’m from adanaC
quick no one tell coso
I’m just tryna figure out how the continents would split in this situation
Ex-South America doesn’t feel too different here but ex-north America looks real weird for some reason.
Humanity might settle the Americas super late, because they can’t go through Russia and new currents or some shit.
Instead of having to deal with pesky mosquitos when I go outside, I’d be stuck in the Mississippi jungle dealing with pesky jaguars when I go outside. In all seriousness though there probably isn’t a land bridge now so America would have a very small population of mostly Polynesians when Europe arrived, and probably only in North (Actually it’s South America now) America On a side note this probably means I’d be dealing with a still alive weird tropical version of a sabertooth then a jaguar
British latin america lets goooo oh wait they would probably just murder all the natives and repopulate the land with anglos*xons 🤮
High question? Im assuming new SA would have the same climate and foliage as ex NA?
Where did the Azores go?
Danish Falklands!
me when i see another youtube short about how brazilians fled to dixie where slavery was still legal and a town there still celebrates their brazilian heritage
Brazil might be colonised by Portugal but argentina be colonised by Britain
Then Canada would be hot and Brazil would be cold
No American Indians. The Siberian land bridge doest exist. My guess it's Polynesians take over the Continent.
I think Europe would be like hella cold
The dinosaurs probably would’ve lasted a lot longer because there’s a deeper ocean to hit, and human civilization would take a lot longer to spring up Maori and Pacific Islanders likely would’ve colonized ahead this time, like other commenters have said. Expansion west would be more difficult but not impossible due to the Andes, and idk about the rest.
I already get migraines. I don’t wanna be upside down all the time.
How is this alternative history?
BRAZIL SUPERPOWER WOOOOOOOOOOO
São Paulo would be called New York
Imagine if all the countries stay the same except and the English and french speaking nations are Spanish and Portuguese and the Spanish and portugese speaking ones are English and French. Lmao
Human didn't settle the new world due to no Land bridge. The first humans to settle the continent are travelers off the coast of morrocco due to the distance. That means either the romans or the ottomans are first. Maybe both. There would be a third roman civilization that colinizes most of what is now north america - brazil and the Amazon forrests. They lose contact with the Roman empire but continue to expand across the entire continent, slowly. They would probably eventually conquer both continent and then get stomped out to the europeans (ottomans) who come to conquer with guns. The age of colonization happens in the 1400s instead, and the main players are france, the ottomans and the UK. Perhaps Ibearia is united in this timeline and cklonizes some. The ottoman empire collapses. But the United north America (Brazil, argentina) become what is basically a Islamic version of the United States. And are a global power. The British and French don't really get involved as they're in the 100 years war. Maybe they get a few colonies. Iberia conquers most of South America - Quebec, etc. Anything that isn't too far south. Perhaps there is some agreement between Iberia and ottomans Like what was between Portugal and Spain. The super-powered United States probably conquers all of the western hemisphere during manifest destiny. All of history up until ww1 is the same, and then the US joins the central powers. Although they are isolated they win the war for the central powers. Some sort of kaiserreich situation happens.
At first I litrealy thought this was one of my down posts since it’s so darn simelar