Perhaps we do have a right to the Americas. An amateur historical speculation.

Can it be the goal of the Spanish conquest of the New World was to confiscate the sources of the gold which was funding the Ottoman Empire's conquest of Europe?

Perhaps traders based in the Ottoman empire were exporting opium or trafficking humans to the New World.





Some sailors in the Old World probably knew about the existence of America before Columbus. It just wasn't widespread public knowledge. Besides the Vikings, the Portuguese were said to have fished the Grand Banks off Newfoundland.

At one time, the East side of the Rockies and other places probably had gold dust lining the rivers just like the West side did until 1847. America might be the location of Solomon's mines.

Vikings may have started importing goods to the Native Americans in the 800-1000 period. Hopefully they weren't trafficking people from their raids. Some say they stopped because of Christianization.

Then perhaps Mansa Musa of the Malian empire built or purchased ships and crossed the Atlantic to sell goods or captives to people who didn't know what gold was worth. They may have been shipping opium, hashish, or trafficking people to the New World. I do not know if cannabis or opium poppies grew in the New World indigenously.

Then perhaps traffickers based in the Ottoman Empire got in on his game or simply got rich selling Mali-based traffickers trade goods.

The goal of the traffickers may have been to try to leave everything in the new world as is, so the natives would continue to be willing to scour rivers for gold and trade it away for a few captives, instead of developing their own military or industrial ability and perhaps starting to trade with the stuff internally.

Anyway, in the 1500s, Muslim armies were starting to close in on Europe, possibly funded by the riches of the new world.

Can it be the goal of the Spanish Conquest was to confiscate the gold which was funding the Ottoman empire as well as fueling the disappearance of people from the coastal areas of Europe?


Spain scoured much of North America looking for gold but probably decided to concentrate on South and Central America first. They were looking for the large sources which would fund the Ottoman conquest of Europe.

Perhaps in the 1500s there was enough gold in North America for it to present a risk to Europe but not as great a risk as South and Central America.

I have no real knowledge of any North American indians to base that on except I think I did hear someone say once that they would discontinue taking captives when their land was given back to them. He seemed in my opinion to be trying to speak for all his people but I suppose he could be mixed up or part of a minority opinion. I don't know.

England and France stepped in and claimed most of North America.

Of course they wanted the land and the gold but that hardly means they didn't need to confiscate it for their safety.

So perhaps the Americas were confiscated from the natives because 500 years ago they were becoming dangerous. In addition to the gold, there was a risk that if they absorbed too much European knowledge, they might become a gangster state but equipped with much more advanced weaponry and farming than they had at the time of contact. Instead of tens of millions of traffickers there could soon be hundreds of millions.

Dude(tte).

That is something, plausible to me, that I have never considered before.

WoW. It actually makes more sense then not, you may have solvedit.

This place is awesome.


a reply to: Solvedit

The Phoenicians where reported to be the source of Solomon's mines and one of our Forbidden archeology stories includes the story of going to a distant place to bring gold to the temple in Jerusalem. There weren't known gold mine sources that fit the bill in Africa but there were in the Americas.

a reply to: Solvedit

Interesting idea, but I doubt it reflects what really happened.

First, if that was the idea, it wasn't that successful, as the Ottoman Empire lasted more than the Spanish rule over the Americas.

Second, they were only interested in the gold after they saw it, there aren't any sources (that I know) referring any search for gold before they saw how much gold some areas had.

Third, there aren't any signs of the native Americans having any kind of previous knowledge of European things.

Fourth, there aren't any references of American agriculture products before the official date of the European "discovery" of the Americas.

a reply to: Solvedit
"Perhaps they could have done" isn't good enough to start an historical theory.
You need to have at least some smidgeon of evidence that they did.

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: SolveditFirst, if that was the idea, it wasn't that successful, as the Ottoman Empire lasted more than the Spanish rule over the Americas.

Second, they were only interested in the gold after they saw it, there aren't any sources (that I know) referring any search for gold before they saw how much gold some areas had.

Third, there aren't any signs of the native Americans having any kind of previous knowledge of European things.

Fourth, there aren't any references of American agriculture products before the official date of the European "discovery" of the Americas.

The Ottoman invasion of Europe reached its high water mark in the 1500s just as the Spanish were conquering the New World.

The traffickers knew there at least might be gold there.

The traffickers probably made sure the natives remained unsophisticated so they would be willing to spend their time scouring up isolated specks of gold from riverbeds without realizing what the stuff was worth. The traffic need not have imparted any knowledge of Europe if the traffickers were clever.

In order to protect their sources, the trafficking organizations may have been careful to leave nothing which would make the natives smarter, or take anything back which would notify the traffickers' potential competition about the fact that a New World had been reached.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: Solvedit
"Perhaps they could have done" isn't good enough to start an historical theory.
You need to have at least some smidgeon of evidence that they did

We are on an internet forum where cranks can discuss unusual topics, after all. I don't think the bar is that high.

originally posted by: JustonemanThe Phoenicians where reported to be the source of Solomon's mines and one of our Forbidden archeology stories includes the story of going to a distant place to bring gold to the temple in Jerusalem. There weren't known gold mine sources that fit the bill in Africa but there were in the Americas.

The Bimini Road is said to be shaped like a Phoenecian dock.

a reply to: Solvedit
It is high enough to demand at least one reason for thinking something might be happening.
Otherwise there is nothing to discuss.
One person says it might be happening. Other person says it might not be happening. Conversation ends.

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: SolveditThird, there aren't any signs of the native Americans having any kind of previous knowledge of European things.

The natives look much more like Phoenecians than the inhabitants of Amazonia, I'd say.

I wonder if there are records relating what the first Conquistadores thought of the ethnic makeup of the indigenous inhabitants.

Only a few years after the start of the Conquest, the Spanish could have easily assumed Old World features were brought by their own conquest, so they may have made no note of them.

The people of Spain came from what is now Saxony.

There is still a Spanish province which still has some of the origninal Celtic inhabitants of the Iberian peninsula.

So, if a trafficking victim with Germanic or Nordic features was encountered, or if they had Celtic features like the Scotch, Irish, part of France, etc, they might simply be assumed to be descended from the Conquistadors unless they were spotted within a few years of first contact.

The Spanish had just gotten through reconquering their country from a North African occupation so a Native American with North African ancestry might also be assumed to have descended from Conquistadors.

originally posted by: Solvedit
The Ottoman invasion of Europe reached its high water mark in the 1500s just as the Spanish were conquering the New World.

It depends on how you look at it, the biggest territory gains were in 14th century, but they kept going up to the 16th century.
The Empire lasted up to the 20th century, and its decline followed the usual decline of the empires, with more internal than external problems.

If it was a problem of not having enough gold to fund their growing plans and that gold having gone to the Spanish, there should have been a faster decline and a faster rise of the Spanish in the areas occupied by the Ottoman Empire, something in which they weren't interested, as their interest remained in spreading over the seas, not on Eastern Europe and Middle East.

The traffickers knew there at least might be gold there.

We can say that of any place on Earth...

The traffickers probably made sure the natives remained unsophisticated so they would be willing to spend their time scouring up isolated specks of gold from riverbeds without realizing what the stuff was worth. The traffic need not have imparted any knowledge of Europe if the traffickers were clever.

It's not a question of sophistication, it's a question of cultural influences, those always happen. Little things, like using foreign words for things they didn't have (like horses).

In order to protect their sources, the trafficking organizations may have been careful to leave nothing which would make the natives smarter, or take anything back which would notify the traffickers' potential competition about the fact that a New World had been reached.

"Organisations"? Only governments had enough money to pay for transatlantic expeditions, that's why Christopher Columbus asked first the Portuguese king and then the Spanish king to sponsor his (small) expedition, nobody had enough money for that.
As for not taking anything, that may work on a small scale, but people being people I'm sure some men would have taken some things to show back at home, and the more people and time this lasted the more likely it would be for something to "leak".

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Solvedit
The Ottoman invasion of Europe reached its high water mark in the 1500s just as the Spanish were conquering the New World.

The Empire lasted up to the 20th century,

Just after the closing of the frontier, hmmm.

The traffickers knew there at least might be gold there.

We can say that of any place on Earth...

Not if it's been scoured for gold by gold savvy people.

The traffickers probably made sure the natives remained unsophisticated so they would be willing to spend their time scouring up isolated specks of gold from riverbeds without realizing what the stuff was worth. The traffic need not have imparted any knowledge of Europe if the traffickers were clever.

In order to protect their sources, the trafficking organizations may have been careful to leave nothing which would make the natives smarter, or take anything back which would notify the traffickers' potential competition about the fact that a New World had been reached.

"Organisations"? Only governments had enough money to pay for transatlantic expeditions, that's why Christopher Columbus asked first the Portuguese king and then the Spanish king to sponsor his (small) expedition, nobody had enough money for that.
As for not taking anything, that may work on a small scale, but people being people I'm sure some men would have taken some things to show back at home, and the more people and time this lasted the more likely it would be for something to "leak".

I don't agree with your statement. People have crossed the Atlantic in one-man craft. Trafficking organizations may well have been run with enough discipline to ensure word did not get out.

originally posted by: Solvedit
The natives look much more like Phoenecians than the inhabitants of Amazonia, I'd say.

You can say what you want, it doesn't make it true.
Phoenicians were a white people, like the other Semitic peoples. People from South America are clearly not Semitic. The inhabitants of Amazonia are adapted to live in a dense jungle, so they developed different characteristics, but the basic differences are the same.

I wonder if there are records relating what the first Conquistadores thought of the ethnic makeup of the indigenous inhabitants.

I think there are. Being official expeditions, their discoveries were recorded to be explained to the king or other high authorities.

Only a few years after the start of the Conquest, the Spanish could have easily assumed Old World features were brought by their own conquest, so they may have made no note of them.

If there were any Old World features, of which there aren't any references.

originally posted by: Solvedit
The people of Spain came from what is now Saxony.

Not really, and you just have to look at the Spanish people to see that.
People from the Iberian peninsula are a mixture of the original (as far as the Bronze Age) Aquitanians and Iberians. Then came the Celts (from Central and Western Europe, not today's Saxony), some Phoenicians and Carthaginians. Next were the Romans and the Visigoths (from what is now Eastern Germany and Czech Republic), next, starting in the 8th century, the Muslims, mostly from what is now Algeria, Libya and Morocco.

There is still a Spanish province which still has some of the origninal Celtic inhabitants of the Iberian peninsula.

Which one?
There are different areas with people from different predominant sources in the whole Iberian Peninsula.

So, if a trafficking victim with Germanic or Nordic features was encountered, or if they had Celtic features like the Scotch, Irish, part of France, etc, they might simply be assumed to be descended from the Conquistadors unless they were spotted within a few years of first contact.

The Spanish had just gotten through reconquering their country from a North African occupation so a Native American with North African ancestry might also be assumed to have descended from Conquistadors.

The racial differences are not that easy to explain.

PS: Just curious, do you live or have you ever lived in the Iberian Peninsula? I do.

originally posted by: Solvedit
Just after the closing of the frontier, hmmm.

What frontier?

Not if it's been scoured for gold by gold savvy people.

"Might be gold there" can be said of any place, that's why people kept going to places full of gold diggers to try their luck.

I don't agree with your statement. People have crossed the Atlantic in one-man craft. Trafficking organizations may well have been run with enough discipline to ensure word did not get out.

You forget the money.
One (crazy) person may try doing it on their own, but they aren't going to do much commerce with people from the other continent.
To make a ship big enough to carry enough people and cargo was extremely expensive and only a few people knew how to build them, it wasn't something they could buy on the Internet.

originally posted by: ArMaPThen came the Celts (from Central and Western Europe, not today's Saxony), Next were the Romans and the Visigoths (from what is now Eastern Germany and Czech Republic)

You're making my point for me.

If the Conquistadors had encountered the descendants of a trafficking victim from almost anywhere in Europe, they might have assumed one of their expedition had been the parent. Unless it was the first few years of the conquest.

originally posted by: ArMaPPhoenicians were a white people, like the other Semitic peoples. People from South America are clearly not Semitic.

Clearly, by what standard? I'd say you need to look at more pictures.

As soon as you see one which contradicts your assumption that they're all dark, what are you going to say?

"Oh, must be related to someone from the Conquest or perhaps a later visit by a European."

My only point is, perhaps there's another way it could have happened.

Plus, North Africans aren't always light, from what I can tell from pictures.

originally posted by: Solvedit

originally posted by: ArMaPPhoenicians were a white people, like the other Semitic peoples. People from South America are clearly not Semitic.

Clearly, by what standard?

Anthropologists' standards.

As soon as you see one which contradicts your assumption that they're all dark, what are you going to say?

Funny how much you are assuming about me.

Differences between different peoples are more than just the colour of their skin/eyes/hair.

Plus, North Africans aren't always light, from what I can tell from pictures.

As you didn't answer my question and by your comment above I suppose you never lived in the Iberian Peninsula, specially during the Summer, when most people go to the beach and become darker than Barack Obama, while remaining "white".

One thing I forgot to ask yesterday: what do you mean by "a right to the Americas"?