What is the latest plausible year for Amerindians to wipe out these colonies?

What was the latest plausible year, if any, for the Amerindians of these locations to wipe out one of the founding European colonies in the Americas?

Note that in OTL, Amerindians (or other disasters) did at least temporarily throw back colonists from particular areas.

And, I accept that if the colonists were driven out in a particular place, even wiped out to the last person, that is no guarantee against Europeans not trying once again to settle and eventually succeeding. We should recognize 15th, 16th and 17th century Europeans were more ready to risk peoples lives continually trying to settle even after prior failures and casualties.

With all those caveats in mind, what was the latest plausible year in which colonies in

Hispaniola

Cuba

Mexico

Peru

Quebec

Nova Scotia

Virginia

New England

New Netherlands

...could have been wiped out, preferably by Amerindians, leaving any of these respective areas at least temporarily European-free, and forcing any follow-on efforts to be a re-start rather than a continuation from the traditional founding year (ie, 1492 for Hispaniola, 1521 for Mexico, 1534 for Peru, 1604 for Acadia, 1607 for Virginia, 1620 for New England, etc.

for example could the powhatan wipe out english virginia in the war of 1622? could massachusetts have been wiped out in and indian war?

iroquois wipe out the french in the st lawrence for picking their enemies side?

or could such a wipe out or conquest of the white colony only occur with a european ally for the indians in question?

Mexico and Peru could not be conquered at all if you take Cortéz and Pizarro out of the picture. They probably would still fall into European spheres of influence, but may retain their independence for a long time.

Mexico and South America would need Cortes and Pizarro to die during the expedition, if they even make the trip across the Atlantic in the first place.

For North America, I figured King Phillip's War would be the best chance. It said that in little more than a year, 12 of New England's towns were wiped out and many more were damaged, more than half of the towns in the region were attacked. The colonial economy all but ruined and 1/10th of men military age were dead, given population numbers in the 1670s, that was a big hit.

cra0422 said:

For North America, I figured King Phillip's War would be the best chance. It said that in little more than a year, 12 of New England's towns were wiped out and many more were damaged, more than half of the towns in the region were attacked. The colonial economy all but ruined and 1/10th of men military age were dead, given population numbers in the 1670s, that was a big hit.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Yankees came to SETTLE, and they came in families and settled whole towns practically overnight. Once it's set in, New England is very hard to uproot.

cra0422 said:

For North America, I figured King Phillip's War would be the best chance. It said that in little more than a year, 12 of New England's towns were wiped out and many more were damaged, more than half of the towns in the region were attacked. The colonial economy all but ruined and 1/10th of men military age were dead, given population numbers in the 1670s, that was a big hit.

Click to expand...

King Phillip's War, IMO, is too late; 1/10th of the men of military age were dead for the colonists, but the Native Americans were basically wiped out.

Faeelin said:

King Phillip's War, IMO, is too late; 1/10th of the men of military age were dead for the colonists, but the Native Americans were basically wiped out.

Click to expand...

Weren't most or at least a large potion of the natives in North America alrady wiped out by the beginning of the 17th century?

I believe diseases from 16th century spanish explorers/conquistadors had already made their way to decimate large portions of the North American Indian populations even before the first settlements there emerged.

Which is where the perception that North America was sparsely settled by Natives arose, as the the 17th settlers were already encountering decimated populations.

Thanksforallthefish said:

Mexico and Peru could not be conquered at all if you take Cortéz and Pizarro out of the picture. They probably would still fall into European spheres of influence, but may retain their independence for a long time.

Click to expand...

Actually, I would draw the exact opposite conclusion. Mexico and Peru were sources of great wealth and, once discovered, would quickly draw the attention of colonizing powers, whose intention would be to at least dominate them and probably conquer them outright. Precisely because they were advanced civilizations with well organized state structures, a small but technologically superior European army could quickly control them by "decapitating" the state leadership and using as necessary local leaders and power structures to pacify them. Also, in both cases, both the Aztec and Inca empires were facing (or just over) conflicts with external enemies or internal power struggles that the Spanish could use to their advantage.

I think the best chances would be in eastern North America, which lacked evidence of great native wealth. The British were coming (often only quasi-unofficially in small groups) to settle - often with outlandish promises to themselves and their investors regarding their economic viability. They were an investment. If the Virginia and New England settler colonies failed (either as a result of simple starvation or conflict with the local tribes and confederacies), investors as well as the Crown may have decided to cut their losses and no longer support these colonial efforts. The English (or Dutch for that matter) would probably still come, and eventually set up well-supported and maintained coastal settlements, but these would likely be more in the nature of what the French were about...trade. The settler population of these colonial outposts would not grow as fast, not become as economically and cultural separate from the home country, or displace local tribes and nations as aggressively. To me, the failure and/or collapse of the early English colonies in North America is both a real possibility and would have the widest-ranging effects on the possible survival of native power and cultures.

For Peru the last possible Repulsion of the Spanish was in 1572 with a more succeful campaing from Túpac Amaru I, or even more probable in 1536 with Manco Inca Yupanqui, who almost detroy all the spanish presecen in Cuzco, with that, all the horses capturerd, the secrets of Iron and the canon captured, reconquered the incain empire it´s a diced proposition if you can read spanish https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manco_Inca

Hispaniola- 1520s with Enriquillo's Revolt. Afterwords there's too little Taino to fight back, and even then you'd still get a highly mixed Meztico state.

Lenwe said:

For Peru the last possible Repulsion of the Spanish was in 1572 with a more succeful campaing from Túpac Amaru I, or even more probable in 1536 with Manco Inca Yupanqui, who almost detroy all the spanish presecen in Cuzco, with that, all the horses capturerd, the secrets of Iron and the canon captured, reconquered the incain empire it´s a diced proposition if you can read spanish https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manco_Inca

Click to expand...

Manco Inca also supports my point, however, about the ease of conquering advanced kingdoms. He was initially appointed as Inca by the Spanish to help pacify Peru thru the existing state structure after the initial conquest. Only Spanish stupidity led to his rebellion. I would agree that, with different Spanish leadership and more assistance from local peoples, his "neo-Inca" state in the east might have survived, but I do not think that his initial rebellion against Cuzco would have changed much, even if he had defeated the Spanish and taken their weaponry. Controlling Peru and its gold meant too much for Spain. They would return in sufficient force to reconquer it, and having a few horses guns, and iron weapons at their disposal does not necessarily give the Incas the "secrets of Iron" or the ability to make gunpowder in the short interim before the Spanish return.

For the Inca, they could survive as a Portuguese Vassal, that is the safest choice for them.

zoomar said:

Controlling Peru and its gold meant too much for Spain. They would return in sufficient force to reconquer it, and having a few horses guns, and iron weapons at their disposal does not necessarily give the Incas the "secrets of Iron" or the ability to make gunpowder in the short interim before the Spanish return.

Click to expand...

You´re right about the importance of the gold for the spanish,But it´s important that in the same period of the Manco Inca Yupanqui rebellion there was a The spanish civil War for Control over the new Territories and his riches, the only reason the Cuzco´s siege fails it´s the providential arrive of Diego the Almagro, Have that Won´t happen, he have to walk more than 2.500 kilometers, even a sligth delay, and he Cuzco fall the Neo-Inca state could be viable, and you get sufficient spanish prisioner and know how to start a little iron age revolution, I know it´s not much, but at least any new conquest of the Incan take at lest another 3 to 5 years

It seems to me that the question itself is flawed. As if the “Amerindians” were some sort of monolithic group that had one mind. It’s as if asking how could the Asians have repelled the Europeans? Or how could the Africans have done the same? The number of nations at play here, and their diverse interests, were in many cases what enabled the conquest, in the first place, and supported the colonial apparatus.

For Peru, zoomar and lenwe come closest. Manco Inca’s rebellion in 1536 it’s absolutely the best chance to throw back an already ongoing colonization. It isn’t the last chance, though. The civil war between the Spaniards in 1538, and even later still, the rebellion of Gonzalo Pizarro, in 1546, could have been turning points, derailing and destroying the entire colonizing project. The last chance, as I see it, is the onset of the Taki Unquy (Dancing Sickness) in the 1560s. By then, some of the native elites had enough knowledge of what the Spaniards were really about to back the movement, and it had garnered enough grassroots support and momentum across a wide area, to guarantee some degree of success.

Had Manco Inca’s revolt succeeded, then European chances for a successful return are greatly diminished. They lose the element of surprise they had the first time around, the Incas know they can use gold to play on European powers, and furthermore, the Incas, unlike the Aztecs, demonstrated a surprising ability to adapt the new technology. Yes, they will not be able to manufacture things on their own, at first; but then again, neither could the Mapuche. And gold, which they have a lot of, can buy you a lot of things.

Pururauka

It seems to me that the question itself is flawed. As if the “Amerindians” were some sort of monolithic group that had one mind. It’s as if asking how could the Asians have repelled the Europeans?

Click to expand...

Do you think I'm an ignoramus who doesn't recognize that my question actually encompasses multiple struggles between multiple Amerindian and European nations/polities?

Or is it more likely that I was posing a question about a batch of separate what-ifs (9 actually) that had a common theme and I was simply being economical with words rather than being a stickler for precision?

Which of the two is more likely for someone who's made over 2,000 posts over ten years on this group?

Our activity here is basically mutual entertainment, a form of "shooting the breeze". I'm not going to be parsing my words as carefully as one would in a legal proceeding or a dissertation defense.

Assume the best, most intelligent interpretation of what a poster is trying to say, unless led to believe otherwise.

raharris1973 said:

Pururauka

Do you think I'm an ignoramus who doesn't recognize that my question actually encompasses multiple struggles between multiple Amerindian and European nations/polities?

Click to expand...

[FONT=&quot]Must have hit a nerve; it wasn’t my intention. But I won’t try to “economize” my words, lest I be misunderstood. If you read my sentence carefully, I speak of the question, and there isn’t even a vague mention of an ad hominem, or the like. If you choose to interpret it as such, knock yourself out.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]But when you “economize” and simplify things to such a degree (something rarely seen in our ubiquitous ARW or ACW threads) you might be misinterpreted. [/FONT]