What the title says. Is it any possible for any Native American nation to become powerful enough to not end up in shambles and colonized by the Europeans i.e. the Aztecs? How would it be possible?
AH Challenge: Native American Empire Powerful enough to deter European Colonialism
- Thread starter Monopolist
- Start date
I find it kind of unlikely - China wasn't big enough and powerful enough to deter European colonization, just to hold it off, and even then the Europeans took whacks at it every time it blinked.
Powerful enough to militarily stop European colonialism is another story. My first step would be to give them a lot of diseases so the Columbian Exchange is a bit less one-sided (after 10,000 years it's not enough to prevent the Amerindians being decimated by eg smallpox, but if aerosyphilis does likewise to Europe, they'll have a lot longer to recover before the Europeans can start throwing colonists at them again.)
Powerful enough to militarily stop European colonialism is another story. My first step would be to give them a lot of diseases so the Columbian Exchange is a bit less one-sided (after 10,000 years it's not enough to prevent the Amerindians being decimated by eg smallpox, but if aerosyphilis does likewise to Europe, they'll have a lot longer to recover before the Europeans can start throwing colonists at them again.)
What I meant was militarily for the most part.
And of course it's unlikely, it's a challenge to make it work!
And of course it's unlikely, it's a challenge to make it work!
Philip
Donor
It would be rather difficult without an very distant PoD or ASBs. The biggest thing that will help them is time after contact.
As Mr Z suggests, a more bilateral disease exchange would go a long way towards accomplishing this. Others have suggested introducing Eurasian diseases as part of a larger, but eventually isolated, viking settlement. Even if you accomplish something like this, there is still a huge technology gap that needs to be addressed before the Europeans come knocking again.
As Mr Z suggests, a more bilateral disease exchange would go a long way towards accomplishing this. Others have suggested introducing Eurasian diseases as part of a larger, but eventually isolated, viking settlement. Even if you accomplish something like this, there is still a huge technology gap that needs to be addressed before the Europeans come knocking again.
It's very frustrating to have to deal with these threads every couple of months. I wish more people woul use the search function.
As Zyzzyva pointed out, this really isn't happening unless we do some drastic changes. The most important of these would be:
-More disease in the Americas, to counterbalance the Eurafrasian diseases, and/or:
-Earlier contact between the two worlds, so that the native Americans can gain better resistance to diseases and adapt to technologies better
Another good thing would be to have the Europeans suffer some kind of disaster, and having an extremely stable polity for this.
As Zyzzyva pointed out, this really isn't happening unless we do some drastic changes. The most important of these would be:
-More disease in the Americas, to counterbalance the Eurafrasian diseases, and/or:
-Earlier contact between the two worlds, so that the native Americans can gain better resistance to diseases and adapt to technologies better
Another good thing would be to have the Europeans suffer some kind of disaster, and having an extremely stable polity for this.
A meteor hits the Middle East in 10,000 B.C. meanwhile domestic animals evolve in the Americas. 11,500 years later a nomadic European tribe migrates to the Far East and continue migrating across the Bearing Straight into OTL Alaska where they are slaughtered by deer mounted Native Americans.
The Inca Empire probably had the best chance of this. My take on one way this could have come about is here.
Needs a POD a few dozen million years ago..
a) changing geography to create more east-west zones.. basically entire south half of USA from california to florida as the same climate type,,,
b) some sort of protein-rich source of cereal in this area so that its possible for humans to think its a good idea to eat small seeds.
either..
c-1) animals that are domesticable need to evolve in america, without being hunted to extinction within a few hundred years of encountering humans.
or
c-2) non-human intellegent species evolving at exactly the same speed as humans, but in the american continent.
ie,This needs to be in the ASB forum.
a) changing geography to create more east-west zones.. basically entire south half of USA from california to florida as the same climate type,,,
b) some sort of protein-rich source of cereal in this area so that its possible for humans to think its a good idea to eat small seeds.
either..
c-1) animals that are domesticable need to evolve in america, without being hunted to extinction within a few hundred years of encountering humans.
or
c-2) non-human intellegent species evolving at exactly the same speed as humans, but in the american continent.
ie,This needs to be in the ASB forum.
Please elucidate why. Otherwise i will assume you're parroting Guns, Germs, and Steel.
Like quinoa? Among others. You want me to make you a list? There's some relevant books in the campus library.
Maybe. There is a package of knowledge necessary to domesticate some of the more intransigent species that inhabitants of the New World didn't have, and they didn't have the time to work on, say, buffalo that the Europeans had with aurochs. So, yeah, I practically agree. I've always liked the American Cheetah.
For an alternative thought on that same line, it's a stretch, but maybe some Polynesians could have brought pigs into South America.
Interesting idea. Or starting earlier but slower, or later and faster.
Neh. I agree with the above posters who say that earlier sustained contact would do the job. IMO, disease exchange alone wouldn't be enough to help. IMO, resistance would take too long to build to be a field-leveller. Timing of diseases could be important, especially in causing social changes. I'm thinking more that the practical tech advantage isn't quite as insurmountable in earlier years, and the damage potential of steel swords isn't as much as cannon.
I wrote a book on this
I wrote a book length series of essays on this seven or eight years ago (American Indian Victories). I think it's still in print.
The bottom line is that you would need to one of the following (a) Have counterbalancing diseases to kill the Europeans. Problem: You would end up with a different bunch of Indians because their ancestors would have encountered those diseases and some of them would have been killed by them, with ripples all over the continent given any kind of time depth. I figured out a couple of ways around that, but they're far-fetched.
(b) Have some of the animals that died off at the end of the ice age survive. Problem: same as above. You can kind of finesse that by having the animals survive in an isolated area (I had llamas survive in Appalachia, get domesticated and gradually spread over North America).
(c) Have another focus of civilization develop in one of the spots where it was possible, but where development happened too slowly historically. I did a scenario where farming developed more quickly in eastern North America based on native plants instead of corn. It might be possible to have something develop out of the Chumash culture in California, but I haven't figured out how to make that happen. In any case, those additional civilizations would have the same problem with disease that the existing ones did.
(d) Have an infusion of Europeans create a hybrid Indian/European civilization. I did a scenario like that where European outlaws in New England interbred with Indians to create a hybrid culture called the Saguenay. (Named after a mythical Indian civilization). I also did one where the Pizarro brothers succeeded in their revolt against Spain and established a hybrid Spanish Inca state (which wasn't strong enough to overpower Manco's Neo-Inca state at the edge of the Amazon--so we end up with a real Inca state too. Hybrid Indian/European states did sometimes happen historically, the Canadian Mitis and some Portuguese/Indian groups in Brazil being the most prominent.
(e) Have the existing high civilizations in the New World exchange technologies to a greater extent before European contact. In particular, the civilizations of Peru and Mexico could have each used some things the other had: Peruvian domestic animals, bronze, and political organization to Mexico, better bows and the big obsidian swords to Peru. (The Aztecs could kill Spaniards with a fair amount of regularity while the Incas usually couldn't).
(f) Have a relatively harmless disease pre-immunize the Indians from some of the worst European disease. Smallpox and malaria were the worst of the killers, with a much higher fatality rate than the others. I did a scenario where buffalo carried a disease similar to cowpox that would infect humans with only minor symptoms, but immunize them from smallpox, making a lot of the Plains Indians immune to smallpox.
(g) Have something happen in Europe to delay the Europeans. The Communeros revolt in Spain (in 1518 or 1519 if I recall correctly) could have done a number on Spain's control of Mexico and Peru.
There are a lot of these kinds of scenarios on my website, and they're cleaned up and improved somewhat in the book. I'll probably gradually post the best ones over here as time goes on.
I wrote a book length series of essays on this seven or eight years ago (American Indian Victories). I think it's still in print.
The bottom line is that you would need to one of the following (a) Have counterbalancing diseases to kill the Europeans. Problem: You would end up with a different bunch of Indians because their ancestors would have encountered those diseases and some of them would have been killed by them, with ripples all over the continent given any kind of time depth. I figured out a couple of ways around that, but they're far-fetched.
(b) Have some of the animals that died off at the end of the ice age survive. Problem: same as above. You can kind of finesse that by having the animals survive in an isolated area (I had llamas survive in Appalachia, get domesticated and gradually spread over North America).
(c) Have another focus of civilization develop in one of the spots where it was possible, but where development happened too slowly historically. I did a scenario where farming developed more quickly in eastern North America based on native plants instead of corn. It might be possible to have something develop out of the Chumash culture in California, but I haven't figured out how to make that happen. In any case, those additional civilizations would have the same problem with disease that the existing ones did.
(d) Have an infusion of Europeans create a hybrid Indian/European civilization. I did a scenario like that where European outlaws in New England interbred with Indians to create a hybrid culture called the Saguenay. (Named after a mythical Indian civilization). I also did one where the Pizarro brothers succeeded in their revolt against Spain and established a hybrid Spanish Inca state (which wasn't strong enough to overpower Manco's Neo-Inca state at the edge of the Amazon--so we end up with a real Inca state too. Hybrid Indian/European states did sometimes happen historically, the Canadian Mitis and some Portuguese/Indian groups in Brazil being the most prominent.
(e) Have the existing high civilizations in the New World exchange technologies to a greater extent before European contact. In particular, the civilizations of Peru and Mexico could have each used some things the other had: Peruvian domestic animals, bronze, and political organization to Mexico, better bows and the big obsidian swords to Peru. (The Aztecs could kill Spaniards with a fair amount of regularity while the Incas usually couldn't).
(f) Have a relatively harmless disease pre-immunize the Indians from some of the worst European disease. Smallpox and malaria were the worst of the killers, with a much higher fatality rate than the others. I did a scenario where buffalo carried a disease similar to cowpox that would infect humans with only minor symptoms, but immunize them from smallpox, making a lot of the Plains Indians immune to smallpox.
(g) Have something happen in Europe to delay the Europeans. The Communeros revolt in Spain (in 1518 or 1519 if I recall correctly) could have done a number on Spain's control of Mexico and Peru.
There are a lot of these kinds of scenarios on my website, and they're cleaned up and improved somewhat in the book. I'll probably gradually post the best ones over here as time goes on.
Some Indians didn't do too badly
By the way, some Indian groups didn't do too badly against the Europeans. There was a group in Columbia (not the Chibchas) that gave the Spanish fits for 150-200 years. Archeologists are finding that they were far more sophisticated than previously thought. The Spanish had a lot of respect for their fighting abilities, but not so much for their level of culture.
Some of the peoples of Chile held off the Spanish from the mid-1500s into the 1800s, and they weren't roaming savages. They had bronze, large populations, but were decentralized enough that the Spaniards couldn't hijack a central organization and put themselves at the top of it.
The Yaquis in northern Mexico didn't do too badly. They maintained their identity and some degree of military power long enough to play a role in the Mexican Civil War in the early 1900s.
Some of the Yucatan Mayas kept a considerable degree of independence and sometimes military power into mid-1800s (Caste War) and there are still a lot of Indians down there.
There were fairly large groups of Indians in Central America who kept a degree of independence into the 1940s, and again they weren't all roving hunter-gatherers. Some had considerable populations.
By the way, some Indian groups didn't do too badly against the Europeans. There was a group in Columbia (not the Chibchas) that gave the Spanish fits for 150-200 years. Archeologists are finding that they were far more sophisticated than previously thought. The Spanish had a lot of respect for their fighting abilities, but not so much for their level of culture.
Some of the peoples of Chile held off the Spanish from the mid-1500s into the 1800s, and they weren't roaming savages. They had bronze, large populations, but were decentralized enough that the Spaniards couldn't hijack a central organization and put themselves at the top of it.
The Yaquis in northern Mexico didn't do too badly. They maintained their identity and some degree of military power long enough to play a role in the Mexican Civil War in the early 1900s.
Some of the Yucatan Mayas kept a considerable degree of independence and sometimes military power into mid-1800s (Caste War) and there are still a lot of Indians down there.
There were fairly large groups of Indians in Central America who kept a degree of independence into the 1940s, and again they weren't all roving hunter-gatherers. Some had considerable populations.
Big Issue
One big problem common to Incas and Aztecs: Their societies were conquest states, where the vast majority of their subjects didn't feel that they had a significant stake in the continued existence of the current leadership. The Incas were better at integrating conquered people into their empire, but even there a lot of subject people were willing to ally themselves to the Spaniards, thinking that they could use the Spanish to regain their independence.
By the way: Those early Spanish allies could have been a major threat to Spanish rule later on if things had worked out a little differently. They had seen the Spanish in operation and knew a thing or two about how they worked. There was a fairly powerful Indian group in Peru that set up mass production of pikes, apparently getting ready for a revolt, but got caught before they could pull it off. There were hints that the Tlaxcallans and Tarascans wavered a bit in their allegiance to the Spanish at the height of the Mixton Rebellion, a revolt of Indians on the northwest fringe of the civilized areas against the Spanish. One of the major groups fighting against Spain in the Mixton Rebellion was the Cazcanes, and they became military allies with Spain in the Chichimec wars. There again, there were a few times where that alliance looked wobbly. The Cazcanes were a semi-civilized group right at the boundary between the civilized groups of Mexican Indians and the northern barbarians. When they fought against Spain they gave the Spaniards a very rough time.
One big problem common to Incas and Aztecs: Their societies were conquest states, where the vast majority of their subjects didn't feel that they had a significant stake in the continued existence of the current leadership. The Incas were better at integrating conquered people into their empire, but even there a lot of subject people were willing to ally themselves to the Spaniards, thinking that they could use the Spanish to regain their independence.
By the way: Those early Spanish allies could have been a major threat to Spanish rule later on if things had worked out a little differently. They had seen the Spanish in operation and knew a thing or two about how they worked. There was a fairly powerful Indian group in Peru that set up mass production of pikes, apparently getting ready for a revolt, but got caught before they could pull it off. There were hints that the Tlaxcallans and Tarascans wavered a bit in their allegiance to the Spanish at the height of the Mixton Rebellion, a revolt of Indians on the northwest fringe of the civilized areas against the Spanish. One of the major groups fighting against Spain in the Mixton Rebellion was the Cazcanes, and they became military allies with Spain in the Chichimec wars. There again, there were a few times where that alliance looked wobbly. The Cazcanes were a semi-civilized group right at the boundary between the civilized groups of Mexican Indians and the northern barbarians. When they fought against Spain they gave the Spaniards a very rough time.
What if the Europeans are more aggressive towards each other?
In South and Central America it was almost entirely the Spanish and Portuguese who did all the colonizing, with raids by the English.
In North America it was really only the French (who lost fairly quickly), the English and the Spanish down south. But aside from the early fighting between the French and English they mostly stayed out of each others hair.
Now what if everyone tried to compete with everyone else to a greater extent?
Instead of Drake simply raiding the Spanish, he gives guns, weapons and armour to the nearby Indians and uses them to capture entire colonies. He keeps the gold and money, the Indians get weapons, animals, crops and knowledge.
Throw the French in, and South and Central America could become something like India. Yes they may and probably will be colonized, but it won't be the near total destruction of the Indians.
In North America, if the Dutch, and French last longer, and if the Spanish and maybe Portuguese, move North in retaliation for the raids in their Southern Colonies, the Indians in North America may be able to play all sides against the others. Again they'd most likely be colonized, especially due to losses from disease, but instead of being decimate, in some areas, they'd be made protectorates, loosely controlled colonies, and markets to be glutted with European goods.
Other than this and some of what DaleCoz posted, I don't see the Indians doing well without a very ancient POD.
In South and Central America it was almost entirely the Spanish and Portuguese who did all the colonizing, with raids by the English.
In North America it was really only the French (who lost fairly quickly), the English and the Spanish down south. But aside from the early fighting between the French and English they mostly stayed out of each others hair.
Now what if everyone tried to compete with everyone else to a greater extent?
Instead of Drake simply raiding the Spanish, he gives guns, weapons and armour to the nearby Indians and uses them to capture entire colonies. He keeps the gold and money, the Indians get weapons, animals, crops and knowledge.
Throw the French in, and South and Central America could become something like India. Yes they may and probably will be colonized, but it won't be the near total destruction of the Indians.
In North America, if the Dutch, and French last longer, and if the Spanish and maybe Portuguese, move North in retaliation for the raids in their Southern Colonies, the Indians in North America may be able to play all sides against the others. Again they'd most likely be colonized, especially due to losses from disease, but instead of being decimate, in some areas, they'd be made protectorates, loosely controlled colonies, and markets to be glutted with European goods.
Other than this and some of what DaleCoz posted, I don't see the Indians doing well without a very ancient POD.
In all fairness to China, the Middle Kingdom at that particular time was ruled by the Qing, or Manchu, Dynasty, and was pretty much in decline. Their technological advance pretty much stagnated since the fall of the Ming. If Europe tried to force their way into China a few centuries earlier, they would have had pain inflicted upon them.
Susano
Banned
Eh, but those are different waves of colonialism. China is 19th century colonialism, with the Scramble for Africa, White Mans Burden etc. In the Americas its the 16th century colonialism, with conquistadores and missionaries and stuff. Measured at 16th century European powers a powerful enough native Empire to shrugg the Europeans off is plausible at least Id say. If one handwaves away the plagues, of course...
Well, no, my point is the two places I linked (Macau and Formosa) were both taken off the Ming during the 16th and 17th century.