News articles overstate how surprised actual archaeologists were over the discoveries, it's been assumed for a while that the population exceeded 10 million in the Classic Era and now they have proof. Also, the new estimates are 10-15 million for the Maya region, not 15-30 million.
AHC#1 - Equip a North American Native American tribe or nation with the right stuff.
- Thread starter balthasargettysburg
- Start date
Yeah I was thinking 15-30 millón without mayan collapse at the spanish arrive in América, my bad if this was nota clear
As already stated, the Mi'kmaq almost accomplished this OTL if not for a serious outbreak of disease. The Hawaiians, although based differently geographically, actually did achieve independence and recognition up until their annexation by the US. The key features that allowed them to survive was, as far as I can see, 1) a willingness to adopt European ideas, technology, and religion, and 2) a lack of naturally occurring precious metals making them worth more as trade partners than as direct subjects to the Europeans. As the Mi'kmaq are already taken and the Hawaiians would be cheating, I'm going to "create" a civilization fitting the criteria.
I would like to nominate the Pueblo. The leader is going to be Po'pay. In 1680, the various Pueblo tribes successfully carried out a revolt, forcibly ejecting the Spanish from their lands. The Spanish attempted reconquest in 1688, but lost. In 1692, the Spanish returned again -- with more guns -- and successfully negotiated the surrender of the Pueblo against promises of leniency and religious tolerance. The exception was the Hopi, which due to their geographic insignificance and small numbers were more-or-less ignored and allowed independence up until they asked the US to help secure their defense against the Navajo in 1851, after which they were promptly made subjects of the US.
The interesting part of the Pueblo revolt is the reasons for the surrender of the Pueblo federation:
1. The revolt was riddled with millenarianism. Many of the Pueblo genuinely believed that the old Pueblo gods would reward them for driving out the Spanish. When rewards failed to materialize, enthusiasm was partly lost. After the revolt, the nearby Navajo people began a long and brutal series of raids against the Pueblo, taking slaves and stealing crops and causing a famine. Up until then the Spanish had kept the Navajo at bay, but the Pueblo state did not have the technological advantage or the centralized government necessary to properly respond to the threat.
2. Pop'ay supposedly wanted to set himself up as the "monarch" (or theocratic leader) of the federation, The Pueblo objected, and Po'pay was deposed and killed in 1681, a year after the revolt.
3. Anti-European sentiment (especially by Po'pay and his followers) caused the Pueblo to embrace isolationism and carry out several acts of self-sabotage -- wheat and barley were seen as "European" crops, and so fields planted with these were left to die. Similarly, the use of European weapons, European livestock, and so on was (supposedly) outlawed.
4. The Pueblo had little-to-no experience with central government, and apart from the followers of Po'pay sought a return to the traditional lifestyle of self-governing villages. As such, the Pueblo could not respond to Spanish or Navajo threats in an effective manner, despite the numerical superiority for which they actually had the capabilities.
5. The Spanish response in 1692 exceed that of 1688 primarily because it was feared that the Pueblo had allied with the French. The Pueblo, lacking the organization and hating Europeans enough to never even consider establishing such an alliance did have French support, but it was conceivable that they could have had French support.
With that in mind, I think it is possible to help the Pueblo maintain their independence. Mainly, we need to replace their xenophobia and isolationism with a willingness to adapt European ideas and an openness for trade -- something like the Mi'kmaq, in fact. Let's say that the monks left behind to convert the Pueblo after Vázquez de Coronado's conquest of the Rio Grande are a bit less fire-and-brimstone, and a syncretic Pueblo-Catholic tradition develops as a result. Similarly, perhaps the Pueblo notice that the presence of the Spaniards seems to reduce the amount of raids from the Navajo, and that some of the European crops have better yields. The Spaniards, being Spaniards, would still seek to exploit the Pueblo for labour and impose catholic orthodoxy in place of the syncreticism. A philosophy develops where some of the European ideas are kinda good, but the Spanish are still tyrants and oppressors. As such, Po'pay is still put on trial and almost executed for witchcraft, and the revolt still happens. However, the philosophical underpinings of this revolt are different.
The Pueblo attempt to syncretize Spanish government as they have done with Spanish religion, and are okay with Po'pay taking central power. He is not deposed as he was OTL, but instead crowned King of the Pueblo. Owing to the tradition of syncretism, instead of focusing his efforts on destroying any-and-all European influence upon Pueblo society, he focuses on centralizing the government and securing the future of the Pueblo nation -- by any means necessary, as he is accused of OTL. He creates an official army in response to Navajo raids, successfully avoiding famine. He establishes a trading relationship with the French, who are happy to deprive the Spanish of profits from the now Puebloan sugar plantations. In 1692, the Spanish still show up with enough guns to force the surrender of the Pueblo. However, instead of a ragtag group of native chieftains, the Pueblo are lead by a more-or-less Christian king, who by European philosophy of the time can be negotiated with. They monopolize the sugar trade and force the Pueblo to allow Spanish missionaries in Pueblo territory, but otherwise leave the pueblo as a de facto independent client kingdom. Eleven years later, the Pueblo take advantage of the War of the Spanish Succession, formally ally themselves with the French, and gain the recognition of the French crown as a "reward".
From thereon, the Pueblo survive by being the biggest fish in their small pond, and by trading with the much larger French- and Spanish-speaking fish in the neighbouring ponds -- naturally, playing them off each other as much a possible. They are probably eventually annexed by either the US or Mexico, but they at least have a few centuries of independence and a fighting chance against any invaders.
I would like to nominate the Pueblo. The leader is going to be Po'pay. In 1680, the various Pueblo tribes successfully carried out a revolt, forcibly ejecting the Spanish from their lands. The Spanish attempted reconquest in 1688, but lost. In 1692, the Spanish returned again -- with more guns -- and successfully negotiated the surrender of the Pueblo against promises of leniency and religious tolerance. The exception was the Hopi, which due to their geographic insignificance and small numbers were more-or-less ignored and allowed independence up until they asked the US to help secure their defense against the Navajo in 1851, after which they were promptly made subjects of the US.
The interesting part of the Pueblo revolt is the reasons for the surrender of the Pueblo federation:
1. The revolt was riddled with millenarianism. Many of the Pueblo genuinely believed that the old Pueblo gods would reward them for driving out the Spanish. When rewards failed to materialize, enthusiasm was partly lost. After the revolt, the nearby Navajo people began a long and brutal series of raids against the Pueblo, taking slaves and stealing crops and causing a famine. Up until then the Spanish had kept the Navajo at bay, but the Pueblo state did not have the technological advantage or the centralized government necessary to properly respond to the threat.
2. Pop'ay supposedly wanted to set himself up as the "monarch" (or theocratic leader) of the federation, The Pueblo objected, and Po'pay was deposed and killed in 1681, a year after the revolt.
3. Anti-European sentiment (especially by Po'pay and his followers) caused the Pueblo to embrace isolationism and carry out several acts of self-sabotage -- wheat and barley were seen as "European" crops, and so fields planted with these were left to die. Similarly, the use of European weapons, European livestock, and so on was (supposedly) outlawed.
4. The Pueblo had little-to-no experience with central government, and apart from the followers of Po'pay sought a return to the traditional lifestyle of self-governing villages. As such, the Pueblo could not respond to Spanish or Navajo threats in an effective manner, despite the numerical superiority for which they actually had the capabilities.
5. The Spanish response in 1692 exceed that of 1688 primarily because it was feared that the Pueblo had allied with the French. The Pueblo, lacking the organization and hating Europeans enough to never even consider establishing such an alliance did have French support, but it was conceivable that they could have had French support.
With that in mind, I think it is possible to help the Pueblo maintain their independence. Mainly, we need to replace their xenophobia and isolationism with a willingness to adapt European ideas and an openness for trade -- something like the Mi'kmaq, in fact. Let's say that the monks left behind to convert the Pueblo after Vázquez de Coronado's conquest of the Rio Grande are a bit less fire-and-brimstone, and a syncretic Pueblo-Catholic tradition develops as a result. Similarly, perhaps the Pueblo notice that the presence of the Spaniards seems to reduce the amount of raids from the Navajo, and that some of the European crops have better yields. The Spaniards, being Spaniards, would still seek to exploit the Pueblo for labour and impose catholic orthodoxy in place of the syncreticism. A philosophy develops where some of the European ideas are kinda good, but the Spanish are still tyrants and oppressors. As such, Po'pay is still put on trial and almost executed for witchcraft, and the revolt still happens. However, the philosophical underpinings of this revolt are different.
The Pueblo attempt to syncretize Spanish government as they have done with Spanish religion, and are okay with Po'pay taking central power. He is not deposed as he was OTL, but instead crowned King of the Pueblo. Owing to the tradition of syncretism, instead of focusing his efforts on destroying any-and-all European influence upon Pueblo society, he focuses on centralizing the government and securing the future of the Pueblo nation -- by any means necessary, as he is accused of OTL. He creates an official army in response to Navajo raids, successfully avoiding famine. He establishes a trading relationship with the French, who are happy to deprive the Spanish of profits from the now Puebloan sugar plantations. In 1692, the Spanish still show up with enough guns to force the surrender of the Pueblo. However, instead of a ragtag group of native chieftains, the Pueblo are lead by a more-or-less Christian king, who by European philosophy of the time can be negotiated with. They monopolize the sugar trade and force the Pueblo to allow Spanish missionaries in Pueblo territory, but otherwise leave the pueblo as a de facto independent client kingdom. Eleven years later, the Pueblo take advantage of the War of the Spanish Succession, formally ally themselves with the French, and gain the recognition of the French crown as a "reward".
From thereon, the Pueblo survive by being the biggest fish in their small pond, and by trading with the much larger French- and Spanish-speaking fish in the neighbouring ponds -- naturally, playing them off each other as much a possible. They are probably eventually annexed by either the US or Mexico, but they at least have a few centuries of independence and a fighting chance against any invaders.
Last edited:
Two things:
Thanks for what you have given me. The Native American tribes of the Eastern U.S. are generally underrated. I will try to work something up in this regard for my next AHC. I am very interested in Native America and several other areas. I am NOT an expert in Native America, but I have good background and training for what I am planning.
And: Congratulations. You are a Most Excellent Advocate of the Pueblo, making their uniqueness tangible and their possible survival and success plausible. Well done!
Yes, the Maya were huger than anyone imagined before advances in satellite cartography. And it makes me feel worse for their fall. It seems predicated on information I don't have because I am NOT an expert on Native America, but VERY interested. Also, I was unaware that Mayan nationalism had a leg to stand on since 1500. There's a lot of information in the world. I issued an AHC with some criteria, and recieved responses from several people that fit very well. Even in regard to cultures about which I possessed ZERO knowledge beforehand. I also strive to avoid discussions of contemporary politics, as it is not allowed here per AH.com rules
The "fall of Maya civilization" was a much more localized event than pop-history leads people to believe. Around the 400-700's, the "Classic period" as archaeologists and historians call it, the Maya population was at its peak but the larger share of it was in and around the southern lowlands, centered on the modern day Peten department of northern Guatemala. This region was the home to most of the famous ruins, like Tikal, and was the hardest hit by the collapse and afterwards there were only a few cities in the region which paled in comparison to their antecedents. But beyond the southern lowlands, in modern-day Mexico as well as southern Guatemala, lots more kingdoms and states started to rise and flourish, most famously Chichen Itza although it too fell before the Spanish arrived. By the time the Spanish showed up though there were still millions of Maya living in cities and towns. The last people to be conquered were in the Peten region, in 1697, mostly because the area had been so thoroughly depopulated after the Classic period that it was very remote by this time although there were still towns containing thousands of people that the Spanish had to take by force.
Yes, and the sad truth is that the once mighty Mayan culture has been subordinated into divided subcultures, at present, among several established nation-states. One wonders what the long term prospects of a Mayan recollection of its cultural Independence (language education rights, national identity institutions such as civics groups, universities, corporate communities) might arise in the future, and where it might lead. But that would clearly be something for the Future History Forum.
There never was a single, unified Maya culture in history, it's always been a general grouping of people speaking similar languages living in a certain area. Like assuming English and Scots are the same people, or Germans and Dutch. And there certainly hasn't been a single, unified Maya nation in history, the 1840's Caste War was the closest to such thing there ever would be.
There were unions of multiple cities, leagues or small empires of Mayans, though there was never full union of all Mayan territory, but impressively sized national units, yes.
To borrow a German term, there was a Mayan "Heimat."
Kingdoms and hegemonies, but not an overarching "Mayan empire" nor a unifying language. Nor did having the same language or culture ever stop people from fighting each other.
I understand this part of the Collapse, what i was trying, and apparently falling, was Maintain the classical cities on his splendor, or as close you could, until the Spanish invasion.
As, I say before, I subscribe to the theory that the diminished soil fertility was the principal cause of the collapse of the Clasical Mayan Cities, as the other popular theories don´t make much sense.
1.- Foreign invasion, generally speaking when a less refined civilization conquer a highest refined civilization(think mongols and China, Arabs in Persia, Roman in Greece) they tend to adopt a lot of the cultural motives and practices of the more refined one. so as we don´t see a cultural continuity in the region, this couldn´t be the reason of the Mayan collapse
2.- Internal Warfare, well Europe have 1.000 years of internal warfare(fall of Rome- American discovery) not the worse to wear, and has Rome, Persia, China, india.
3.- Periodical drought, the Mayan have a really exquisite and intricate system of canal and water reservoirs, that quite recently we are beginning to discover, so I doubt the situation was quite desperate to abandon the cities, specially because the drought was cyclical in the region, so any civilization that rise here must have cultural and technological adaptation from his star to these events.
4.-Fall of the Trade Routes, this could also be a possibility, but the routes only fall because there is nothing to trade or with what to pay for the trade , and this is a development that occurs in a relative advances, part collapse process
5.- Diminished fertility of the farmland, quite simple this is, in my opinion, the principal cause of the Mayan Collapse, you , as farmer, don´t abandon your farm as long they produce enough food to feed you and your family, What i see in the Mayan collapse is more akin to the Irish potato Famine, The land was in his maximum productivity, but constantly with worse and worse yield, even in no drought years, cause a general famine, and a abandoned of the place, for more rich lands, situation that goes really good to what we know happened during the Mayan collapse, it´s was not a total destruction of the culture, only the abandon of the most rich and therefore exhausted lands.
As such i think that given the Mayan Terra Preta, is a good way to maintain the cultural center inhabited and in constant expansion, not dissimilar to what the Greek people was doing in the Mediterranean before the Roman rising, as per OP request.
And here we have patch work of city-states, leagues, kingdoms, and one or two empires wannabe in the area, now more densely populated, in time to the spanish arrival.
By small empire I mean a league of unequal cities in which one has "the kingship." And "Heimat" means heartfelt homeland, a homeland for one's own people and related peoples. Swabians and Berliners and Rhinelanders and Bavarians are not all the same, but all experience "heimat" within Germany to a greater or lesser degree. In this way I try to interpret the sense of a "Mayan" heimat. I doubt it exists if (IF) it cannot exist to any great extent among public institutions and public discourse. Again, this is NOT the place to discuss current politics.