AHC : Make a Native American country not being conquerred

AH challenge. With a POD since Columbus make a Native American country/tribe in North America preserve its independence without being conquerred by Europeans (a North American version of Ethiopia).
Remember, that European colonists (most probably British) still settle the east coast
 
Comanche are probably the best choice, or maybe even the Metis. Since the US can use them as a buffer between them and British Canada.
 
I was about to write a post about the Inca, and then read down and saw that you specifically said "north anerica". With a POD as early as 1492 I think you can pretty much take any Native Nation and want them enough to maintain independence. You've got 100 years before Europeans begin successfully settling north of Mexico, and then another 200 after that before real power projection beyond the Appalachians is possible.

You might get such an independent nation becoming a de facto protectorate in the late 19th century, but they'd probably still be able to regain full independence in the 20th century.

It''s really a challenge such as this one that I was trying to meet when I started writing donnacona''s dream. My TL has grown into being more than that since, but my end goal is still for the Kanatians to maintain independence into the present day.
 

UKFA

Banned
The best bet is the British Empire, they wanted to prevent expansion west from the 13 colonies, and they arguably had the manpower to stop Spain/ Mexico conquering their way northwards.
 
The best bet is the British Empire, they wanted to prevent expansion west from the 13 colonies, and they arguably had the manpower to stop Spain/ Mexico conquering their way northwards.

They wanted to MANAGE the expansion of the 13 colonies. They had no real problem with it expanding if it were properly managed. What they objected to was the fact that the settlers were getting ahead of the flag. The Brits had no problems with kicking out native peoples historically.
 
Comanche are probably the best choice, or maybe even the Metis. Since the US can use them as a buffer between them and British Canada.
Speaking of the Comanches....
tricolor_of_oklahoma_by_ramones1986-d9u3ruf.png
 
Mexico is doable. Have Cortes fail. The Aztec Empire will still crumble, smallpox will still utterly destroy the place, but a powerful successor state can emerge which can probably hold on into the modern age. The place will be a free for all for a century, but European enclaves in Mexico are unlikely to expand to conquer the place. It'll be as close to a post-apocalyptic society as ever created on Earth--massive epidemics still ravaging the people, the world everyone knew shattered, new technology, new everything, apocalyptic cults, and above all, MASSIVE amounts of warfare, spurred on by European powers. But I'd have hope some society can keep independent in Mesoamerica, even if there eventually is a "scramble for Mesoamerica".

North America I have no hopes for. Barring alternate agriculture, any society that keeps independence will become a European protectorate. At best, remember. And this wouldn't be quite alternate agriculture, but introduced agriculture might work. Like try and get rice or buckwheat established in the Pacific Northwest by way of East Asian shipwrecks. The Northwest has conducive climate to both crops, and an Asian might recognise a plant known as wapato, of which a relative grew alongside rice in paddies. Probably an independent POD, but it could happen after Columbus and give the Pacific Northwest peoples a bit of a fighting chance, at least to become a protectorate of a European power instead of the decimation and conquest they endured OTL.

I was about to write a post about the Inca, and then read down and saw that you specifically said "north anerica". With a POD as early as 1492 I think you can pretty much take any Native Nation and want them enough to maintain independence. You've got 100 years before Europeans begin successfully settling north of Mexico, and then another 200 after that before real power projection beyond the Appalachians is possible.

You're mostly right, but any native nation is a bit of a stretch. I don't think the Plains Indians, for instance, are capable of being independent without a lengthy period of colonisation to reshape their social structures, simply because their mode of organisation was totally alien to the European model which has become the internationally recognised way of organising a society. I'd further restrict it to those groups which had decent numbers even after European epidemics--so probably a group from the East Coast, Great Lakes, and the Pacific Northwest cultural areas. And the East Coast has the obvious issue that its ground zero for European colonists. And I didn't mention California Indians, but they seem too divided to ever be able to withstand Europeans--the fact that indigenous California has one of the greatest diversities of language in the Americas is telling. There's also the fact that any organised enough native Californian society might end up exploiting the gold resources there, which will attract attention of the very negative sort from Europeans.

Comanche are probably the best choice, or maybe even the Metis. Since the US can use them as a buffer between them and British Canada.

No, the Comanche definitely are not. Their social structure and mode of organisation is completely incompatible with something like the US or any other sovereign nation. They could never constitute a country on a Westphalian level without giving up everything that gave them such an advantage. And since the age of steppe peoples was over before the Comanche came to power, their days are numbered--it's only a matter of when they would lose once the US (and arguably even the Republic of Texas) came onto the scene. They have a crippling demographic disadvantage--the bison were declining since the late 1700s in their range, and even their shift to cattle ranching didn't save them, since one bad winter or two will kill both cattle and deplete bison stock (further) causing starvation. Further, a key part of their economy was based on bison hunting for trade to Europeans. That's also going to deplete bison numbers as we saw. Incidentally, another key part of their economy was raiding other Plains Indians as well as Spanish/Mexican/American settlements, which certainly doesn't endear them to their neighbours. The latter can be controlled, but in return, the Comanche tended to demand gifts which at times basically amounted to protection money and proved to be very annoying for Spanish officials to have to pay.

The same applies to any other Plains Indian group. They are among the last cultural groups of American Indians I'd expect to ever constitute a sovereign, unconquered nation in a world that has any colonisation of the Americas at all.
 
I would go with an Alt 7YW. If the French are still strong on the continent, French and English might want a buffer state, the Iroquois for example, around the Great Lakes.

Reading accounts, it seems relatively well populated and organised
 
Meaning? I have heard of it but don't know what you posted it. GB didn't object their colonies expanding as long as they controlled it. There is nothing there that shows the British government cared less about the natives.

They also hated paying for the conflicts settlers tended to cause with the natives. Even if they weren't paying for the protection, they might have to pay for gifts sent to the natives that would keep them at peace. It can't be understated that trade with Indians amounted to a protection racket at times. And European nations (Spain, France, Britain) had limits to how much they were willing to invest in the colonies.

I would go with an Alt 7YW. If the French are still strong on the continent, French and English might want a buffer state, the Iroquois for example, around the Great Lakes.

Reading accounts, it seems relatively well populated and organised

They occupy very good land, but in that era are probably the last hope for keeping an independent Native American state. And even they will more than likely be absorbed as a protectorate of one power of the other (my money's on the British). The British simply held a dominating demographic advantage in North America for the French to be able to do more than hold on at that point.
 

UKFA

Banned
Meaning? I have heard of it but don't know what you posted it. GB didn't object their colonies expanding as long as they controlled it. There is nothing there that shows the British government cared less about the natives.

I posted the wrong article, I meant to post this one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812

The British had created peace treaties with most surrounding native Americans, and indeed they considered they had bought much of the land of the 13 colonies legally, or won it from wars with the French, Spanish or natives. They fought the war of 1812 for many reasons, but part of it was to stop American territorial expansion, and to help their native allies (even some who had fought against them in the ARW). I'm not saying the British were not imperialist, but in this particular case they are the best hope of keeping a Native American state intact, as per the OP request.
 
Mexico/Aztecs is the only realistic possibility. Mexico is, of course, in North America, so counts.

All the nations north of there were too thin on the ground to survive being swamped by white settlement.

The Cherokee have a very faint hope. They adopted European agriculture and tools, and could have possibly managed to survive, growing in numbers due to natural increase, adoptions of whites, other natives, and blacks, and absorbing some of the native nations. Of course, they'd likely end up being English speaking and Christian and hard to tell from a White polity.
 
They occupy very good land, but in that era are probably the last hope for keeping an independent Native American state. And even they will more than likely be absorbed as a protectorate of one power of the other (my money's on the British). The British simply held a dominating demographic advantage in North America for the French to be able to do more than hold on at that point.

Given the difference of technology and of demography, I really don't think anything better than a Protectorate can be achieved. These people were hunter gatherer and didn't have the social structure t support the rapid development needed to get to the level.

Of course, a Protectorate/buffer state gives them more time and a more friendly exposure to new techs and capital.

I know the whole schtick, once again, colonised/eradicated people can't help themselves without the white man, but let's be honest, these were stone age groups. They didn't stand a chance in the long run
 
They also hated paying for the conflicts settlers tended to cause with the natives. Even if they weren't paying for the protection, they might have to pay for gifts sent to the natives that would keep them at peace. It can't be understated that trade with Indians amounted to a protection racket at times. And European nations (Spain, France, Britain) had limits to how much they were willing to invest in the colonies.
Like I said they liked to manage it. Once it was in British interests to expand the expansion would have happened. Sooner or later the population in the 13 colonies or Canada would expand enough that it would have been in their interests. .


They occupy very good land, but in that era are probably the last hope for keeping an independent Native American state. And even they will more than likely be absorbed as a protectorate of one power of the other (my money's on the British). The British simply held a dominating demographic advantage in North America for the French to be able to do more than hold on at that point.

They would have lasted less than a decade after the British and or French decided it was in their own interests to take over the land.
 
I posted the wrong article, I meant to post this one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812

The British had created peace treaties with most surrounding native Americans, and indeed they considered they had bought much of the land of the 13 colonies legally, or won it from wars with the French, Spanish or natives. They fought the war of 1812 for many reasons, but part of it was to stop American territorial expansion, and to help their native allies (even some who had fought against them in the ARW). I'm not saying the British were not imperialist, but in this particular case they are the best hope of keeping a Native American state intact, as per the OP request.

1) Stopping an independent US is a far cry from stopping your own colonies. The former restrains a rival the latter weakens yourself. Once it was in British interests to expand their colonies they would .
2) The treaties would have lasted about 10 seconds after the British decided they would rather have the area under their rule via Canada and no more. The Brits didn't give a damn about the natives.
 

UKFA

Banned
Given the difference of technology and of demography, I really don't think anything better than a Protectorate can be achieved. These people were hunter gatherer and didn't have the social structure t support the rapid development needed to get to the level.

Of course, a Protectorate/buffer state gives them more time and a more friendly exposure to new techs and capital.

I know the whole schtick, once again, colonised/eradicated people can't help themselves without the white man, but let's be honest, these were stone age groups. They didn't stand a chance in the long run

I disagree, this was happening at a time when people were becoming more enlightened. Slavery had been abolished and even actively prevented by some nations, there were the first murmurs of sympathy for non white people being oppressed. It was possible if the right people, such as Thomas Jefferson, hold more influence.

Like I said they liked to manage it. Once it was in British interests to expand the expansion would have happened. Sooner or later the population in the 13 colonies or Canada would expand enough that it would have been in their interests. .

They would have lasted less than a decade after the British and or French decided it was in their own interests to take over the land.

It was always in their interests to take more land, but both the British and French had allegiances with various native tribes. And though you give them little credit it would be dishonourable to simply attack their allies and steal their lands. Better to maintain peace treaties and trading rights.
 

UKFA

Banned
1) Stopping an independent US is a far cry from stopping your own colonies. The former restrains a rival the latter weakens yourself. Once it was in British interests to expand their colonies they would .
2) The treaties would have lasted about 10 seconds after the British decided they would rather have the area under their rule via Canada and no more. The Brits didn't give a damn about the natives.

Ah I think I remember you from previous discussions of this nature. While your low opinion of the British is noted, the fact remains there were alliances between the British and Native Americans from the American Indian Wars through to the war of 1812 which were honoured. The Brits even gave lands in Canada to Native Americans who fled the USA after the ARW, having supported the British and lost. What is certain is that American Independence was the nail in the coffin of many thousands of Native Americans.
 

ben0628

Banned
What about the Seminoles? They adopted runaway slaves, did a pretty decent job of resisting the US. What if Florida remained Spanish?
 
Mexico/Aztecs is the only realistic possibility. Mexico is, of course, in North America, so counts.

All the nations north of there were too thin on the ground to survive being swamped by white settlement.

The Cherokee have a very faint hope. They adopted European agriculture and tools, and could have possibly managed to survive, growing in numbers due to natural increase, adoptions of whites, other natives, and blacks, and absorbing some of the native nations. Of course, they'd likely end up being English speaking and Christian and hard to tell from a White polity.

Aztecs are impossible, since everyone in Mesoamerica hated them, and it was time for a regime change there which Cortes took advantage of. And even if Cortes fails, they will collapse as violently as they rose.

If the Cherokee gain that much westernisation, they aren't the Cherokee, they are an independent Trans-Appalachia state, probably with actual Cherokee in the minority.

Given the difference of technology and of demography, I really don't think anything better than a Protectorate can be achieved. These people were hunter gatherer and didn't have the social structure t support the rapid development needed to get to the level.

Of course, a Protectorate/buffer state gives them more time and a more friendly exposure to new techs and capital.

I know the whole schtick, once again, colonised/eradicated people can't help themselves without the white man, but let's be honest, these were stone age groups. They didn't stand a chance in the long run

They were not Stone Age people, but rather more advanced, at least along the level of many peoples in Africa--their agriculture was better than white settlements, even if it depleted the land quicker. That still isn't good enough for a modern society, but these were not primitives.

I disagree, this was happening at a time when people were becoming more enlightened. Slavery had been abolished and even actively prevented by some nations, there were the first murmurs of sympathy for non white people being oppressed. It was possible if the right people, such as Thomas Jefferson, hold more influence.

It was always in their interests to take more land, but both the British and French had allegiances with various native tribes. And though you give them little credit it would be dishonourable to simply attack their allies and steal their lands. Better to maintain peace treaties and trading rights.

In intellectual circles maybe. If you're a farmer out for money and a good lifestyle, that doesn't matter at all. Once you don't need the tribes to keep a military alliance (since you have settlers there), your policy on that front will be to protect settler interest. At that point, the best hope for the American Indian is to end up like the elites of the Five Civilised Tribes did pre-Indian Removal--powerful landowners and planters, at the expense of the poor in the tribe.

I don't buy for a minute British North America wouldn't throw the American Indians under the bus when it became convenient. These are same people who utterly destroyed India and much of, after all.

What about the Seminoles? They adopted runaway slaves, did a pretty decent job of resisting the US. What if Florida remained Spanish?

Still no hope. They held out because Florida was so useless. If Spain maintains control, perhaps it'll be an extension of the Caribbean with the Amerindian culture of a place like Paraguay. Eventually, either Spain or Britain/United States moves in to assert more control.
 
Top