AHC: Native Americans push the settlers to the sea

[Zuvarq]

Perhaps a combination of the following factors:
- Several colonizers, all of which retain their colonies.
- No inclusive colonizers. All of them seek to take land. Perhaps the Huguenot conflicts make French Catholicism extra fervent, and they won't accept the pagan natives. And the Dutch are forced to place armed, landhungry settlers to defend their colonies because of extra Swedish/somebody-else presence.
- New religious group moves in with the natives. They spread technology, immunities, and a 'heretic' version of Christianity, but become assimilated culturally and genetically.
- In the English colonies in the South, white indentured servants and black slaves unite to depose the leaders of the colonies, then focus on being excessively brutal to the natives. This both unites the natives against them, and will lead up to an English attempt at reconquest, which will harm the colonies.
- Natives that get pushed out, are hired/incorporated by other tribes. That, or the more assimilating groups like the component tribes of the Iroquois Confederacy take predominance.
- Tecumseh analogue.

 

[dreadnought jenkins]

What about a religious group in the 1600s that goes to live with and mix with a native tribe, adopting their culture and lifestyle. But the Christian religion buys them some time with the settlers. While they end up bringing some technology as well.

This tribe mixes with other tribes and becomes more native again but immunities and weapons are spread. Several decades afterward a Tecumseh-like character confederates the tribes and attacks the European colonies one by one. He may be more successful if the Eastern Seaboard is still split between several powers.

Europeans probably recolonize, but the initial conquest provides some extra horses and guns, giving the tribe an advantage for further raids. They can attack the colonies one by one, though the confederacy probably ends up dissolving.

The whole Eastern Seaboard? And all the tribes?

Why would they do such a thing? I mean this in two ways: 1) Why would they attack every single European settlement? and 2) Why would all the Native Americans confederate?

The Natives were not ethnically homogeneous. They were religiously, culturally, and linguisticly amazingly diverse. Many tribes hated each other more than they hated the Europeans. Any large confederation of natives moving to attack every single European colony would mean moving into territories claimed by other tribes not part of the confederacy. These tribes would naturally be hostile and join the Europeans in repelling the invasion. Many tribes, before the United States started really stomping over treaty rights, got deals out of working with Europeans rather than against them.

There was no pan-Indian feelings...at all. This is not just Native Americans. Europeans were also naturally disinclined to unite. Even with the Ottomans rolling up the Balkans and every single European religious leader calling for unity, the Europeans could barely be inclined to stop killing each other to listen.

Perhaps to unite the natives against the settlers, you unite the settlers. Have NathanielBacon's rebellion succeed to an absurd extent. Now the natives have to unite. Meanwhile, the English are going to try to put down the rebellion.

No they don't.

The English settlers had the benefit of having a shared ethnic heritage, a shared religion (broadly speaking), a shared culture, and a shared language. They can unite relatively easily with some issues remaining. Usually, huge geographic distances would hinder political unity, but the colonists are benefited by being coastal and thus sea voyages keep them connected.

All of the things that benefit colonial cohesions work against the natives. They are ethnically diverse, they have an astounding array of languages, they lack a common religion, and they don't even have one common culture. The Natives were also inland, which inhibits communication. Fast communication has to go along rivers and passage rights were often a touchy subject between tribes. One has to factor in the wars between tribes, many of which had been going on for decades or centuries. Many of these conflicts were inflamed, rather than quieted by diseases.

 

[Zuvarq]

The whole Eastern Seaboard? And all the tribes?

Why would they do such a thing? I mean this in two ways: 1) Why would they attack every single European settlement? and 2) Why would all the Native Americans confederate?

The Natives were not ethnically homogeneous. They were religiously, culturally, and linguisticly amazingly diverse. Many tribes hated each other more than they hated the Europeans. Any large confederation of natives moving to attack every single European colony would mean moving into territories claimed by other tribes not part of the confederacy. These tribes would naturally be hostile and join the Europeans in repelling the invasion. Many tribes, before the United States started really stomping over treaty rights, got deals out of working with Europeans rather than against them.

There was no pan-Indian feelings...at all. This is not just Native Americans. Europeans were also naturally disinclined to unite. Even with the Ottomans rolling up the Balkans and every single European religious leader calling for unity, the Europeans could barely be inclined to stop killing each other to listen.

Well that scenario by itself probably wouldn't be enough. But all of the Native Americans have a common enemy and before the age of nationalism, any number of different peoples could be confederated together with a strong leader (or just a strong army).

No they don't.

The English settlers had the benefit of having a shared ethnic heritage, a shared religion (broadly speaking), a shared culture, and a shared language. They can unite relatively easily with some issues remaining. Usually, huge geographic distances would hinder political unity, but the colonists are benefited by being coastal and thus sea voyages keep them connected.

All of the things that benefit colonial cohesions work against the natives. They are ethnically diverse, they have an astounding array of languages, they lack a common religion, and they don't even have one common culture. The Natives were also inland, which inhibits communication. Fast communication has to go along rivers and passage rights were often a touchy subject between tribes. One has to factor in the wars between tribes, many of which had been going on for decades or centuries. Many of these conflicts were inflamed, rather than quieted by diseases.

But if the English and Africans (the latter of which had their own, many different languages back then) unite as in Bacon's Rebellion, for the purpose of slaughtering everyone to the west, every single native tribe in the area is going to see that this is the greatest threat to their existence.

Meanwhile, the colonists will be at odds with the motherland at the same time, and will face reinvasion.

 

[dreadnought jenkins]

Perhaps a combination of the following factors:
- Several colonizers, all of which retain their colonies.
- No inclusive colonizers. All of them seek to take land. Perhaps the Huguenot conflicts make French Catholicism extra fervent, and they won't accept the pagan natives. And the Dutch are forced to place armed, landhungry settlers to defend their colonies because of extra Swedish/somebody-else presence.
- New religious group moves in with the natives. They spread technology, immunities, and a 'heretic' version of Christianity, but become assimilated culturally and genetically.
- In the English colonies in the South, white indentured servants and black slaves unite to depose the leaders of the colonies, then focus on being excessively brutal to the natives. This both unites the natives against them, and will lead up to an English attempt at reconquest, which will harm the colonies.
- Natives that get pushed out, are hired/incorporated by other tribes. That, or the more assimilating groups like the component tribes of the Iroquois Confederacy take predominance.
- Tecumseh analogue.

Several colonizers would incourage competition, which in turn would favour inclusiveness with the natives.

When you are competing with others, it never hurts to have an ally. Thats why the French were far more friendlier to the natives; they needed their help in their fights with the British, and thats why the British were friendly with some tribes (but less so than the French). They each sought to gain an advantage over the other.

More colonizers would mean that the desire to gain Native allies and get one over their rivals increases.

As for the new religious group, here is the problem. They would kill most the people they move in with. That is why the Huron collapsed. The Jesuits and French moved in with them and caused two problems: 1) they gave them more diseases than the other tribes (which meant more of them died than their rivals) and 2) it divided their tribe. Some Huron converted to Christianity, and others did not. This divided their confederacy both religiously and politically, which made them easy pickings for their Iroquois enemies.

The Huron confederacy was wiped out by the Iroquois (they drove them into the woods and burned all their settlements to the ground [women and children they kept and raised as their own] who exploited the weaknesses of the Huron (a product of European contact).

The Huron also weren't stupid. They knew who they were getting the diseases from, just not why. They blamed Jesuit witchcraft, which helped make the divide between non-Christian natives and Christian natives worse.

Any tribe the Heretic Christians move in with is going to die in large numbers and other tribes are going to start avoiding them like the plague.

Also, it should be noted that it would take centuries for native populations to recover their pre contact populations. What would they do with all that excess land?

 

[Kaptin Kurk]

Well that scenario by itself probably wouldn't be enough. But all of the Native Americans have a common enemy and before the age of nationalism, any number of different peoples could be confederated together with a strong leader (or just a strong army).

But if the English and Africans (the latter of which had their own, many different languages back then) unite as in Bacon's Rebellion, for the purpose of slaughtering everyone to the west, every single native tribe in the area is going to see that this is the greatest threat to their existence.

Meanwhile, the colonists will be at odds with the motherland at the same time, and will face reinvasion.

The question is, how successful could Bacon's rebellion realty be? In the end, it'd probably be crushed by new troops from England. Granted, it is an interesting POD for a European / African alliance against the natives, but I have a hard time realistically seeing it surviving, unless somehow it also leads to the end of preference.

 

[eliphas8]

Without a POD thousands of years ago they simply cannot. By the time that Columbus sailed west, the native americans were basically doomed to suffer near extinction at the hands of the Europeans. There were geo political, biological and social forces at work that couldn't really be stopped.

In North America there chances are dimmer but Mesoamerica and the Inca are suited towards avoiding annexation (and by extension from there keeping much of the eastern coast of South America and Central America Native). If Cortez and a followup both fail (not impossible since he was ridiculously lucky) the Spanish likely just choose to treat the Native Empires like they treat the North African states.

 

[othyrsyde]

Despite wishing there would be some grand confederacy at the onset of colonization, it's just not going to happen. Pan-Tribalism did not become politically powerful enough of a force until it was too late, and even then it was easy for the colonists to play my peeps against each other.

You would have to have some POD in the way back or one that disrupted Europe's empires long enough to have the tribes recover from diseases. Even then, the east coast itself i probably doomed for some kind of colonization along the lines of Africa and Asia.

 

[A Random Person]

I would hate to bring this up but... Zheng He (Or an earlier counterpart)

Instead of the pipe dream of the Chinese colonizing California, they merely trade with the natives, giving them gunpowder to use in their tribal wars. They arm anyone and everyone.

Columbus is lost in a storm at sea, giving the guns/knowledge in making weapons time to move east.

Also, with the constant contact with Chinese traders, the natives build up an immunity.

ASB, I know.

 

[pa_dutch]

The Europeans basically colonized three areas, the New World, Africa, and Asia. Africans and Asians exist today, largely because European diseases did not wipe out / cripple their population beyond recognition, to the point that European settlers were never able to actually replace the native population. (Australia in Asia being the main exception, and due to the technological development there more so than disease.) In the New World, the story was different. If, however, for some reason you produce a native immune defense to Old World diseases, its is likely that European colonizations takes the same course as it did in Africa and Asia, with Europeans establishing themselves on top for a few centuries, and the mass of natives eventually gaining some form of autonomy.


Indeed, North America is unique for the fact that it experienced a general population replacement.

1. Africans and Asians weren't hit badly by "European" diseases because these diseases weren't limited to Europe. The peoples of Europe, Asia, and Africa have always been linked through various migration routes and trade networks. They're really "Old World" diseases rather than European ones.

2. Australia isn't in Asia, and it was not part of the Old World networks of contact until very late. The first large-scale contacts between Australia and the Old World were between sea cucumber trappers from Indonesia and the Yolngu people on the extreme northern tip of the continent, and this was not until after the European exploration of the Americas. As a consequence, the indigenous peoples of Australia also lacked disease immunity when the Europeans arrived and their populations were devastated.

3. Not all people hit badly by Old World diseases were subject to population displacement. Many parts of Latin America, including Mexico and Central America, the Andes regions of South America, and Paraguay, still maintain majority populations of wholly or mostly indigenous ancestry. Similarly, South Pacific Islanders lacked immunity to Old World diseases but with some exceptions (New Zealand, Hawaii, and Fiji for part of its modern history) they've remained the majority population in their homelands.

 

[WilliamPenn]

It is well known that Africans (whose homeland has been one of the most disease-stricken places throughout history) had basic skills in inoculation. Escaped slaves could join Native American tribes much like the black Seminoles, and spread this technology.

 

[Elfwine]

It is well known that Africans (whose homeland has been one of the most disease-stricken places throughout history) had basic skills in inoculation. Escaped slaves could join Native American tribes much like the black Seminoles, and spread this technology.

Given the level of vulnerability we're talking about, inoculation might not actually save more than it itself kills.

 

[dreadnought jenkins]

It is well known that Africans (whose homeland has been one of the most disease-stricken places throughout history) had basic skills in inoculation. Escaped slaves could join Native American tribes much like the black Seminoles, and spread this technology.

Given the level of vulnerability we're talking about, inoculation might not actually save more than it itself kills.

This.

Even with African skills at inoculation, back in Africa they are still working with a population that has been exposed to these diseases for centuries, if not millenia in some cases. There is a immunity already within the population that the inoculation would only help along.

With the native population of America, you have none of that natural resistance. Exposing America's indigenous population to any kind of new diseases, no matter how less dangerous it is to Africans and Europeans, has potentialy lethal consequences. And since these are still only rudimentary, cases going lethal has the chance of starting an epidemic and killing most of the people they are trying to save.

 

[Tripwire]

The earlier significant contact happens, the greater chance of this. By far the biggest problem Native Americans had was that they were so isolated. By 1500, even if the Europeans are pushed out, they'll just come back.

What if the Vikings had established significant contact with American Indians nearly a 500 years before? What if a trade route was set up. This would have two massive advantages for the American Indians, 1. Although first exposure to Eurasian diseases would be bad, the Vikings aren't capable of conquering and/or supplanting native populations en mass like later European powers will be, and the native population will have long since bounced back by the time they are. 2. Trade with Vikings could introduce technologies such as iron-working, eliminating the technology gap between the continents.

 

[WilliamPenn]

I guess that inoculation wouldn't work. How about we have different new world discoveries starting with China, then Greenland. And instead of Spain, Portugal would fund Colombus's voyage.

 

[A Random Person]

Can we couple a much more successful Chief Pontiac with mistakes made my the British?

 

[Elfwine]

Can we couple a much more successful Chief Pontiac with mistakes made my the British?

Can we answer how that defeats the settlers entirely?

 

[Tripwire]

Can we couple a much more successful Chief Pontiac with mistakes made my the British?

Far, far too late. There are more Europeans than Native Americans on the continent by that point.

For reference, it's estimated that there were about 500,000 Native Americans in North America at around 1800, and that number may be a little high.

 

[A Random Person]

Can we answer how that defeats the settlers entirely?

It's a good start.

Maybe even earlier both ships sink in the race across the sea, leaving both the British and French guerrilla fighters without reinforcement, they continue to fight with the French retaking VDQ, and then losing it again. The prolonged hostilities leave both sides battered, and leave the British is a very weakened position for Pontiac to strike.

Pontiac's Rebellion turns into Pontiac's Genocide as he is widely successful, he manages to clear out the Great Lakes Region only finding allies to his cause among the Iroquois. The Ottawa-Iroquois alliance then makes their way up the St. Lawrence, by this point, their cause has been twisted from exterminating the English to erradicating the white man.

The Iroquois blame the French for their renewed hostilities with the Huron, and with this hate they go on the campaign, those who don't die flee to Acadia.

I am not sure where things go from there.

 

[WilliamPenn]

After the settlers are pushed away, the alliances formed could lead to a more modern civilization. The Native Americans might begin using European technology to be catch up with them on weapon development.

 

[Tripwire]

It's a good start.

Maybe even earlier both ships sink in the race across the sea, leaving both the British and French guerrilla fighters without reinforcement, they continue to fight with the French retaking VDQ, and then losing it again. The prolonged hostilities leave both sides battered, and leave the British is a very weakened position for Pontiac to strike.

Pontiac's Rebellion turns into Pontiac's Genocide as he is widely successful, he manages to clear out the Great Lakes Region only finding allies to his cause among the Iroquois. The Ottawa-Iroquois alliance then makes their way up the St. Lawrence, by this point, their cause has been twisted from exterminating the English to erradicating the white man.

The Iroquois blame the French for their renewed hostilities with the Huron, and with this hate they go on the campaign, those who don't die flee to Acadia.

I am not sure where things go from there.

Again, how does this work when there's more Europeans than natives at this point? Pontiac could rally every tribe on the continent, and still wouldn't be able to push the whites into the sea, unless his troops are somehow far superior to all the European ones.