AHC: Native Americans push the settlers to the sea

Flubber

Banned
Yeah. I'm trying to compare this to what Flubber said on the results of de Soto's expedition - having the Triple Alliance gutted doesn't necessarily mean Mesoamerica is a stone age version of Mad Max.


I believe that no one is suggesting Mad Max. I know I'm not suggesting it.

What I have been suggesting is that most existing native social structures are going to be shattered by the first epidemics and that any structures which survive or structures which arise afterwards are going to be shattered by later epidemics. I'll bring up the US southeast again although I know you're sick of it. ;)

We've got two expeditions - not conquistadors, mind you, expeditions - book ending 140 years. We've got no attempts at European settlement for over a century and only small settlements along the region's borders. No contact, no pressure, nothing other than disease effecting the natives for nearly two centuries and the native societies still didn't appreciably recover.

Look again at van Bath's estimates for Central Mexico's population. Something around 24 million in 1518 and only roughly 6 million left thirty years later. Fighting the Spanish and fighting among the natives only killed a fraction of that number. The rest died due to disease, hunger, exposure, and all the other results of a society imploding.

Can you imagine the current day US or EU losing 75% or their population within a single generation? Can imagine what such a death toll would do to the survivors' psyches?
 
In the Southeast however they had a younger civilization and almost no strategic highlands or valleys.

During the Black Death,Southern Europe suffered about the same dieoff rate as post-Columbian Mesoamerica, or worse (considering the differing timespans of the two catastrophes), yet society stayed intact and actually advanced further afterward. (Though nutrition IIRC did get slightly worse.)
 
In the Southeast however they had a younger civilization and almost no strategic highlands or valleys.

During the Black Death,Southern Europe suffered about the same dieoff rate as post-Columbian Mesoamerica, or worse (considering the differing timespans of the two catastrophes), yet society stayed intact and actually advanced further afterward. (Though nutrition IIRC did get slightly worse.)

30-50% death rate for the Black Death vs 90% for the American pandemics.

The Black Death was the worst Old World pandemic, and it doesn't even come close to the New World pandemics.

And the city dweller of Mesoamerica would be even more vulnerable to pandemics than the tribes of the southeast. Lots of tasty hosts for the bacteria all nicely concentrated together. And before anyone mentions cleanliness, the cities of the Muslim world were hit just as bad by the Black Death as everybody else.

Regarding the Mesoamerican pop. figures mentioned earlier, the lack of any Spanish conquest would not decrease the death tolls from smallpox, although it might delay the culling somewhat. So say instead of by 1548, the population only reaches the 25% level of 1510 in 1570. What's to stop a European expedition from succeeding now? The entire region has been broken, and with the collapse of old powers there has likely been intense fighting over the pieces, meaning the Europeans can play locals off one another.

If the Native Americans just had to deal with the tech disadvantage, or the diseases, I'd give them a very good chance to fend off the Europeans. But with both, the odds are very, very long. Plus as time goes on, the tech disparity gets even more favorable for the Europeans. Imagine conquistadors with flintlock fusils and ring bayonets.

It's rather hard to tech-up two thousand years with four captured blacksmiths, none of which are very good nor speak your language (which completely lacks the technical terms needed), and incidentally aren't miners. Or to equip your men with cavalry horses from your starting captured stock of 9, which includes 3 stallions and three mares, one of which got colic and died because you didn't understand the Spaniard's instructions on how to feed it, whilst the other broke its legs in an accident.
 
I believe that no one is suggesting Mad Max. I know I'm not suggesting it.

What I have been suggesting is that most existing native social structures are going to be shattered by the first epidemics and that any structures which survive or structures which arise afterwards are going to be shattered by later epidemics. I'll bring up the US southeast again although I know you're sick of it. ;)

I'm going to say this once: I read it the first time. I got it the first time. I am not going to read the fourth, fifth, and sixth time you repost it.

Basileus444 said:
Regarding the Mesoamerican pop. figures mentioned earlier, the lack of any Spanish conquest would not decrease the death tolls from smallpox, although it might delay the culling somewhat. So say instead of by 1548, the population only reaches the 25% level of 1510 in 1570. What's to stop a European expedition from succeeding now? The entire region has been broken, and with the collapse of old powers there has likely been intense fighting over the pieces, meaning the Europeans can play locals off one another.


The main thing I can think of is that it is possible - I'm not going to wager on likely - that if the Europeans see it as having been a disaster, they might wait a bit longer than (assuming Cortez fails in 1620) than 1570. Depending a lot on events within Europe, obviously - the best bet of the natives is for the people who would otherwise be doing this to be preoccupied.

But I'm not sure what's going to stop at least a presence by 1600, even if all goes smoothly (as these things go) for the Nahuta (aka "the natives in the region in general").

And from there, we know what European powers do given something worth the trouble.

I'm not commenting the issue of technology because there's nothing to add to that. There are places that can be sorta neutralized, or at least limited (look at the area that because the US Southwest, which is hardly good country for European armies to take full advantage of their power, and the Yucatan sounds as bad in different ways), but this isn't one of them.
 
Last edited:
30-50% death rate for the Black Death vs 90% for the American pandemics.

The Black Death was the worst Old World pandemic, and it doesn't even come close to the New World pandemics.
The death toll for the Black Death varied across Europe and Asia. Hotter areas were affected more severely. In Southern Europe, the death rate would have been more than 70 percent. Considering that the Black Death lasted a few years (at most, a decade--varying in length of outbreak by the area in question), this is a higher per-year death rate than smallpox in central Mexico following the previously posted population estimates.

And the shift in importance from Southern to Northern Europe didn't even happen until much later in spite of this.
 

Flubber

Banned
I'm going to say this once: I read it the first time. I got it the first time. I am not going to read the fourth, fifth, and sixth time you repost it.


Sorry. I misunderstood your`posts. :eek:

There are places that can be sorta neutralized, or at least limited (look at the area that because the US Southwest, which is hardly good country for European armies to take full advantage of their power, and the Yucatan sounds as bad in different ways), but this isn't one of them.
That's an important point. Certain terrains can help natives resist but those terrains aren't everywhere.
 
Sorry. I misunderstood your`posts. :eek:

It happens, I'm not always clear.

I think at best the natives can throw off the initial attacks. I think to eome extent they can survive the diseases (75% die off from OTL being maybe reduced to "only" 50-66% for Mesoamerica, say, if the effects of disease aren't reinforced as well as they were by the OTL fighting and conquering and so on).

But only to some extent. 9 Fanged Hummingbird's posts seem credible, but things like Galaxy999's posts seem to indicate a lack of basic understanding of just how badly things are going to go (as your example illustrates).

So to me,the more Europeans just don't bother overwhelming the Americas, the better, for a given definition of. 19th century native Americans were able to - more or less - cope with European diseases (not immunity, but enough resistance to not be wiped off the continent just by the presence of European disease epidemics), so that suggests that there is a point that it stops being "the presence of Europeans is the same as the presence of Death the Pale Horseman".

But getting to that point is going to be ugly. Even an ideal outcome still sees the existing polities gutted.

That's an important point. Certain terrains can help natives resist but those terrains aren't everywhere.
Yeah. And for the disease side of things, as long as even something like de Soto's expedition is possible, disease will ravage the natives and they will suffer from it.

That can only be bad, and no Herpy the Alien Space Bat introducing iron working or smallpox (even if it doesn't mutate) can make it anything else, as you have explained.
 
Organized native resistance is imperative, look at the Mapuche in southern Chile who held out until the 1880s and only joined said country of their own accord. Pandemics will take a serious toll regardless, and these might be lessened but they will not be avoided.

The best candidates for resistance would be an Inka Empire not in the middle of a civil war and some sort of confederacy of southeastern US tribes. Mesoamerica is too divided to resist effective conquest, there are those who argue that the Aztecs might have died out or significantly lost ground in a generation or two had the Spaniards not been there. Inka territories will take time to recover but if given a generation or two the *might* be able to not only hold off Spanish/Portugese incursions (kill everyone who approaches in most cases) but maybe even recruit isolated survivors to teach them about Western technology. Southeastern US tribal federation will be more difficult to achieve but they cover the territory and have enough numbers to *maybe* make a difference. Introducing horses to the Great Plains tribes earlier might also be a significant change as they were reportedly among the best light cavalry in the world by the mid 1800s.
 
For all reasons mentioned above I can't see any hope of a surviving purely Native "country".
Even an early POD (allowing time for the Native population to recover before the 16th C.) with a rather far-fetched hypothesis (ensuring a limited but [semi]permanent contact so that diseases turn endemic), such as:
- after the death of Arthur Britons sail westwards in search of Avalon / Hy Breasal / the Island of Saint Brendan instead of merely crossing the Channel to turn Armorica into Little Britain / Brittany ;), or
- regular contacts with China since the time of Kublai Khan (the Chinese '3rd expedition' having used the Aleutian Island as stepping stones then come across the Klondike gold);),

supported by a later divergence in Europe (no independent Portugal and a delayed Reconquista),
a culture fulfilling the requirements to resist the massive European arrivals of late Renaissance would have to no longer be purely 'Native', genetically and culturally.


With a 'moderate' and (relatively) late divergence as generally considered here, I think only a culturally and genetically *hybrid* population can keeps its identity and independence in the long run. Genetically it's the case of OTL Latin America, but in addition it would imply a larger Native cultural heritage.
In North America, think of Riel's French-speaking Catholic half-breeds (but far earlier and on larger scale), and the Seminoles, actually a mixture of 'true' Seminoles, Maroons and the occasional cajun with his half-breed children.
Such 'half-breed' population would be immunized, familiar with 'White' technology and culture -books, farming, metal-working...- and instead of being a patchwork of tribes of diverse religions and languages often with a long history of tribal wars, its members would see themselves as members of a new 'tribe' of their own, united by language and religion. And because its ≥ half European ancestry and culture, it can hope for support from the 'parental' major European Power.

What religion ? Catholics were always far more prone to intercourse with the Natives, the Portuguese specially everywhere they went (all around Africa, India, Indonesia and of course Brazil) sired a substantial population of half-breeds integrated as a new 'class' at the interface between the Europeans and the Natives (I don't want to be banned from my very first post for having a started a flame war, but the major examples of population displacement quoted in the thread -North America, New Zealand, Australia- correspond to Protestant colonizations; and the Afrikaners... ). But a very deviant Catholicism having incorporated more of the Native (and Black) religion than in OTL cohabitation with Native (cf. Santa Muerte in Mexico...) and African (Santeria, Voodoo, Candomblé ...) religious heritage. Jesuits were pragmatic people, a Catholicism 'enriched' with local 'Pagan' tradition along the lines of early Irish Christianity is not too far-fetched.

What tongue ? Had the Portuguese seriously settled in North America it would be (rooted in) Portuguese, they were the most prolific and 'integrating' half-breeds producers. Otherwise a French Créole, French were less bigot than the Spaniards. In Nouvelle-France the rude Canada-born coureurs des bois were not the only ones to live 'Indian way', to take a native wife &c..., not a few young chevaliers from the mother country with an officer commission in the Compagnies Franches de la Marine 'turned native' for the duration of their sojourn ('Brotherhood of the Wolf', I know, and 'Oumpah-Pah le Peau-Rouge' before, but indeed Grégoire de Fronsac and Hubert de la Pâte Feuilletée correspond far better to the statistical reality than Hawkeye).
I don't know about the Spaniards but French settlers as a rule did not come as whole families Mayflower fashion (a Huguenots in exile colony, as the one which existed in South Africa before its assimilation in the Dutch majority, would be an entirely different matter). The Crown had regularly to send sentenced female thieves and prostitutes to provide them with 'White' wives. It was true in all the colonies (Antilles, Ile Bourbon [La Réunion], Ile de France [Mauritius]...), but in Nouvelle-France North of modern Louisiana there was a large free native population, and no black slaves whose offspring would be discriminated (as in modern Antilles there is still a sharp division between the Black and half-breeds and the 'pure blood White' Békés). The idea of the 'Noble Savage' was constantly present in the culture of well-educated French since Montaigne, and was revived by Jacques Cartier before Diderot and Rousseau.

Where?
'Theoretical' Nouvelle-France was immense, most of it with little or none 'White' population, without colons with 'class' interest (contrary to Algeria later, for instance).A France more interested -and earlier- in the New World could have promoted a Huron / half-breed friendly state
Alternatively,and slightly later, in the Forts Frontenac / Duquesne / Beauhamois / Dauphin / Bourbon polygon and North of it as a buffer against the British around Hudson Bay? Plenty of room, no direct British interference and little in the matter of wrong antecedents there?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...p-fr.svg/800px-Nouvelle-France_map-fr.svg.png
(from wikipedia )

Alternatively, what about a spontaneous (but France-supported from the War of the Quadruple Alliance on) half-breed republic of Barataria type in Florida? Just add French Frères de la Côte and a few Jesuits to an earlier version of OTL Seminoles. Maybe less likely (even more unlikely :mad:), and certainly less 'Native'.

800px-Nouvelle-France_map-fr.svg.png
 
For all reasons mentioned above I can't see any hope of a surviving purely Native "country".
Even an early POD (allowing time for the Native population to recover before the 16th C.) with a rather far-fetched hypothesis (ensuring a limited but [semi]permanent contact so that diseases turn endemic), such as:
- after the death of Arthur Britons sail westwards in search of Avalon / Hy Breasal / the Island of Saint Brendan instead of merely crossing the Channel to turn Armorica into Little Britain / Brittany ;), or
- regular contacts with China since the time of Kublai Khan (the Chinese '3rd expedition' having used the Aleutian Island as stepping stones then come across the Klondike gold);),

supported by a later divergence in Europe (no independent Portugal and a delayed Reconquista),
a culture fulfilling the requirements to resist the massive European arrivals of late Renaissance would have to no longer be purely 'Native', genetically and culturally.
This post is full of a lot of rather odd assumptions. For starters I can't see how a civilization that isn't "purely" Native does not fulfill the requirements of the OP since there's no such thing as a pure civilization anywhere. There isn't even any purely European civilization by your standards. Secondly, you also assume that the only POD's can be in the Old World. There's no reason not to use a New World POD in an AHC about the New World. And you seem to completely ignore Mesoamerica as a whole, in addition to northern Native-American history.
 
Of course these is no 'pure civilization', but the OP seems to aim at an independent 'country' having kept more of its Native cultural heritage than in some parts OTL of Latin America.

The purely American POD leading to what is expected in the OP would be a mutation of a local disease by accident giving cross-immunity with pox. Not to be excluded of course, and there are a few excellent threads based on a biological event. But are there Pre-Columbian American endemics close enough to pox?

Then of course, Atlantis could be American and be still flourishing in the 16th C.:rolleyes:
Edited
That is easily possible given that it almost happened in 1848. If the Maya advance on Merida was somehow just a bit more rapid, then you have Native-Americans driving the settlers to the sea and creating an independent nation with more cultural heritage preserved than OTL as well as with some foreign support.
I entirely agree, but most posts in the thread favor an earlier POD, I was somehow 'led' to think in a pre-F&IW chronological setting.

A 'recent' possibility -but unlikely in the historical context- is an international support to de Tounens' Kingdom of Araucania and Patagonia. But again, most posts seem to be mostly concerned with North America (Anglo-Saxon bias?).
 
Last edited:
Of course these is no 'pure civilization', but the OP seems to aim at an independent 'country' having kept more of its Native cultural heritage than in some parts OTL of Latin America.
That is easily possible given that it almost happened in 1848. If the Maya advance on Merida was somehow just a bit more rapid, then you have Native-Americans driving the settlers to the sea and creating an independent nation with more cultural heritage preserved than OTL as well as with some foreign support. For something on a grander scale but still very possible, a certain battle in Guatemala during the year 695 going the other way resulting in the kingdom of Kaan remaining strong. This means the Maya civilization in general is more stable, and results in the Classic era Collapse of OTL not happening at all. Mesoamerican society as a whole benefits and is given an additional 800 years to grow and advance. Since Cortez relied upon the exact political situation that existed in OTL's 1520's to succeed (as well as a lot of luck), logic and chance dictate he has a very good chance of utter annihilation. Consequently, the local Spanish governor sends envoys to stress that Cortez was a renegade and tries to open negotiations. Disease might be ravaging the natives, but they still outnumber the Spanish to a ridiculous extent. IOTL, there were roughly 10 million Maya living in Guatemala and Yucatan around the year 700. This number would increase given the lack of a collapse that reduced it to maybe a couple million in Yucatan in the 1500's before the diseases. The fewer, more ravaged and disunited Maya of OTL resisted conquest for almost 200 years and almost drove out the invaders as late as 1848. This is hardly evidence that Native-Americans everywhere are doomed.
 
I have edited my previous post to acknowledge your excellent mention of the Mayas of 1848.

But for a large Meso-American country pushing the Spaniards back and remaining independent from the start...
Consequently, the local Spanish governor sends envoys to stress that Cortez was a renegade and tries to open negotiations.
Europeans would not be deterred by even a series of minor defeats (in what amounts to skirmishes at the scale of European warfare). Monotheistic religions with a Sacred Duty to convert whole humankind make aggressive, expansionist cultures, no hope of Europe leaving America alone in the same way as China ignored anything oversea after the disgrace of Zheng He. Specially not those parts of America renowned for their GOLD. The Spanish governor would want the gold, all the gold, for his king (and himself), and you can't extort all the gold of a country by negotiations, you take it.
Numbers ? 'Mayaland' was not India or China, and the technological gap between the two sides of the Atlantic had drastically widened since the Skraelings pushed back the Vinlanders (I doubt the Mayas of 1848 were fighting with only flint and obsidian -and in 1848 nobody was after their gold, which gave them a chance). Native Americans would have to have an 'advanced' rival of Spain providing them with weapons, lots of them, and blackpowder to use them as proxies. OTL there was none interested enough in the area before it was too late. ATL this would require a POD in the Old World -a powerful Muslim state on the Atlantic shore wishing to compete with the Christians for the conversion of the New World?
 
I have edited my previous post to acknowledge your excellent mention of the Mayas of 1848.

But for a large Meso-American country pushing the Spaniards back and remaining independent from the start...
Europeans would not be deterred by even a series of minor defeats (in what amounts to skirmishes at the scale of European warfare).

Wiping out expeditions is not a minor defeat. And while it may be skirmishes on the scale of European warfare in Europe, it is a large part of the forces here, which is what's relevant.

Monotheistic religions with a Sacred Duty to convert whole humankind make aggressive, expansionist cultures, no hope of Europe leaving America alone in the same way as China ignored anything oversea after the disgrace of Zheng He. Specially not those parts of America renowned for their GOLD. The Spanish governor would want the gold, all the gold, for his king (and himself), and you can't extort all the gold of a country by negotiations, you take it.

Aggressive, expansionist cultures with a lot other than the Americas to fight in and over.

The Spanish governor OTL wanted trade, not "the gold, all the gold", so your argument falls flat.
 
Top