Amerindian Middle Ages

[wolf_brother]

The thing is that there was no ironworking tradition at all in the Americas prior to the arrival of the Europeans. Gold and copper saw extensive craftsmanship in the Americas, but iron never took off. I think it was because the metal working cultures didn't live near iron deposits or something like that. Iron does require a bit of fiddling around with to get right, but it doesn't get too tricky unless you're trying to create steel.

The Tarascans, the traditional imperial rival to the Triple Alliance (aka, Aztecs) were beginning to use iron weapons by the time of Cortes. However after seeing their foe destroyed by so few men they submitted to the Spanish in 1522 instead of fighting a war they believed they would have lost. If the Tarascans had fought on the Spanish would likely have been pushed out of the region; the Tarascan army, conservatively, numbered at least 100,000 and they had a strong series of border forts and an advanced logistics system.

Also, the Inka worked with iron extensively. However they didn't value it for the same purposes that the Tarascan or Eurasians did. Heather Lechtman (1) states that Europeans sought to optimize iron and other metals "hardness, strength, toughness and sharpness" for tools and weapons. The Inka, by contrast, valued "plasticity, malleability, and toughness." Andean societies used it as a token of wealth, power, and community affiliation. While large-scale Eurasian-style molten alloys from molds were known to the Inka, she found they preferred to hammer metal into thin sheets, form the sheets around molds, and solder the results; one bust analyzed was less than an inch tall by made of twenty-two separate gold and iron plates joined together.

Both the Inka and other states along the Andes, and the Tarascans, lived near large, easily accessible iron deposits. As well the Fort Ancient cultural complex also lived near surface iron deposits; however unlike the other two the upper Mississippians did not have the prior experience of working with copper, bronze, etc, to pave the way for iron working.

(1) An archaeologist at the MIT Center for Materials Research in Archaeology and Ethnology, quoted in Charles C. Mann's 1491.

 

[Tocomocho]

Except for a 15th century crossbow. Aztecs had less respect for that than they did for the arquebus.

Too bad it was the crossbow who conquered them.

The thing is that there was no ironworking tradition at all in the Americas prior to the arrival of the Europeans. Gold and copper saw extensive craftsmanship in the Americas, but iron never took off. I think it was because the metal working cultures didn't live near iron deposits or something like that. Iron does require a bit of fiddling around with to get right, but it doesn't get too tricky unless you're trying to create steel.

Iron also requires a higher temperature to melt and so way more sophisticated funditions than copper and bronze (let alone gold and silver). Only a civilization that has centuries of mastery over bronze (or is exposed to another one that has such) can pass to the next level and master iron. The thing is, Amerindians only began working bronze a couple of centuries before European contact, almost 5000 years after the Old World did, and it was still limited to the Andes and one spot in eastern Mexico by the time those Europeans arrived.

The Tarascans, the traditional imperial rival to the Triple Alliance (aka, Aztecs) were beginning to use iron weapons by the time of Cortes.

Bronze, not iron. I don't think the Inca ever used iron more than in a token way either. Certainly not to make tools or weapons.

 

[9 Fanged Hummingbird]

Too bad it was the crossbow who conquered them.

It was steel, germs, and an army of over 200,000 warriors that did them in IIRC, not crossbows. Hell, I'm not even sure if the Spanish had many more crossbows than guns.

 

[Chiropteroid]

All right, time for another recap.

So the possible reason for the nondevelopment of Native American societies was either underpriviledged circumstances or even sheer bad luck (if the probability theory holds water) or both.

Maybe there weren't that much domesticable animals, but there were good crops. In fact there were three important crops in North America known as the "Three Sisters": squash, maize and beans.

But as for the metal working, if iron is indeed too ASB, I think copper (or bronze if we're optimistic) will do. Also if the North-South trade routes exists, there is possibility for some kind of obsidian weapons (provided that the mesoamericans are willing to trade weapons).

But now comes the largest problem: How to get the small North American tribes to unite into larger Nation-states? For that matter, how did the Eurasian tribes become states?

 

[9 Fanged Hummingbird]

All right, time for another recap.

So the possible reason for the nondevelopment of Native American societies was either underpriviledged circumstances or even sheer bad luck (if the probability theory holds water) or both.

Maybe there weren't that much domesticable animals, but there were good crops. In fact there were three important crops in North America known as the "Three Sisters": squash, maize and beans.

But as for the metal working, if iron is indeed too ASB, I think copper (or bronze if we're optimistic) will do. Also if the North-South trade routes exists, there is possibility for some kind of obsidian weapons (provided that the mesoamericans are willing to trade weapons).

But now comes the largest problem: How to get the small North American tribes to unite into larger Nation-states? For that matter, how did the Eurasian tribes become states?

As it is they already made extensive use out of copper and obsidian weapons. Although I think tests actually showed that copper axes were less useful than flint in most cases.

As for large states, it's hard to tell. For all we know most of them might have been large states IOTL. Just that lots of them disappeared by the time of Contact and they left no records. As it is, there is plenty of evidence for large confederations of tribes by the time of Contact like the Powhatan.

 

[tallwingedgoat]

The Tarascans had copper weapons, as the Aztecs found to their detriment during a failed invasion some decades before the arrival of Cortez. They failed to adopt copper weapons themselves however.

 

[Chiropteroid]

As it is they already made extensive use out of copper and obsidian weapons. Although I think tests actually showed that copper axes were less useful than flint in most cases.

As for large states, it's hard to tell. For all we know most of them might have been large states IOTL. Just that lots of them disappeared by the time of Contact and they left no records. As it is, there is plenty of evidence for large confederations of tribes by the time of Contact like the Powhatan.

Okay, copper and obsidian it is.

Now, if there were other large states besides Cahokia, which we don't have any kind of knowledge, it means all the records of their culture were either destroyed or lost. That also depends on how many of them had written language.

Of course one reason might be that all (or at least most) of these states were isolationistic and/or self-destructive. Although Mesopotamia was self-destructive and we know a lot about it's civilization.

But the fact is that there isn't much use for cultural and technological advances to a continent if they don't spread. The Aztecs and Mayans had great knowledge of astronomy, but they were the only ones. Similarly only Incas had roads and schools.

Usually that kind of spreading requires an expanding culturally advanced empire. Now that you think about it, how far the Incas could have expanded their empire, had they wanted to do so? Not to mention Aztecs and Mayans (and yes, I'm fully aware that Incas and Aztecs were expanding empires)

 

[NothingNow]

Of course one reason might be that all (or at least most) of these states were isolationistic and/or self-destructive. Although Mesopotamia was self-destructive and we know a lot about it's civilization.

Or, you know, they literally lost 90% of their population within a lifetime. That'd wipe out just about any civilization.

 

[Chiropteroid]

Or, you know, they literally lost 90% of their population within a lifetime. That'd wipe out just about any civilization.

So, you're suggesting that the roots to technological advancement were destroyed by some kind of plague?

 

[NothingNow]

So, you're suggesting that the roots to technological advancement were destroyed by some kind of plague?

No, but the reason we don't see any real continuity outside of Latin America between the pre- and post-columbian eras, is because of Disease. which prevents any real continuation of tradition. Of course, even if they were literate civilization, we still might not be able to read it. There were a good few centuries where the ability to read Mayan was simply lost. (Of course, it helped that we only had a couple of sites buried under cities, and a literal handful of Codicies.)

 

[Chiropteroid]

No, but the reason we don't see any real continuity outside of Latin America between the pre- and post-columbian eras, is because of Disease. which prevents any real continuation of tradition. Of course, even if they were literate civilization, we still might not be able to read it. There were a good few centuries where the ability to read Mayan was simply lost. (Of course, it helped that we only had a couple of sites buried under cities, and a literal handful of Codicies.)

There is a couple of problems in this theory, however. First of all, if this/these disease(s) had indeed destroyed the first North American civilizations, it should have affected the mesoamericans as well. Secondly, there has been no record of a disease wiping an entire civilization off the map. No offence, but this is kinda ASB.

 

[Clibanarius]

These are all very good points. And yes, I didn't want any ASBs to this TL either. Although Amerindians are in general less nomadic than in OTL; more cities and villages.

Well, considering that castles and iron based armor is indeed not that likely, I came up with this:

Snake soldier

Snake soldier would be the closest equivalent Amerindians have for a knight or a samurai. The name comes from the lamellar armor worn by the soldier, which resembles snake's scales. Because there isn't much iron, the scales are usually made of leather or horn and held together by thread. This gives the soldier a decent protection, yet doesn't hinder his movement too much. Snake soldier also uses a shield, usually carved of wood, though leather is also used. Often a helmet, also made of wood, is used. A typical snake soldier weapon is a thrusting spear or an axe (and/or perhaps a some kind of sword)

The purpose of a snake soldier is to advance towards the enemy. This is a rather unorthodox tactic compared to the more hit and run tactics of the OTL indians, but it fits to the theme of more advanced warfare.

So, what do you think?

Well, for one thing Armour is not anywhere nearly as heavy as the Victorians made it out to be.

Medieval Plate weighed around 45 pounds for intance and it was spread out over the body. Reenactors with authentic reconstructions of historical still posses most of their movement and can do cartwheels, handstands, etc.

What about the Indians picking up horses that the Vikings left behind? And have wheels developed as more than toys. That could change things.

 

[Elfwine]

45 pounds of armor is still nothing to sneeze at. And then there's the issue of overheating and other issues not specifically weight related.

Quite honestly, armor sucks. Its just that dying sucks even more.

 

[Clibanarius]

45 pounds of armor is still nothing to sneeze at. And then there's the issue of overheating and other issues not specifically weight related.

Quite honestly, armor sucks. Its just that dying sucks even more.

But it's spread out over your frame and the thickest point was the cuirass, which 1-2mm. The point was not to stop blows with thickness but to redirect the blows with a glancing surface.

And the Middle Ages (At least in Europe) would have been cooler than they are today and battles generally lasted for a couple of hours or so (Keegan's The Face of Battle) as for the issues. . .

Have you ever taken a long drive? And did you drink a lot? And there weren't any rest stops for a very long time?

What'd you do? You held it of course.

 

[Krakenov]

First, let me just say I know next to nothing about Amerindian history or civilisation so I'm not really sure if this is relevant.

On the idea of creating larger nations, why not follow the Mongol route of having one tribe aggressively conquer others while under the leadership of an extremely charismatic individual? It might be a bit of a stretch to suddenly have a tribe conquering everything it comes across, but we've seen remarkable feats performed when civilisations have great leaders. Does this work?

 

[Elfwine]

But it's spread out over your frame and the thickest point was the cuirass, which 1-2mm. The point was not to stop blows with thickness but to redirect the blows with a glancing surface.

And the Middle Ages (At least in Europe) would have been cooler than they are today and battles generally lasted for a couple of hours or so (Keegan's The Face of Battle) as for the issues. . .

Have you ever taken a long drive? And did you drink a lot? And there weren't any rest stops for a very long time?

What'd you do? You held it of course.

None of this avoids the fact that its still problematic.

Is it impossible to handle? Of course not. But as stated, the only reason to develop armor like this is that dying sucks even more than the fact armor is uncomfortable and unpleasant.

So the point is, no one is going to develop this unless warfare demands it - and warfare will adopt to it being the norm (for those who can afford it).

 

[Clibanarius]

None of this avoids the fact that its still problematic.

Is it impossible to handle? Of course not. But as stated, the only reason to develop armor like this is that dying sucks even more than the fact armor is uncomfortable and unpleasant.

So the point is, no one is going to develop this unless warfare demands it - and warfare will adopt to it being the norm (for those who can afford it).

Plate developed mostly because with the technological progression of things like Water-Powered Tools it became as cheap to produce as Mail.

 

[Elfwine]

Plate developed mostly because with the technological progression of things like Water-Powered Tools it became as cheap to produce as Mail.

Yeah. Should have been clearer - plate, mail, lamellar - none of them are worth it unless the circumstances justify it.

 

[Clibanarius]

Yeah. Should have been clearer - plate, mail, lamellar - none of them are worth it unless the circumstances justify it.

Agreed. Which then brings us back to the whole Indian Middle Ages thing.

Perhaps you could have sort an Indian Classical Age if you will, with a more widespread use of Bronze Armour and Weapons, maybe even chariots pulled by horses descended from Viking Ponies?

 

[Jester]

Iron also requires a higher temperature to melt and so way more sophisticated funditions than copper and bronze (let alone gold and silver). Only a civilization that has centuries of mastery over bronze (or is exposed to another one that has such) can pass to the next level and master iron. The thing is, Amerindians only began working bronze a couple of centuries before European contact, almost 5000 years after the Old World did, and it was still limited to the Andes and one spot in eastern Mexico by the time those Europeans arrived.

Iron working in sub-Saharan Africa, as far as we can tell, happened almost simultaneously with the invention of copper-working (and yes, it was an independent origin of the idea- they did not "leapfrog" due to contact with other iron users)