Best non-ASB edge the Natives of the Americas could have received prior to contact?

Ok that would of just brought disease from China in the west coast. Not help at all.

How exactly the Chinese get to the Americas is anyone guess. This been discussed extensively and Zheng He was involved in commanding the treasure fleet from 1421-1435. These were huge fleets of over hundred ships sailing to known kingdoms in East Indies and Indian Ocean. Not exploring uncharted territory. No one knew whaT was out east. Ships have to sail north east to Alaska then south along the coast till they got to Mexico. Along way spreading disease. Then have to figure out how to get back they not know any charts. If the Chinese did venture out it would not of been Zheng and would of been aproximatly at same time as Columbus.

So this is a bad theory about helping natives. Just a good theory about killing them from two different sides .
If that contact came around 1000 AD rather than 1421 then the population would have time to build up an immunity. Question is could either a Mediterranean or Asian civilization actually have the technology to contact the Americas a thousand years earlier in significant numbers?

The Song had the ships but not the motive, the Vikings had the ships but not the population.
 
I'm sceptical of the "Central America was all rainforest, so wheeled vehicles would have been useless" argument. There were some pretty big cities there -- Tenochtitlan was bigger than most European cities at the time of the Spanish conquest, for example -- and these would have required large agricultural hinterlands to support all those people. So, whilst Central America may originally have been all rainforest, lots of this would have been cleared away for agriculture, and wheeled vehicles could have been used in such areas.

We do have wheeled toys, and some other aspects of wheels but nothing practical. The mesoamericans simply didn't see a need for it and what they had worked well enough for what they needed. Humans pulling carts might work in short distances on relatively flat terrain, but the Aztec's influences covered large distances over hilly to mountainous terrain. In the end, you probably wouldn't be able to pull a cart with anything more than you could carry yourself. Then there's also the simple fact, sacrifice. It wasn't all about death, but also personal sacrifice to the gods which include back breaking trips with goods to markets from farms. Having people carry loads on their back was also part of the hierarchy. Nobles had backs with no loads, peasants had to carry stuff on their backs. Then the need for paved roads to make carts work effectively (especially in wet climates)...they just weren't motivated towards using wheels. Having a horse would certainly change that though. Keeping in mind that not all civilizations invented the wheel, they simply borrowed it from someone else back in the Old World, it's entirely possible that the wheel is one of those things that makes sense in hindsight more often than in foresight.
 

Lusitania

Donor
If that contact came around 1000 AD rather than 1421 then the population would have time to build up an immunity. Question is could either a Mediterranean or Asian civilization actually have the technology to contact the Americas a thousand years earlier in significant numbers?

The Song had the ships but not the motive, the Vikings had the ships but not the population.
This misguided idea comes up every so often. The arrival of Chinese wouldvif meant easterner conquerers instead of western conqueres. Plus what you have done is reduced the population by a 60-70% by time Europeans arrive. Same with Vikings. . Then when western nations come with new varieties of diseases there will be more deaths but what you will also do is that you are opening the continent to faster European settlements.
 
Have a small Roman/Cartaginian fleet arrive with European grains, flax, cattle, horses and sheep. And introduce iron working. Give these ideas a millennium to spread, and the locals are going to be much better positioned when Europeans arrive again.

Note that, of that lot only cattle and horses would be of much use to Mesoamericans. But maize hadn't spread as far north as e.g Virginia that early.
 
This misguided idea comes up every so often. The arrival of Chinese wouldvif meant easterner conquerers instead of western conqueres. Plus what you have done is reduced the population by a 60-70% by time Europeans arrive. Same with Vikings. . Then when western nations come with new varieties of diseases there will be more deaths but what you will also do is that you are opening the continent to faster European settlements.
The key would be the Song arriving and then leaving (maybe the Mongol invasions draw a halt to any contact with the Americas). or a much larger Vinland which gets abandonned

There aren't too many new diseases just springing up - Bubonic plague is the one I can think of but the Europeans suffered that as well.

I think the "edge" would be that absent the Song and/or Viking invaders but with the immunity conferred by contact the native Americans wouldn't suffer the catastrophic die back when the Europeans arrived - it would have already happened. So yes 90% may have died once the diseases spread through the continent around 1000 AD but 500 years later you may see a much larger population when the Europeans arrive.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
While plants and animals trying to migrate from North America to South America have to traverse the huge rain forest of Central America and northern South America.

In the highland zones from Mexico to northern Chile isn't there alot of commonality in the crop packages of later Spanish economiendas and haciendas, and even the weather, with the altitude moderating temperatures somewhat throughout. Cattle, maize, beans from New Mexico to Colombia to Chile?
 

Lusitania

Donor
In the highland zones from Mexico to northern Chile isn't there alot of commonality in the crop packages of later Spanish economiendas and haciendas, and even the weather, with the altitude moderating temperatures somewhat throughout. Cattle, maize, beans from New Mexico to Colombia to Chile?
Yes but the issue was that crops and animals migration from Chile to Mexico is not possible (naturally). While in Eurasia is happened.
 

Lusitania

Donor
The key would be the Song arriving and then leaving (maybe the Mongol invasions draw a halt to any contact with the Americas). or a much larger Vinland which gets abandonned

There aren't too many new diseases just springing up - Bubonic plague is the one I can think of but the Europeans suffered that as well.

I think the "edge" would be that absent the Song and/or Viking invaders but with the immunity conferred by contact the native Americans wouldn't suffer the catastrophic die back when the Europeans arrived - it would have already happened. So yes 90% may have died once the diseases spread through the continent around 1000 AD but 500 years later you may see a much larger population when the Europeans arrive.
But while that eliminates the conquered aspect is does nothing to reduce or eliminate the spread of disease. What we have done is potentially reduced native population substantially when Europeans arrive. We have historical examples of Mississippi tribes being wiped out by single contact with explorers in 16-17th century. When visited in 18th century theses tribes are a shadow of their former strength.
 
Last edited:

Lusitania

Donor
Have a small Roman/Cartaginian fleet arrive with European grains, flax, cattle, horses and sheep. And introduce iron working. Give these ideas a millennium to spread, and the locals are going to be much better positioned when Europeans arrive again.

Note that, of that lot only cattle and horses would be of much use to Mesoamericans. But maize hadn't spread as far north as e.g Virginia that early.

Yes there is. Comic book series called Roman America of the exact concept. But the natives would of evolved as these new immigrants would of intermarried. Disease still happens but enough time elapses for the population to recover.
 
We do have wheeled toys, and some other aspects of wheels but nothing practical. The mesoamericans simply didn't see a need for it and what they had worked well enough for what they needed. Humans pulling carts might work in short distances on relatively flat terrain, but the Aztec's influences covered large distances over hilly to mountainous terrain. In the end, you probably wouldn't be able to pull a cart with anything more than you could carry yourself. Then there's also the simple fact, sacrifice. It wasn't all about death, but also personal sacrifice to the gods which include back breaking trips with goods to markets from farms. Having people carry loads on their back was also part of the hierarchy. Nobles had backs with no loads, peasants had to carry stuff on their backs. Then the need for paved roads to make carts work effectively (especially in wet climates)...they just weren't motivated towards using wheels. Having a horse would certainly change that though. Keeping in mind that not all civilizations invented the wheel, they simply borrowed it from someone else back in the Old World, it's entirely possible that the wheel is one of those things that makes sense in hindsight more often than in foresight.

I suspect that the bolded bit is the key, possibly combined with the lack of draught animals (though even without them you could have men pushing wheelbarrows, at least on flatter terrain). Most of the other factors you point out, whilst not negligible, would nevertheless have applied equally well to the Old World -- e.g., the Old World has lots of hilly and mountainous areas, most roads weren't paved until the 18th or 19th century, etc.
 
I think a more potent disease package to infect the old world. Let civilization be devastated on both sides of the Atlantic.

Probably good for everyone, because resources are used at a slower pace, and all of humanity gets a memory that things can go really bad. Good for the human race.

And it makes the next gen of old world explorers more cautious in their dealings with the new world, which slows their spread which allows the new world survivors to come up with more or better countermeasures.
 
I think the best advantage the Americans could have is to have a technology or a crop that requires not just their land but also their knowledge and their active cooperation. Something like the Chinese with their porcelain (otherwise known as chinaware) that needs you to trade with the craftsmen rather then to force them into servitude. May be the Aztecs had some edge on medicine (hell knows they had enough practice) but needed specific herbs that one needs a local with 10 years of training to find... Anyway. We need something so rare or valuable the Europeans want to trade rather then just to grab. Something akin to the spice trade with Asia
 

Lusitania

Donor
I think the best advantage the Americans could have is to have a technology or a crop that requires not just their land but also their knowledge and their active cooperation. Something like the Chinese with their porcelain (otherwise known as chinaware) that needs you to trade with the craftsmen rather then to force them into servitude. May be the Aztecs had some edge on medicine (hell knows they had enough practice) but needed specific herbs that one needs a local with 10 years of training to find... Anyway. We need something so rare or valuable the Europeans want to trade rather then just to grab. Something akin to the spice trade with Asia

The issue was that due to disease any native population was successtible to weakening or worse collapse allowing Europeans to dominate them.

What some do not understand is that China was in constant direct contact with India, south east Asia, Middle East and Europe. Só diseases spread through entire Eurasia continent. Here one time visit by chinese or Viking will not immunize the natives.
 
The issue was that due to disease any native population was successtible to weakening or worse collapse allowing Europeans to dominate them.

What some do not understand is that China was in constant direct contact with India, south east Asia, Middle East and Europe. Só diseases spread through entire Eurasia continent. Here one time visit by chinese or Viking will not immunize the natives.

I think @Every Grass in Java made a extensive post about this, but the basic idea is that 1) the key issue isn't really time-depth so much as the disease being endemic(which is why small, isolated populations tend to fare worst-they can't have it be established) and 2) the data he collated suggest that in the absence of either novel diseases(like yellow fever) or other major social disruptors (invasion, the slave trade, extractive metal industries, territorial expulsion, warfare) native population recovery could be much, much faster.
 
I suspect that the bolded bit is the key, possibly combined with the lack of draught animals (though even without them you could have men pushing wheelbarrows, at least on flatter terrain). Most of the other factors you point out, whilst not negligible, would nevertheless have applied equally well to the Old World -- e.g., the Old World has lots of hilly and mountainous areas, most roads weren't paved until the 18th or 19th century, etc.

I think it all adds up to a perfect storm of sorts. I got this interesting article on the wheel from the Smithsonian. From what it says it looks like the wheel took 300 years to go from pottery to transportation, and it wasn't the first civilization that made the wheel that came up with wheelbarrows. Other things I have heard before do lead me to believe that the wheel (much like implied in the article) as an innovation was really only indigenously developed by one or two civilizations and then through contact that innovation spread and was improved by other civilizations...kinda like how Guttenberg came up with the printing press. Taking aspects of printing tech from different areas in the old world and putting it together with his own innovation. It didn't help that the New World was not as interconnected as the Old World through trade. Who knows, maybe the Incas would have gotten an idea from those wheeled Mayan toys that the Tarascans could have improved upon and so on...
 
We do have wheeled toys, and some other aspects of wheels but nothing practical. The mesoamericans simply didn't see a need for it and what they had worked well enough for what they needed. Humans pulling carts might work in short distances on relatively flat terrain, but the Aztec's influences covered large distances over hilly to mountainous terrain. In the end, you probably wouldn't be able to pull a cart with anything more than you could carry yourself. Then there's also the simple fact, sacrifice. It wasn't all about death, but also personal sacrifice to the gods which include back breaking trips with goods to markets from farms. Having people carry loads on their back was also part of the hierarchy. Nobles had backs with no loads, peasants had to carry stuff on their backs. Then the need for paved roads to make carts work effectively (especially in wet climates)...they just weren't motivated towards using wheels. Having a horse would certainly change that though. Keeping in mind that not all civilizations invented the wheel, they simply borrowed it from someone else back in the Old World, it's entirely possible that the wheel is one of those things that makes sense in hindsight more often than in foresight.

Wheelbarrows can and have been used for long distance transportation on marginal roads. I often wonder why the Chinese wheelbarrow was not adopted in other parts of the world that would greatly benefit from it, such as southeast Asia, Africa, etc.

http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2011/12/the-chinese-wheelbarrow.html
 
Top