Domesticatable herbivores in the New World?

Okay, I know we've had threads similar to this many, many times before, but bear with me, this is a new twist.

According to this, there was a species of small ground sloth living in Cuba until the 16th century. I use the word "small" relatively, this thing weighed 200 pounds.

Now, could the natives of Cuba domesticated the surviving sloths prior to Columbian contact? They would have eaten shoots and were most likely fairly social, so domestication isn't too far out of the question...
 
Okay, I know we've had threads similar to this many, many times before, but bear with me, this is a new twist.

According to this, there was a species of small ground sloth living in Cuba until the 16th century. I use the word "small" relatively, this thing weighed 200 pounds.

Now, could the natives of Cuba domesticated the surviving sloths prior to Columbian contact? They would have eaten shoots and were most likely fairly social, so domestication isn't too far out of the question...
They even don't provide any reference. That is what I found:
Cuban Ground Sloth (Megalocnus rodens)


  • never oberved by Europeans; fossils contemporary with indigenous artifacts and introduced rat fossils indicate survival into colonial era, possibly until 16th Century
  • 150 lb montane forest ground dweller herbivore endemic to Cuba
  • disappeared after introduction of rats and pigs
http://www.uwsp.edu/geO/faculty/heywood/geog358/extinctm/CuGSloth.htm
 
Zoonotic diseases would likely mean both the Old and New World would suffer debilitating plagues and die-offs in the 1500's. More exposure to those kinds of disease would also mean that the Native Americans may have slightly better resistance and have their die-off be less extreme than OTL.

I wonder if that would delay colonisation and exploration of the New World for a century or two, or just change all the patterns.
 
Why would it make any difference? The Incans had Lhamas and Alpacas but were easy conquests for the Spaniards anyways. Had these animals existed in North America, the indigenous people there would have been more sophisticated, but still prove no match for 16th century Europeans. Their extra wealth would just make them more attractive to conquerers.

What the Native Americans were missing wasn't just any herbivore, what they needed were horses. Interestingly horses evolved in North America and spread to Eurasia through the Bering land bridge. They then subsequently went extinct in their native land for unknown reasons. If they did not become extinct, and if there of the tamable type, then everything would be different.
 
Last edited:
Zoonotic diseases would likely mean both the Old and New World would suffer debilitating plagues and die-offs in the 1500's. More exposure to those kinds of disease would also mean that the Native Americans may have slightly better resistance and have their die-off be less extreme than OTL.

I wonder if that would delay colonisation and exploration of the New World for a century or two, or just change all the patterns.
They more likely would be different diseases, so hardly giving better resistant to introduced by Europeans. But in case of Europeans they would have no resistance to the locale diseases (and when they would bring those diseases home... :eek:)
 
Why would it make any difference? The Incans had Lhamas and Alpacas but were easy conquests for the Spaniards anyways. Had these animals existed in North America, the indigenous people there would have been more sophisticated, but still prove no match for 16th century Europeans. Their extra wealth would just make them more attractive to conquerers.

What the Native Americans were missing wasn't just any herbivore, what they needed were horses. Interestingly horses evolved in North America and spread to Eurasia through the Bering land bridge. They then subsequently went extinct in their native land for unknown reasons. If they did not become extinct, and if there of the tamable type, then everything would be different.

This is the crux of the problem; making some indiginous tribe get the bright idea to herd the horses (how big were they anyway?) as a constant source of food instead of going out on a periodic hunt. Over the course of some years, they get used to lug the travois instead of the dogs and then later for personal mounts.
Is it known for sure that the Native Americans hunted the American horse into extinction or were they killed off in that extinction event back around 10,000 BC?
:confused:
 
Every time I think about this, the more I believe that the natives were screwed no matter what. The North-South lay of the continents meant that technology and information would've been slower to travel. Best case scenario, there's a kind of Roman analogue in Mesoamerica by the time the Spanish arrive. Yes, the natives would be able to stage a better resistance, but the technology gap would still be too great. Maybe there'd be a few surviving native states today, and colonization would definitely occur differently, but in the end, Europe will still win, unless an American disease wrecks havoc.
 
south and mezo American tribes did domesticate herbivores
this does not change much, unless the animals are large enough to be ridden
if there was a domesticated or semi domesticated animal that was large enough to carry a human and/or some cargo over large distances, the result could be called a paradigm shift, especially in central and north America, where it would improve comunication, increase the efectivness of armed forces, and cause formation of nomadic cultures of an asiatic model

would it not be more realistic that north American tribes domesticate or semi domesticate the buffalo or the elk
practically identical situations are found in north Asia, and Scandinavia, where various tribes herd and even ride species of elks
the Samojed for instance

the hipotetical domestication of the buffalo would have been of great importance, even if actually riding it would not be common practice, it would become an important farm animal, incerasing the amount of work that can be done, but also such a domesticated bovine would be a crutial source of food for native populations during colonisation, as they would not have to depend on the exterminated wild buffalo
 
the NAs needed more than a domesticable big animal... they needed a whole agricultural package that was ready to go. Eurasia lucked out in that they had cattle, sheep, pigs, wheat, and barley all in one convenient area. The Americas had corn, beans, and potatoes, but all of these took quite some time to select up to sizes worth harvesting.... and of course, nothing comparable to Eurasia's domestic animals. To give the NAs any kind of chance vs. Europe, they have to have something similar to that handy agricultural package...
 
the NAs needed more than a domesticable big animal... they needed a whole agricultural package that was ready to go. Eurasia lucked out in that they had cattle, sheep, pigs, wheat, and barley all in one convenient area. The Americas had corn, beans, and potatoes, but all of these took quite some time to select up to sizes worth harvesting.... and of course, nothing comparable to Eurasia's domestic animals. To give the NAs any kind of chance vs. Europe, they have to have something similar to that handy agricultural package...

I'd have to qualify that assessment. The American agricultural package was really quite good (seriously a ridiculous proportion of the worlds edible plants were grown in Peru). The Amerindian diet was really quite good, Mexico and the Andes were highly populated and in North America in the early stages the locals were generally taller and healthier than Europeans. Then they all died, but that was hardly a problem with the diet. The Eurasian package does seem to have been easier to start off with though so I see your point there. But I think with some domesticated large animals the American package would be formidible.

They more likely would be different diseases, so hardly giving better resistant to introduced by Europeans. But in case of Europeans they would have no resistance to the locale diseases (and when they would bring those diseases home... )

I've read that Amerindians actually suffered from a general deficiency in coping with zootropic disease as well as specifically the diseases the Europeans carried. So I believe that exposure to more diseases would likely increase the ability Native Americans to resist even unfamiliar diseases. By exactly how much I don't know, but a couple of percentage points of difference means hundreds of thousands of people who died OTL would pull through.

Is it known for sure that the Native Americans hunted the American horse into extinction or were they killed off in that extinction event back around 10,000 BC?

It's controversial, I reckon a combination of events. I think a PoD where large mammals survived in the Americas is eminently plausible though.

The technology gap would still loom large for the Amerindians and the Europeans have chronically serious advantages. But the disease factor was, imo, the single most important factor in the near-complete sacking they got. Slightly higher resistance to disease, coupled with mutually exchanged death-plagues in Eurasia in the 1500's and 1600's, coupled with logistical and technological effects of having domesticated animals would in general help the Amerindians a lot.

Conquistadors versus Amerindians in chariots would also be awesome.
 
I'd have to qualify that assessment. The American agricultural package was really quite good (seriously a ridiculous proportion of the worlds edible plants were grown in Peru). The Amerindian diet was really quite good, Mexico and the Andes were highly populated and in North America in the early stages the locals were generally taller and healthier than Europeans. Then they all died, but that was hardly a problem with the diet. The Eurasian package does seem to have been easier to start off with though so I see your point there. But I think with some domesticated large animals the American package would be formidible.

the problem is with that extra time it took to increase the size of the American crop plants and the extra time it took to acclimatize them as they moved north. In the 'race to become civilized', that extra time will always put the NAs several steps behind Eurasia... even if the NAs managed to reach a medieval culture with steel and castles, by the time the Europeans landed in America, they could take down such a culture... guns, cannons, and big warships are something the NAs just wouldn't beat...
 
Well India, as sophisticated as it was, none the less was colonized by Europeans. But there is clearly a difference between the cultural and population resiliency of Asian Indians and the American Indians.
 
Top