Even American Natives

[Zorqal]

Diseases don't just randomly spawn because you have urban areas. Cities are rife with disease because of things like crowding, poor sanitation and other factors making it easier for what's there to spread.

And I'm missing why they'd have better immunity to diseases they have no exposure to.



So we're going from "Mali makes contact" to "In the year X+2, the Mali sailed across the ocean blue" - bringing Old World diseases to do their deadly work even earlier than OTL.

So the fact Eurasians have the worlds worst diseases, and no one else has anything even comparable is all luck, thats what your saying?

Yeah, but trade with Mali would reap nowhere near the destruction colonization left.


Okay, lets get off the fact of colonization for a minute. When do you think the most likely time for fish farming to start would be? BC or AD? BC would probably be preferable for technological growth, But they could catch up if it was AD considering the period of next to no growth that Europe went through, -cough - Dark Ages -cough-

 

[Elfwine]

So the fact Eurasians have the worlds worst diseases, and no one else has anything even comparable is all luck, thats what your saying?

Yellow fever is a horribly nasty disease, but its not unique to the New World.

Just to name an example.

Eurasia has a lot in its favor from the standpoint of where civilizations are likely to grow and develop in the sense of OTL Eurasia.

I wouldn't say its inevitable and I'm not going to quote Diamond - but the fact is that for example the Mediterranean was a lot more useful than the Gulf of Mexico.

Yeah, but trade with Mali would reap nowhere near the destruction colonization left.

As far as disease goes, trade is plenty enough to devastate the area, and ruin it as it was ruined OTL.

Okay, lets get off the fact of colonization for a minute. When do you think the most likely time for fish farming to start would be? BC or AD? BC would probably be preferable for technological growth, But they could catch up if it was AD considering the period of next to no growth that Europe went through, -cough - Dark Ages -cough-

I don't think there is a most likely time unless circumstances justify it, and I'm not entirely seeing what those are.

As for European growth:

1) Europe is far ahead of the New World in this period (post AD 1) in many relevant aspects.

2) The Dark Ages are not a period of nondevelopment (using the definition of "the Dark Ages" I'd use of ~476-~900 AD - the time after Charlemagne being a mess).

 

[Flubber]

Hey Elf? Does it ever get really, really, really old explaining the same old things in repeats of the same old threads to people who should already know better?

How many times in the last few years in how many threads have you and I explained that a Viking with the flu doesn't create smallpox resistance among the Aztecs? Of that a lasting Cahokia doesn't mean measles are no longer a killer? A dozen times? Two dozen? Three?

I no longer bother, why do you?

 

[Elfwine]

Because at least this involved an idea other than handwaving to get the natives to a position where it would matter that they're still doomed.

It was worth seeing how far that idea had been thought out.

 

[Jared]

And I'm missing why they'd have better immunity to diseases they have no exposure to.

There's no connection to urbanisation in particular that I know of, but there is evidence that having exposure to some epidemic disease or other during the critical period (late childhood to young adulthood) leads to a general strengthening of the adaptive immune system. In essence, without having to deal with some epidemic diseases during that critical period, the adaptive immune system is not all that strong.

One proponent of this view was James V. Neel, based on his work amongst the Yanomami in the Amazon and some other indigenous groups. Among other things, he noted that when epidemics like measles hit, the best survival rates were among young adults, rather than survival rates being similar amongst all age groups.

In comparison, take what happened when smallpox (or possibly measles) hit Rome during the Antonine Plagues. The mortality rate was something on the order of 25% of those infected.

That disease was by all accounts an unfamiliar one, so there wasn't anything in the way of specific immunity that the Romans had against smallpox/measles. (They may have had smallpox several centuries before, but that would be no different to a Viking-induced epidemic of smallpox sweeping through North America but then burning out, leaving the natives just as vulnerable when *Columbus comes along centuries later). But the Romans were exposed to other epidemic diseases by then. When smallpox hit places like the Americas, though, the mortality rate was considerably higher - over 50%, in some cases.

This effect should not be overstated - having one or two epidemic diseases of their own will not prevent large-scale die-offs of Native Americans from Eurasian diseases - but it will increase the survival rates a bit.

 

[Zorqal]

There's no connection to urbanisation in particular that I know of, but there is evidence that having exposure to some epidemic disease or other during the critical period (late childhood to young adulthood) leads to a general strengthening of the adaptive immune system. In essence, without having to deal with some epidemic diseases during that critical period, the adaptive immune system is not all that strong.

One proponent of this view was James V. Neel, based on his work amongst the Yanomami in the Amazon and some other indigenous groups. Among other things, he noted that when epidemics like measles hit, the best survival rates were among young adults, rather than survival rates being similar amongst all age groups.

In comparison, take what happened when smallpox (or possibly measles) hit Rome during the Antonine Plagues. The mortality rate was something on the order of 25% of those infected.

That disease was by all accounts an unfamiliar one, so there wasn't anything in the way of specific immunity that the Romans had against smallpox/measles. (They may have had smallpox several centuries before, but that would be no different to a Viking-induced epidemic of smallpox sweeping through North America but then burning out, leaving the natives just as vulnerable when *Columbus comes along centuries later). But the Romans were exposed to other epidemic diseases by then. When smallpox hit places like the Americas, though, the mortality rate was considerably higher - over 50%, in some cases.

This effect should not be overstated - having one or two epidemic diseases of their own will not prevent large-scale die-offs of Native Americans from Eurasian diseases - but it will increase the survival rates a bit.

So then how do we avoid the massive die offs? There must have been a reason that the Americans were so vulnerable to the Eurasian diseases. This is what I want to find out now.

Why did America have no major diseases that affected Europe? If they were more populated, or more packed together diseases would spread faster, giving them a chance to mutate into something worse.

I do understand that some will still die though.

 

[Zorqal]

Hey Elf? Does it ever get really, really, really old explaining the same old things in repeats of the same old threads to people who should already know better?

How many times in the last few years in how many threads have you and I explained that a Viking with the flu doesn't create smallpox resistance among the Aztecs? Of that a lasting Cahokia doesn't mean measles are no longer a killer? A dozen times? Two dozen? Three?

I no longer bother, why do you?

I never suggested either of those things. I gave question that I wanted sincere answers to, and then developed upon those answers. I'm taking everything he says into account to help grow my idea to a realistic (hopefully) story.

 

[Elfwine]

So then how do we avoid the massive die offs? There must have been a reason that the Americans were so vulnerable to the Eurasian diseases. This is what I want to find out now.

My two cents - I'm not a medical expert, just an amateur historian, so if you can find more detailed medical information take it over my word.

But that said:
(A lack of) constant exposure. Smallpox (for example) was virulently deadly in England, not just the New World.

But because that happened periodically, those with whatever made them able to resist were the ones who kept going and having kids - and increased the population of those with at least some level of resistance, because those without didn't make it through the first time (and "the first time" is long before Angland).

You're not going to be able to introduce that to the New World (I'm using that because "Americas" is a term that may or may not be used TTL, by the way) without similar exposure - and if the natives are that severely hit via _____ (Mali, Vikings, etc.), Eurasian dominance is likely - a Mali able and interested in maintaining regular trade is also a Mali able to exploit it as OTL Western Europe did, and that's assuming that the secret doesn't get out that there's something worth crossing the Atlantic for.

I wouldn't say they're doomed - that implies that OTL was inevitable - but they're in a pretty much "ideal" position for the forces that OTL screwed them over to be given the opportunity to do so, and from there its a question of how far it goes.

 

[Zorqal]

So what you're saying is that the Natives will only ever be europes punching bag? That's sad. Is there any way to avoid it.

 

[Simreeve]

Why did America have no major diseases that affected Europe? If they were more populated, or more packed together diseases would spread faster, giving them a chance to mutate into something worse.

At least some of the Old World diseases were derived from ones that originally affected domestic livestock (smallpox from cowpox; flu from various strains in pigs and/or poultry), and this might have been true for others as well. Give the Native Americans more species of domestic livestock (native ones, so that the Europeans haven't already been exposed to those species's illnesses) early on and you probably help them in this respect.

 

[Zorqal]

At least some of the Old World diseases were derived from ones that originally affected domestic livestock (smallpox from cowpox; flu from various strains in pigs and/or poultry), and this might have been true for others as well. Give the Native Americans more species of domestic livestock (native ones, so that the Europeans haven't already been exposed to those species's illnesses) early on and you probably help them in this respect.

So, if the Natives domesticate wild birds, llamas become common throughout the Americas, and possibly Bison become a regional domesticate, disease would develop, like Jared said they would have at least more resistance, and the Europeans would also be affected. That would stop some of the death in the new world be also effecting Europe to make it more even. That may also persuade the Europeans from trying to colonize, along with several other factors.

 

[Flubber]

So, if the Natives domesticate wild birds, llamas become common throughout the Americas, and possibly Bison become a regional domesticate, disease would develop, like Jared said they would have at least more resistance, and the Europeans would also be affected.

Congratulations, you've just qualified for the Vlad Tepes Award.

Your "idea" means that each hemisphere will develop diseases which the other has limited immunities against. The Columbian Exchange will now work in both directions meaning that Eurasia and the Americas will be equally devastated.

That may also persuade the Europeans from trying to colonize, along with several other factors

Seeing as we're looking at multiple events, each of which will be worse than the Black Death, Eurasians are going to be more concerned with the death of civilization than colonial ambitions.

As I wrote to Eflwine earlier, there have been dozens of threads dealing with this same topic on this board within the last two years. In each of them, Elfwine, myself, and others have patiently explained the hows and whys of the Columbian Exchange. Nothing you've proposed here wasn't already proposed multiple times in those earlier threads, both proposed and dismissed.

The search function pull those many threads up for you. Have fun reading them.

 

[twovultures]

Congratulations, you've just qualified for the Vlad Tepes Award.

Your "idea" means that each hemisphere will develop diseases which the other has limited immunities against. The Columbian Exchange will now work in both directions meaning that Eurasia and the Americas will be equally devastated.

Seeing as we're looking at multiple events, each of which will be worse than the Black Death, Eurasians are going to be more concerned with the death of civilization than colonial ambitions.

It you read mine, Jared, or DValdron's timelines, you would see that pandemics hitting Eurasia is not necessarily the end for civilizations there. The alt-diseases need not be extremely lethal, and their effect need not be apocalyptic. If you research the epidemics in the New World (and other colonized areas) a little deeper than "the White Man showed up and the Natives died" you will know that there are a lot of factors that go into the lethality of particular diseases and even particular individual epidemics than just the appearance of a virus in native soil. Population density, nutrition, and cultural responses to disease can all decrease or increase mortality.

Elfwine has been engaging critically with the ideas on this thread, you have been naysaying and then resorting to "Oh, well it's a bad idea to write because Vlad Tepes" when the ideas are shown to be workable. That was done to me when I started out, and quite frankly it's very annoying and shows a lack of curiosity on the part of the naysayer.

The search function pull those many threads up for you. Have fun reading them.

New discoveries in archaeology and biology mean that new ideas to come up quite regularly in regards to civilization-building. It's worth it to have new threads on this topic, if only because it gives members a chance to put the new information into the discussion of the topic at hand.

 

[Roger II]

My two cents - I'm not a medical expert, just an amateur historian, so if you can find more detailed medical information take it over my word.

I wouldn't say they're doomed - that implies that OTL was inevitable - but they're in a pretty much "ideal" position for the forces that OTL screwed them over to be given the opportunity to do so, and from there its a question of how far it goes.

Hmm, I've also heard it suggested that part of the reason the epidemics were so deadly was the political and social collapse of the conquest. A conquest where Cortez is beaten back and the Spanish lose their appetite for land conquests in Mexico for a generation or two is a generation or two for the epidemics(which won't be as bad without the aftermath of a political collapse) to burn through the population and for said population to start to bounce back a little. And of course the epidemics can still spread by seaborne trade with the Spanish, which is perfectly plausible at least initially.

 

[twovultures]

Hmm, I've also heard it suggested that part of the reason the epidemics were so deadly was the political and social collapse of the conquest. A conquest where Cortez is beaten back and the Spanish lose their appetite for land conquests in Mexico for a generation or two is a generation or two for the epidemics(which won't be as bad without the aftermath of a political collapse) to burn through the population and for said population to start to bounce back a little. And of course the epidemics can still spread by seaborne trade with the Spanish, which is perfectly plausible at least initially.

There will still be a population collapse in Mesoamerica in this scenario, but you are correct in that it probably will not be so steep (exactly how much, well, that's hotly debated even among the experts).

In virgin soil scenarios, generally after constant contact begins the native population falls for the first 100-150 years as they are hammered by disease, and then begins to rise again. In this scenario, the first 50 years of disease would not be accompanied by slavery, mass slaughter, and conquest, which will give the Native some edge. A more peaceful conquest, perhaps with Aztec and other leaders converting to Christianity, would gain Spanish dominion over large chunks of Mesoamerica without war and the problems that causes. When the bounce back finally arrives, it will result in a more Native and Mestizo *Mexico than OTL.

 

[9 Fanged Hummingbird]

While the diseases were perhaps the biggest factor in European victories against the natives, the biggest reason for native civilizations collapsing were European victories. That might sound a bit weird or circular, but my main point is that even with the same ravaging diseases of OTL, it's possible for Native American civilizations to survive regardless as long as colonizers fail at certain points and lose much of their drive. The inverse would also be true, if the natives had their own indigenous diseases Eurasian civilizations would be hard-hit but they'd still exist, albeit probably not at the expense of people in the Americas, at least not in the immediate future. In any case, if you want to know why certain American civilizations collapsed you should think less "Europeans sneezed and they all died" and look more at the politics and such of each case. It doesn't require a PoD in the Old World or surviving American megafauna to create a radically different New World.

 

[othyrsyde]

While the diseases were perhaps the biggest factor in European victories against the natives, the biggest reason for native civilizations collapsing were European victories. That might sound a bit weird or circular, but my main point is that even with the same ravaging diseases of OTL, it's possible for Native American civilizations to survive regardless as long as colonizers fail at certain points and lose much of their drive. The inverse would also be true, if the natives had their own indigenous diseases Eurasian civilizations would be hard-hit but they'd still exist, albeit probably not at the expense of people in the Americas, at least not in the immediate future. In any case, if you want to know why certain American civilizations collapsed you should think less "Europeans sneezed and they all died" and look more at the politics and such of each case. It doesn't require a PoD in the Old World or surviving American megafauna to create a radically different New World.

Excellent points.

 

[Zorqal]

While the diseases were perhaps the biggest factor in European victories against the natives, the biggest reason for native civilizations collapsing were European victories. That might sound a bit weird or circular, but my main point is that even with the same ravaging diseases of OTL, it's possible for Native American civilizations to survive regardless as long as colonizers fail at certain points and lose much of their drive. The inverse would also be true, if the natives had their own indigenous diseases Eurasian civilizations would be hard-hit but they'd still exist, albeit probably not at the expense of people in the Americas, at least not in the immediate future. In any case, if you want to know why certain American civilizations collapsed you should think less "Europeans sneezed and they all died" and look more at the politics and such of each case. It doesn't require a PoD in the Old World or surviving American megafauna to create a radically different New World.

Finally! Some new input!

I mean, if the Native's were more advanced than OTL, that would probably deter the Europeans right? Take Cortez for example. He brought something like 500 conquistadors to conquer the Aztec, and he succeeded. If his conquistadors are up against natives on a fairly similar level, but in hugely increased numbers, they aren't gonna have a shot. There's a cut to colonial drive. Add the fact that diseases are being exchanged, and that Cortez would probably be completely butterflied, and there you go.

Any thing to add?

 

[9 Fanged Hummingbird]

Finally! Some new input!

I mean, if the Native's were more advanced than OTL, that would probably deter the Europeans right? Take Cortez for example. He brought something like 500 conquistadors to conquer the Aztec, and he succeeded. If his conquistadors are up against natives on a fairly similar level, but in hugely increased numbers, they aren't gonna have a shot. There's a cut to colonial drive. Add the fact that diseases are being exchanged, and that Cortez would probably be completely butterflied, and there you go.

Any thing to add?

That's not it, Cortez was able to gather a bunch of rivals of the Aztecs together and negated their numerical advantage. If it really was just 500 conquistadors (Cortez landed in Mexico with roughly a thousand more than that anyway IIRC) against the whole Aztec empire, he'd have been crushed. Conquistadors facing better odds than that failed despite the technological difference. All it would take for Cortez to fail (barring a freak accident or lucky battlefield death) would be for the tlatoani of Tlaxcala to have died earlier and been replaced by a more pragmatic successor who'd see the Spanish for what they were.

 

[Zorqal]

That's not it, Cortez was able to gather a bunch of rivals of the Aztecs together and negated their numerical advantage. If it really was just 500 conquistadors (Cortez landed in Mexico with roughly a thousand more than that anyway IIRC) against the whole Aztec empire, he'd have been crushed. Conquistadors facing better odds than that failed despite the technological difference. All it would take for Cortez to fail (barring a freak accident or lucky battlefield death) would be for the tlatoani of Tlaxcala to have died earlier and been replaced by a more pragmatic successor who'd see the Spanish for what they were.

I didn't remember the exact number of conquistadors, and 500 sounded sorta right. But still, even with the native allies, they had no where near the amount of manpower that the Aztecs had.

But I'm thinking that for the most part, with the idea that's been thought up so far, that Cortez would probably be butterflied. If there where natives on a higher level in the Caribbean than Cortez would not go to the Spanish colony of Cuba, and the governor would never have the idea of sending him to Mexico, and he would never have orders to defy, so he never goes.