Europe not colonizing the interior of Africa until the 19th century had a lot more to do with malaria and other diseases than the fire rate of their guns.
Even If Successful Amerindian Immunity...
- Thread starter Finn
- Start date
Don't get me wrong, Amerindians were more than happy to gut you like a fish and/or cave your head in during battle, they loved it because they are people and therefore horrifically violent in battle.
But the general level of warfare in the Americas was down a notch or three from Old World Warfare of the same technological level. I've read that it was because the New World lacked the stimulus of nomadic horsemen, with their tremendous military advantage of mobility and composite bow firepower, to energise the warfighting of sedentary societies with fortifications, more powerful weapons and genocidal savagery to deal with these powerful nomads.
My point is that if the majority of towns in the Americas were fortified and defended with heavy weapons such as ballista/mangonel/trebuchet. If the armies were equipped with better armour (lemmelar?), more powerful weapons (long/composite bows?), tactics geared to both force protection and mass slaughter (sheild wall/phalanx/maniples?) the Spanish would have had a tougher time defeating them and therefore not have become the tip of the spear in their alliances with the natives.
But the general level of warfare in the Americas was down a notch or three from Old World Warfare of the same technological level. I've read that it was because the New World lacked the stimulus of nomadic horsemen, with their tremendous military advantage of mobility and composite bow firepower, to energise the warfighting of sedentary societies with fortifications, more powerful weapons and genocidal savagery to deal with these powerful nomads.
My point is that if the majority of towns in the Americas were fortified and defended with heavy weapons such as ballista/mangonel/trebuchet. If the armies were equipped with better armour (lemmelar?), more powerful weapons (long/composite bows?), tactics geared to both force protection and mass slaughter (sheild wall/phalanx/maniples?) the Spanish would have had a tougher time defeating them and therefore not have become the tip of the spear in their alliances with the natives.
Well the Siberians meet all those requirements, but still ended up conquered by the Russians.
The Effect on Europe
I was wondering how would European development be affected in turn IF an at least moderately disease-resistant Amerindian civilisation would have indeed been able to oppose the Spaniards more effectively.
I too think that eventual colonisation would have probably been inevitable, but a successful Aztec/Inca resistance might have at least hindered European efforts for a while. At the time Spaniards were clearly more technologically advanced, but every other advantage was overwhelmingly in favour of the Natives: numbers, knowledge of the terrain etc. And it was not like machine-guns versus spears; the technology of the invaders was better but not THAT much better to alone guarantee anything, plus that history has seen countless examples of underdogs triumphing against better-equipped foes. Indeed many colonial efforts of Europeans elsewhere -East Africa, India- were initially quite unsuccessful. Take away the ridiculous luck of the conquiztadores and maybe Amerindian civilisations get some more time.
But without all the gold, silver and other goodies being shipped to enrich Spain European history might have played out differently too. I don't have the courage to go into the financial side; but it is doubtful that the Spanish Habsburgs would have had enough money to sustain their continuous wars in the Low countries, with France, in Germany, with the muslims etc. Even in OTL they went broke several times; and eventually stepped down as a major power after the Thirty Years War.
I was wondering how would European development be affected in turn IF an at least moderately disease-resistant Amerindian civilisation would have indeed been able to oppose the Spaniards more effectively.
I too think that eventual colonisation would have probably been inevitable, but a successful Aztec/Inca resistance might have at least hindered European efforts for a while. At the time Spaniards were clearly more technologically advanced, but every other advantage was overwhelmingly in favour of the Natives: numbers, knowledge of the terrain etc. And it was not like machine-guns versus spears; the technology of the invaders was better but not THAT much better to alone guarantee anything, plus that history has seen countless examples of underdogs triumphing against better-equipped foes. Indeed many colonial efforts of Europeans elsewhere -East Africa, India- were initially quite unsuccessful. Take away the ridiculous luck of the conquiztadores and maybe Amerindian civilisations get some more time.
But without all the gold, silver and other goodies being shipped to enrich Spain European history might have played out differently too. I don't have the courage to go into the financial side; but it is doubtful that the Spanish Habsburgs would have had enough money to sustain their continuous wars in the Low countries, with France, in Germany, with the muslims etc. Even in OTL they went broke several times; and eventually stepped down as a major power after the Thirty Years War.
Cuāuhtemōc
Banned
Things would certainly be different and much more harder for the Europeans, at least in the beginning. You can forget about Cortes being successful.
Two Sapa Incas would not have died from smallpox, so you can butterfly a civil war that weakens the Inca Empire.
If not for smallpox (among other diseases) Mississippian and Amazonian civilization still might have existed, long enough at least to make more meaningful contact with the Old World.
Let's see... Spain can still conquer Haiti and Cuba, but instead of dying off, the locals can survive, flee into the interior, and resist forever. Spain has to put forth a lot more effort to hold them. If Cortes (or some other Spaniard, he barely got out of Cuba) invades Mexico, he might be successful, as all it takes is for the other Mexican countries to realize that resistance against the Aztecs is possible. But with the Mexicans remaining numerous and armed (no doubt adopting European technology as fast as they can acquire it), Spain will not be able to impose latifundias (is that the word)? Spanish governors in Mexico will eventually have to employ careful balancing act politics, meaning the Mexican nations retain a lot of independence. As for Peru-no way. Pizarro and his gang disappear, along with many another expedition.
And I'm sorry, but this really should go in ASB.
And I'm sorry, but this really should go in ASB.
What impact would a large native population in the Americas have on Europe which in OTL sent tens of millions of its people over to the America's.
This is assuming of course that at most the America's are ruled over like India or Africa with only limited European settlement.
This is assuming of course that at most the America's are ruled over like India or Africa with only limited European settlement.
A thing that might be worth noting is that even it's enormously unlikely for the natives to be flat out immune - they'd be at best no more vulnerable than Europeans.
So that does provide for some pretty serious cases of death. Not as easily or as automatically, but it's there. No assurance that any given leader doesn't catch such a disease.
So that does provide for some pretty serious cases of death. Not as easily or as automatically, but it's there. No assurance that any given leader doesn't catch such a disease.
Last edited:
The obvious impact is a more populated Europe. With that comes greater religious dissent since you have more religious radicals like the Puritans, the Mennonites, and the Quakers staying in the Old World. You might also see a greater gender imbalance, as soldiers and administrators leave to govern New World colonies but do not take their families with them.
The impact in West Africa is also very interesting. With no need to import African slaves, that's 12 million people over 400 years who stay in Africa. Their labor and their ideas go to help civilization in Africa instead of the Americas. In addition, no slave raids means greater social stability, which will lead to more developed nation-states in West Africa.
Kaptin Kurk
Banned
Yeah, I was about to say disease resistant Native Americans will likely put a big crimp in the African slave trade. East Indians probably wouldn't end up being imported either. As well as fewer white indentured servants. Expect American colonialism to look much more like colonialism in Africa and Asia, than the massive population transfers that happened OTL. Maybe even, at some point, Ameri-Indian independence movements.
There probably would be Indian nations that could use geographical isolation to avoid colonialism ("Pulling an Ethiopia") or play the powers off against each-other to avoid being colonized ("Pulling a Thailand").
The real hard part is, after gaining independence this way, keeping it into the modern era by adopting European technology and the infrastructure to keep that technology ("Pulling a Japan"). It's not easy.
The real hard part is, after gaining independence this way, keeping it into the modern era by adopting European technology and the infrastructure to keep that technology ("Pulling a Japan"). It's not easy.
I think the problem here is easy, people are just confusing the two definitions of colonization, which if you were going for accuracy, would be two separate words.
Colonization, 1: When a population expands into a new territory.
Colonization 2: When one region is conquered and made into the colony of another state.
I can guarantee that when people talk about how the Americas wouldn't have been colonized if they had immunity to European diseases, they mean that the original inhabitants wouldn't have been displaced or assimilated by invading European colonists, and would retain their own languages and cultures. It doesn't mean that the continents wouldn't necessarily be conquered and subjected to European colonial rule in the same way Africa or India were.
Colonization, 1: When a population expands into a new territory.
Colonization 2: When one region is conquered and made into the colony of another state.
I can guarantee that when people talk about how the Americas wouldn't have been colonized if they had immunity to European diseases, they mean that the original inhabitants wouldn't have been displaced or assimilated by invading European colonists, and would retain their own languages and cultures. It doesn't mean that the continents wouldn't necessarily be conquered and subjected to European colonial rule in the same way Africa or India were.
This is true. However, the question of how well Europeans could project their power into the Americas at the dawn of their colonization attempts without the 'germs' part of guns, germs, and steel, and how well African or Asian colonization would go without American colonies is another question.
I mean, I can see a failure to colonize the mainland Americas by, say, the Spanish triggering a policy of opening trade outposts instead of making outright conquests.
one big difference between N. America and India/Africa... the region of OTL Canada and USA are perfectly suited for Europeans, being the same general climate and wildlife. Africa in particular was a tropical hellhole for white settlement, and they only did well in the far south, which has a Mediterranean climate. The fertile lands of N. America are going to be enormously attractive to Europeans, and that's where they'll put most of their effort for conquest/settlement. I'd wonder if the tropical regions of the Americas might not do better at resisting the conquistadors, since the natives won't be devastated by disease and the land isn't so suitable...
OTL the natives in temperate ol' North America did pretty well at fighting off Europeans when they weren't dying en mass from disease. 16th/17th technology didn't present as much of an advantage over native peoples as 19th century technology did.
and they might do so again. I'm not saying that the Europeans will necessarily prevail, although I'd put odds on them... I'm saying that N. America is going to be one hell of a lure to them, and that's where a lot of the effort will be going. One stumbling block though... if the Incas aren't conquered and potatoes don't make it to the Old World, that might put the brakes on OTL's population explosion in Europe, which makes potential settlers scarcer..
The Americas would still come under the domination of Europe, I suspect. The technological and (except for middle america and the Andes) socioplolitical disparity between native societies and European colonizers was just too great.
But you would not see much wholesale conquest and genocide - at least until the late 18th-19th centuries. While there would still be some successful attempts at settling less densly populated areas (probably along the NE coast) , there would not be a wholesale replacement of population. With respect to the more highly organized native-american societies things would be significantly changed. Cortez would likely be repulsed, even with his native allies. THe Aztecs, unaffected by plague and eager for revenge against the Tlaxcalans and others, might well work to solidify their dominance in central mexico, and be much better prepared technologically and strategicaly, to resist any subsequent Spanish incursions. Same goes for the Incas and the Maya kingdoms.
The end result might me something of a mix between what happened in South Asia and Africa. Native kingdoms survive in an assymetrical relationship with European imperialists. Some become agents of European powers in trade, resource exploitation, and conquest,and others maintain a degree of hostile independence while Europeans play them off against each other. Technological and cultural innovations would spread among elites seeking alliances with the European powers (including I suspect the spread of Christian missionaries). Small European settlements would pop up, but they would probably be more like the trade enclaves in Asia or the coastal colonies in Africa - nothing large like the the huge territories that evolved into the US.
It would be interesting.
But you would not see much wholesale conquest and genocide - at least until the late 18th-19th centuries. While there would still be some successful attempts at settling less densly populated areas (probably along the NE coast) , there would not be a wholesale replacement of population. With respect to the more highly organized native-american societies things would be significantly changed. Cortez would likely be repulsed, even with his native allies. THe Aztecs, unaffected by plague and eager for revenge against the Tlaxcalans and others, might well work to solidify their dominance in central mexico, and be much better prepared technologically and strategicaly, to resist any subsequent Spanish incursions. Same goes for the Incas and the Maya kingdoms.
The end result might me something of a mix between what happened in South Asia and Africa. Native kingdoms survive in an assymetrical relationship with European imperialists. Some become agents of European powers in trade, resource exploitation, and conquest,and others maintain a degree of hostile independence while Europeans play them off against each other. Technological and cultural innovations would spread among elites seeking alliances with the European powers (including I suspect the spread of Christian missionaries). Small European settlements would pop up, but they would probably be more like the trade enclaves in Asia or the coastal colonies in Africa - nothing large like the the huge territories that evolved into the US.
It would be interesting.