How to give the Native Americans more favoreable conditions?

This, really. If they had a wheat equivalent, i.e. a plant that was ready to feed a civilization and did not take thousands of years of artificial selection to develop into a viable food source for a city, the Native American civilizations could have developed far more advanced technology just by the virtue of having more time.
Which is why I suggested an aversion of the Classic Collapse. It doesn't add a dramatically longer amount of time, but it still adds about 700 years of advancing from a good point rather than 700 years of recovering from a large-scale crisis.
 
Which is why I suggested an aversion of the Classic Collapse. It doesn't add a dramatically longer amount of time, but it still adds about 700 years of advancing from a good point rather than 700 years of recovering from a large-scale crisis.

An excellent and original idea, which no-one but you could really execute well. Perhaps if you went back to updating your timeline, we could all see how that would pan out?
 
What about PoDs changing the Classic period somewhat? I've becoming intriuged by the idea of, say, Teotihuacan going on to become overlords of mesoamerica, picking up writing, and becoming a through and long-lasting imperial seat or of classical civilization spreading to North America somewhat earlier so it's less dependendent on a relative handful of major centers. It would of course avert the classic collapse simply by virtue of butterflies and would just do all sorts of interesting things. On that note, do you have any good suggestions about resources for how Mesoamerican ideals of kingship worked or comments on that topic?
 
Well I had theorized the possibility of the Maya Collapse at least being averted by changing the events of a single day, a battle in the year 695 to be precise. And to my surprise apparently a notable archaeologist suggested as much in a book, which felt pretty nice. :D But yeah, there was a battle in 695 between Tikal and Calakmul, and Tikal one, breaking the power of the hegemony that Calakmul held over much of the southern lowlands. Tikal wasn't able to fill the gap left behind however, and the political situation became extremely unstable and violent. A more stable situation however would've meant that when the big-ass droughts came (the ones that people have been pretending is breaking news for decades) people would be more able to keep farming and trying to avert disaster rather than having to worry about getting whacked by the neighboring kingdom's roving gangs of soldiers. As for Teotihuacan, they lack of deciphered writing makes it hard to know what could be done for them. They did have writing, but it was in pictographic form very similar to what the Aztecs used. So similar that it's most likely Aztec writing was a derivation of Teotihuacano writing. Unfortunately that doesn't even help us to know what language they spoke, let alone what exactly was going on at the time. It's possible though that there was some kind of popular uprising resulting from ecological crises caused by erosion and the like. Perhaps if they picked up on certain Maya agricultural practices that would become more common in light of a more stable situation then things could be handled better in Teotihuacan? As for kingship in the region, it varies from culture to culture, especially between the Mexican cultures in the west and the Maya. And unfortunately I can't think of any good sources on the internet. However I do own books that have some information, particularly relating to the Aztecs and Maya. Any specific questions or do you just want a general summary?
 
If the object is to give America more time before the Europeans arrive, instead of starting an early smallpox plague over on this end, why not start one on the other? Make some terrible disease ravage Spain and delay the conquistadors. Maybe have Columbus never come back, or get rejected by Ferdinand and Isabella. Once Spain (and other nations) start to look west again, Portugal's started making boatloads of money from trade with India via the around-Africa route, and people stop caring so much about wandering west into what could be nothing but a massive ocean that extends all the way to Asia in favor of taking the still lengthy but not quite as long route that the Portuguese have discovered. With this going down, it might be a few hundred years before anyone tries going west again.

Of course, it wouldn't hurt to throw a few artifacts and relics of European technology at the New World from one of those failed expeditions to give those folks a bit of a leg up. They really need every advantage they can get.
 
Well I had theorized the possibility of the Maya Collapse at least being averted by changing the events of a single day, a battle in the year 695 to be precise. And to my surprise apparently a notable archaeologist suggested as much in a book, which felt pretty nice. :D But yeah, there was a battle in 695 between Tikal and Calakmul, and Tikal one, breaking the power of the hegemony that Calakmul held over much of the southern lowlands. Tikal wasn't able to fill the gap left behind however, and the political situation became extremely unstable and violent. A more stable situation however would've meant that when the big-ass droughts came (the ones that people have been pretending is breaking news for decades) people would be more able to keep farming and trying to avert disaster rather than having to worry about getting whacked by the neighboring kingdom's roving gangs of soldiers. As for Teotihuacan, they lack of deciphered writing makes it hard to know what could be done for them. They did have writing, but it was in pictographic form very similar to what the Aztecs used. So similar that it's most likely Aztec writing was a derivation of Teotihuacano writing. Unfortunately that doesn't even help us to know what language they spoke, let alone what exactly was going on at the time. It's possible though that there was some kind of popular uprising resulting from ecological crises caused by erosion and the like. Perhaps if they picked up on certain Maya agricultural practices that would become more common in light of a more stable situation then things could be handled better in Teotihuacan? As for kingship in the region, it varies from culture to culture, especially between the Mexican cultures in the west and the Maya. And unfortunately I can't think of any good sources on the internet. However I do own books that have some information, particularly relating to the Aztecs and Maya. Any specific questions or do you just want a general summary?
That was why I asked about Tenotchitlan-keeping them strong(er) might ease the repeated political vacuums of the Maya lands and maybe even putting them in a position to become undisputed masters of Mesoamerica. As for Kingship, a general summary would be more helpful since I don't know enough to have good specific questions.
 
That was why I asked about Tenotchitlan-keeping them strong(er) might ease the repeated political vacuums of the Maya lands and maybe even putting them in a position to become undisputed masters of Mesoamerica. As for Kingship, a general summary would be more helpful since I don't know enough to have good specific questions.
Don't you mean Teotihuacan? ;) In any case, I'm personally a bit dubious they can be the undisputed masters of Mesoamerica for several more centuries. They were already the undisputed masters before they collapsed, or at least during the Early Classic period when their influence over the Maya region was the most obvious. Though the continued survival of the city and nation itself should help with stability in any case, even if they don't remain the massive all-powerful empire they were at their height.

As for kingship, where to start? I suppose the native etymologies of their words shall do to give you an idea of how they were thought of. The typical word used for kings in Mexico (as in, the western part of Mesoamerica beyond Chiapas) was "Speaker", most exemplified by the Nahuatl word "Tlatoani". It's also been theorized that the Maya word for lord, "ajaw", has roughly the same meaning though this has not been confirmed. The king was someone who ruled (ideally) through charisma and willpower in addition to their own sacred qualities. That is to say, Mesoamerican kings weren't quite conceived of as the cliche god on earth type of king, but they still had a sort of sacred quality about them. Ideally they were also a proactive sort, who took action and used a combination of strength, intelligence, wit, and even guile. The Maya exemplified the qualities of the ideal lords in the story of the "Hero Twins", most famously told in the K'iche' Maya's Popol Vuh. The twins Hunahpu and Xbalanque set out to avenge their father (Hun Hunahpu) who was cruelly slain by the Lords of the Underworld. In the story the twins are not above using a little trickery in addition to their skills in order to gain their vengeance, and are seen as pure heroes. While the Popol Vuh doesn't necessarily reflect Classic-era beliefs (the primary difference being that the Classic Maya placed far more emphasis on the death and resurrection of their father the corn god) they still revered one of the twins in particular as a sort of patron or epitome (I know there's a better English word I'm forgetting) of kingship, Hunahpu to be precise, or Hun Ajaw in Classic Ch'ol. As you might tell from the name, his status is reflected in his name. Kings themselves also placed a lot of emphasis on descent and lineage, and it was common if not the norm for dynasties to trace their origins to mythical beings. Being a hereditary monarchy, ancestry and legitimacy were quite important. Tracing themselves to mythical people also gave their sacred status more credence, as they were also the highest religious officials in addition to being the heads of state, and as such they had a special link to the gods. Their very presence was also important and helpful in a way. The language used to describe a king's actions also takes on the same sort of description as that used for normal everyday activities. This reflected the idea that kings were patrons for their people in a way, helping their kingdoms grow, giving sustenance, etc. The king was seen as a sort of protective agent this way. In a more superstitious sense, they were also capable of sorcery and could use their spiritual guides/assistants (nagual in Nahuatl, waay or uay in Mayan) to bewitch enemies or traitors and the like. More practically, kings were the penultimate power within their own domains and the absolute rulers, though they could still have to take their own subject lords and the Popol Nah (council houses) into account. They were owed both tribute and loyalty. They might be subservient to more powerful kings and emperors, but they still had to be afforded some respect even by them. In courts, the rules for showing respect to superior lords had to be obeyed stringently, as not to offend, which is obviously a big deal back in those days. In all likelihood, even a weak king who simply reigned while they had regents doing the ruling still would have to be afforded the same courtesies. When they ascended the throne, the change was reflected by the new king's adoption of a regnal name, which I'd assume reflected the new status afforded to them rather than that of a still powerful but not as sacred or holy prince, though in practice many kings seem to have preferred going by their personal names. Taking the throne could take place quite some time after the previous tenant died. It was probably not a matter of simply grabbing the crown and plopping it on the heir's head. There were rules and rituals to be obeyed. And once one was king, they had to be present at the major rituals and ceremonies of their kingdom. When wars were commenced, they were ideally leading their armies though this was probably not always done. If one was captured in battle however, they were bound to either become a puppet ruler or a sacrifice. If the latter, then it would be important that they died with dignity. In death kings were luckier than all, as they were guaranteed a place in paradise with their ancestors by their status.
 
Well, domesticating some animals mentioned in the OP could certainly help the Native Americans. So would the expansion and/or merging of the Aztec/Mayan cultures.

Would it be possible for these cultures to reach north?
 
Well, domesticating some animals mentioned in the OP could certainly help the Native Americans. So would the expansion and/or merging of the Aztec/Mayan cultures.

Would it be possible for these cultures to reach north?
How would Aztec and Maya cultures even merge? And why would that help? For starters, I'm not sure what it'd accomplish, and it's not like they're the only people in Mesoamerica. At the time the Spanish came there were also Tarascans, Mixtecs, Zapotecs, Totonacs, Otomis, Chiapanecs, and Mixes just to name a few of the major ones.
 
Well, I'm thinking along the lines of 'a powerful kingdom would be able to withstand the Europeans coming'. And, obviously, OTL Mayans and Aztecs did not manage it, so we need an even more powerful culture.

Alternately, one which could survive on via guerrilla tactics.
 
I wrote a book called American Indian Victories on this sort of thing back in 2002 and revised it for a Kindle edition a couple of months ago.

Some ideas from AIV:
(1) Most of the big North American mammals weren't going to survive the mixture of climate change and their first contact with human hunters, but a few might. I do a scenario where llamas survive in the Appalachians and are eventually domesticated and spread through North America. Other reasonably likely survival candidates: North American horses and mammoths, both of which actually did survive for a few thousand years after the rest of the big animals died out. Problem: While Indians might do better as whole, none of the historic Indian individuals would ever exist, and in all likelihood major changes early enough to keep the extinct animals would butterfly away or drastically change the structure of Indian cultures.

(2) Immunity to smallpox (and most of the other big killers of Indians) is not a genetic thing for the most part. If smallpox or measles comes through a population once, then dies out, the population is almost just as susceptible forty to fifty years later when most of the people with antibodies to that disease have died of old age. There are some caveats to that. Populations where everyone is closely related are more susceptible to crowd diseases like smallpox, because once the disease adapts to one person's body it can spread to someone with a very similar immune system more easily.

In the revised version of American Indian Victories, I have something similar to cowpox spread to buffalo, giving people infected by it cross-immunity to smallpox and making the Plains Indians more resilient.
 
Well, I'm thinking along the lines of 'a powerful kingdom would be able to withstand the Europeans coming'. And, obviously, OTL Mayans and Aztecs did not manage it, so we need an even more powerful culture.

Alternately, one which could survive on via guerrilla tactics.

To do that they would need to stop killing people by the hundreds for special parties. It wrecks the ecosystem and makes others hate them. Heck, the Mayans had already died off, as had the Mound Culture of Mississippi. Not to mention the Incan civil war and their racism against those to the south, east, and north. Maybe have some people create sustainable environments while also urbanizing.
 
I did a scenario for American Indian Victories where Carthage colonizes Mexico prior to the Punic wars and are joined by a fleet of refugees after the second Punic War. Carthage is probably considerably more likely than Rome to reach the New World.

Of the other ideas in this thread, I like the Mayan survival idea, though I'm not sure how much of their population base could survive the big droughts. The collapse was a tragic waste of human and cultural potential, though I doubt that the Maya would have done much better than the Aztecs when the Spanish arrived.
 
To do that they would need to stop killing people by the hundreds for special parties. It wrecks the ecosystem and makes others hate them. Heck, the Mayans had already died off, as had the Mound Culture of Mississippi. Not to mention the Incan civil war and their racism against those to the south, east, and north. Maybe have some people create sustainable environments while also urbanizing.
Lots of cliches and misconceptions here. The Aztecs were hardly the only people who had human sacrifices, their enemies did too. The big beef the rivals of the Aztecs had with them was that the Aztecs were more powerful and were winning. The Maya had not died off, they're still around and their civilization lasted longer than that of the Aztecs', the Mound Culture was around when de Soto came knocking and in a more reduced form even afterwards (see the Natchez), and I've never seen any information about the Quechua being so fantastically racist to others compared to every other nation in medieval times.
 
Well, I'm thinking along the lines of 'a powerful kingdom would be able to withstand the Europeans coming'. And, obviously, OTL Mayans and Aztecs did not manage it, so we need an even more powerful culture.

Alternately, one which could survive on via guerrilla tactics.

The Indian societies that maintained independence longest against Europeans, ironically, were the ones with a lot of warring small states, rather than the powerful empires. While the Spanish could and did play them off against each other, there was no central organization that could be co-opted to control whole areas. The Yucatan Mayans, for example, held out far longer than either the Aztecs or the Incas in spite of chronic lack of unity, as did some of the high culture groups in Chile (into the mid-1800s) and Columbia.

Of course neither of the big Indian empires was that solid. The Aztecs weren't much more politically sophisticated than a street gang running a massive protection racket. The Incas had techniques that given enough time could have probably produced a reasonably unified empire, but their conquest was recent enough in most areas that when given a chance a lot of their subjects joined the Spanish in the hope of regaining independence. Put the Incas a little further along in their consolidation of their empire and they might have been formidable. On the other hand, they were approaching the natural limits of profitable expansion, and empires tend to turn inward when they can't expand anymore, with factions fighting over existing wealth rather than putting their energy into expanding.
 
Lots of cliches and misconceptions here. The Aztecs were hardly the only people who had human sacrifices, their enemies did too. The big beef the rivals of the Aztecs had with them was that the Aztecs were more powerful and were winning. The Maya had not died off, they're still around and their civilization lasted longer than that of the Aztecs', the Mound Culture was around when de Soto came knocking and in a more reduced form even afterwards (see the Natchez), and I've never seen any information about the Quechua being so fantastically racist to others compared to every other nation in medieval times.

I am aware that many groups sacrificed people and that their are still millions of Mayan people today. What we were talking about those was bringing about some cultures that could weather the storms caused by a few hundred Europeans who have no route of retreat. Making the hatred between groups be a bit less would help. As for The Incan empire, they were on a war of conquest in the south, did not bother going across the Andes because they thought the Amazonians were monkeys, and thought that the Spaniards where subhuman retards(the word here to show a level of scorn), because they had facial hair and what the Incans reported as pots on there heads.
 
Best option would be to have the Taino find an animal domesticate that could thrive on their islands. Can llamas survive on cuba, Haiti, or puerto rico? How about turkies, buffalo, big horn sheep or deers? if they can at lease use it for limited pack animal status it should have a major impact on their construction and trade. If llamas can survive with them could they then be transported to North america?
 
If the object is to give America more time before the Europeans arrive, instead of starting an early smallpox plague over on this end, why not start one on the other? ...

Of course, it wouldn't hurt to throw a few artifacts and relics of European technology at the New World from one of those failed expeditions to give those folks a bit of a leg up. They really need every advantage they can get.

This makes sense. The Portuguese, Dutch, and others spread across the globe in small mechantile enclaves and made few large scale conquests from 1500 through most of the 17th Century. If some mechanism removes the features within Spanish culture that led to the 'sucessfull' effort to conquor the Aztec, Inca & others in the early 16th Century then those cultures have a few decades to asorb the implications of the arriving Europeans, & whatever technology or cultural advantages that might come through the contacts.
 
Top