If the US was never colonized.

SpamBotSam

Banned
What if the settlers came here, but they never formed governments or colonies, and they simply lived among the native Americans and coexisted? The land of what is now the US would have been ruled by Native American tribes. But as modernization took place around the world, would they have been involved in world affairs, etc? Contrary to stereotype, the native Americans were not primitive. They even had a city in Missouri. How do you think the course of history would've been changed if this happened?
 
What if the settlers came here, but they never formed governments or colonies, and they simply lived among the native Americans and coexisted?

It was colonized then. The governments came with the settlers like it or not, and with settlers and governments come almost certain death for native americans, or at least their independence.
 
I think the only way for there to be a population exchange without colonization as such is for either (a) the population exchange to take place before European nations have developed sufficiently to form states (I.e. we're talking about a pre-roman POD) or (b) the population exchange takes place slowly enough that assimilation of one generation of settlers happens before the next arrives. I think the only non-ASB way to make (b) take place is for Europeans to lack the technology necessary to send large numbers of ships across. For example, a surviving Vinland could result in migration of small numbers(maybe a few hundred per generation) of settlers to the new world for a few hundred years. However, as soon as technology gets to the point where Europeans can cross directly rather than through Iceland/Greenland, you will probably see more "real" colonization. But by that point 400 years of contact could have given the natives developments such as metalworking, knowledge of how to treat European diseases, livestock such as sheep and horses, wool, plough-based agriculture, etc. Colonization under these circumstances would probably still occur but might look more like otl's colonization of India or Africa.
 
But by that point 400 years of contact could have given the natives developments such as metalworking, knowledge of how to treat European diseases, livestock such as sheep and horses, wool, plough-based agriculture, etc. Colonization under these circumstances would probably still occur but might look more like otl's colonization of India or Africa.

No going through Iceland and Greenland means small colonization in Newfoundland not elsewhere. There would fishing elsewhere but not colonization. Come ships that can sail direct the natives are destroyed. At most the Vikings can expand their influence to the St. Lawrence River. So 400 years later the Europeans come and they wreck the place with diseases besides Newfoundland and some other parts of Canada.

Also if your theory was plausible then we would not see India-like colonization, but Africa-Like yes
 
What if the settlers came here, but they never formed governments or colonies, and they simply lived among the native Americans and coexisted? The land of what is now the US would have been ruled by Native American tribes. But as modernization took place around the world, would they have been involved in world affairs, etc? Contrary to stereotype, the native Americans were not primitive. They even had a city in Missouri. How do you think the course of history would've been changed if this happened?

Things don't work that that. If European settlers came in any large numbers, they would automatically have governments, and would be in competition with the American Indians for land and resources, leading to conflict.

Now, if only a tiny number of settlers came and their colony collapsed, it would be extremely plausible for the survivors to be absorbed into nearby tribes. The chief of the Powhatan Confederacy, when he first encountered the English at Jamestown, knew the value of iron tools and is known to have wanted to move the remaining starving colonists to one of his own towns and have them set up a smithy there (Being unaware at that time that more were going to come and never stop coming). Defeated refugees were also often adopted into tribes if they escaped being killed, and numerous tribes would have been likely to accept handfuls of stranded Europeans to help replenish their disease-decimated populations. (Perhaps being unaware that 1st-generation Europeans and Africans were the source of the diseases)

But that's not really the scenario you're proposing, because that would really just be a "No European colonization of the Americas" scenario. The scenario you're proposing is impossible, both because European settlers used land differently than Native Americans, and because it wouldn't matter even if they didn't. The settlers were intensive agriculturalists who fenced land off, divided it into plots, and raised livestock or crops on it year after year. The American Indians of the Northeast were also farmers, but they were sem-nomadic and hunting made up a crucial part of their food collection. Settlers living on their hunting grounds meant tribes couldn't use them. European colonists and Native Americans would be fighting over territory as soon as there were enough of the former to put pressure on any given tribe's land usage. Secondly, if for some odd reason European settlers entirely abandoned European methods of living and instead all adopted American Indian ways of life instead, they'd be competing over the exact same land and the exact same resources the native people were using.
 
What if the settlers came here, but they never formed governments or colonies, and they simply lived among the native Americans and coexisted? The land of what is now the US would have been ruled by Native American tribes. But as modernization took place around the world, would they have been involved in world affairs, etc? Contrary to stereotype, the native Americans were not primitive. They even had a city in Missouri. How do you think the course of history would've been changed if this happened?

I think a better scenario would be if the Europeans came and discovered civilizations that rivaled their own.That would be a unique alternative. Maybe not an Atlantis type of civilization, but a more organized Native American society. Perhaps a union of them.

Just because they had a city doesn't make them not primitive. It was their technology level that made them what we consider primitive.
 
No going through Iceland and Greenland means small colonization in Newfoundland not elsewhere.

I disagree. For the first 100 years or so they might stay in newfoundland, but they'd soon explore the lands to the south and realize that newfoundland is much less hospitable then the st. Lawrence valley or new england. You might not see colonies farther south but you would see migration of indivduals and families looking for greener pastures. Remember we're talking about a timespan of 400 years here.

There would fishing elsewhere but not colonization. Come ships that can sail direct the natives are destroyed. At most the Vikings can expand their influence to the St. Lawrence River. So 400 years later the Europeans come and they wreck the place with diseases besides Newfoundland and some other parts of Canada.

I agree that the political influence of the vikings would stop well short of the st. Lawrence river, but I would argue that cultural and technological influence would spread much faster. Otl, the domestication of horses spread across north america faster than the colonizers and much faster than the 400 years between the arrival of the vikings and the arrival of everyone else. I think the same could be true to a lesser extent with innovations such as iron working, especially with cultures who already had a tradition of working with copper. So I'm not saying that the vikings would cross north america, but that they would introduce tech that would spread by trade between the natives. However, I do agree that disease would still be a problem outside Atlantic Canada.
Also if your theory was plausible then we would not see India-like colonization, but Africa-Like yes

I agree here. Although really this whole discussion is a tangent to the real subject of this thread so I'll leave it at that. If you're interested in discussing the details of this scenario in more detail, pm me and I can start a new thread.
 
Things don't work that that. If European settlers came in any large numbers, they would automatically have governments, and would be in competition with the American Indians for land and resources, leading to conflict.

Now, if only a tiny number of settlers came and their colony collapsed, it would be extremely plausible for the survivors to be absorbed into nearby tribes. The chief of the Powhatan Confederacy, when he first encountered the English at Jamestown, knew the value of iron tools and is known to have wanted to move the remaining starving colonists to one of his own towns and have them set up a smithy there (Being unaware at that time that more were going to come and never stop coming). Defeated refugees were also often adopted into tribes if they escaped being killed, and numerous tribes would have been likely to accept handfuls of stranded Europeans to help replenish their disease-decimated populations. (Perhaps being unaware that 1st-generation Europeans and Africans were the source of the diseases)

But that's not really the scenario you're proposing, because that would really just be a "No European colonization of the Americas" scenario. The scenario you're proposing is impossible, both because European settlers used land differently than Native Americans, and because it wouldn't matter even if they didn't. The settlers were intensive agriculturalists who fenced land off, divided it into plots, and raised livestock or crops on it year after year. The American Indians of the Northeast were also farmers, but they were sem-nomadic and hunting made up a crucial part of their food collection. Settlers living on their hunting grounds meant tribes couldn't use them. European colonists and Native Americans would be fighting over territory as soon as there were enough of the former to put pressure on any given tribe's land usage. Secondly, if for some odd reason European settlers entirely abandoned European methods of living and instead all adopted American Indian ways of life instead, they'd be competing over the exact same land and the exact same resources the native people were using.
Yeah. This.
 
Top