Is a more gradual introduction of Eurasian disease to the Americas possible?

As title. I'm not sure about the epidemiology of this; if there were Europeans in the Americas but didn't make an effort to colonize, only trade, could Old World diseases be introduced to a significant number of the population? Could that give immunity? And if so, would that allow Native American societies to regroup and better fight off future colonizers?
 
I don't think so. The bulk of the devastation from smallpox and other diseases happened before Europeans really started to colonize while they only had limited contact with the natives. It was the mass devastation caused by disease that allowed the conquest of the American mainland, not the colonization causing the disease.
 
In no way the impact could have been less. The only possible difference is to date back the First Contact :D long enough to have the local populations recover demographically.
 
I think a successful Vinland could do this-limited European contact from 1000 AD on would create slow disease introduction over a very long period of time, with breaks as upheavals like the Black Death and large European wars stop trade and allow Native populations to recover or stabilize. In addition, introduction of diseases without attempts at massive conquest and enslavement would result in far less deaths among the Natives.

Now there is some debate here about whether diseases like smallpox could become endemic in North America from limited contact in the northeast, but I think that it is possible if the disease reaches the Mississippi valley before the Mississippian culture collapses.

As European maritime technology develops, much greater contact between the hemispheres will occur and the Native Americans will face the inevitable disruption that brings even with peaceful contact, but at least some of the populations will be able to face that change on far more secure footing than they did IOTL.
 
I don't think so. The bulk of the devastation from smallpox and other diseases happened before Europeans really started to colonize while they only had limited contact with the natives. It was the mass devastation caused by disease that allowed the conquest of the American mainland, not the colonization causing the disease.

So what I'd be looking for would be a longer period of limited contact. Maybe some political problems in Europe could delay any American ventures? I'm not really looking for a minimum POD here.
 
I think a successful Vinland could do this-limited European contact from 1000 AD on would create slow disease introduction over a very long period of time, with breaks as upheavals like the Black Death and large European wars stop trade and allow Native populations to recover or stabilize. In addition, introduction of diseases without attempts at massive conquest and enslavement would result in far less deaths among the Natives.

Now there is some debate here about whether diseases like smallpox could become endemic in North America from limited contact in the northeast, but I think that it is possible if the disease reaches the Mississippi valley before the Mississippian culture collapses.

As European maritime technology develops, much greater contact between the hemispheres will occur and the Native Americans will face the inevitable disruption that brings even with peaceful contact, but at least some of the populations will be able to face that change on far more secure footing than they did IOTL.

This. Give the Norse a real reason to trade with the NA natives (tobacco?) and the sustained contact enables the waves of disease to start earlier, potentially before European demographics allow for sustained colonization.
 
Not really, I think because if it gets introduced to a small portion, the rest get unaffected and it goes as OTL. Or, they all get affected and its still just like OTL.

The best way to even the playing field isn't to have European diseases be less devastating, that's to difficult, its to have the Americans have diseases that damage the Europeans as much as the natives were damaged themselves.
 
If limited disease contact managed to get to Central America, where the huge population centers are, then couldn't that have a substantial effect? Would immunity set in quickly enough for the e.g. Aztecs to stage a comeback as an indigenous superpower?
 
If limited disease contact managed to get to Central America, where the huge population centers are, then couldn't that have a substantial effect? Would immunity set in quickly enough for the e.g. Aztecs to stage a comeback as an indigenous superpower?

If smallpox reaches Mesoamerica, we're going to see high mortality rates as the population there was relatively dense (so less chance of quarantine). In places like the valley of Mexico where there is a lot of people living close to each other, the disease will become endemic-i.e. a disease which strikes most people when they're children, allowing them to be cared for by their parents and so decreasing the mortality rate of the disease.

Mesoamerica is unlikely to recover demographically by the time greater European contact begins-after all, smallpox isn't likely to reach Vinland before the 1200's (when it first reached Iceland) and it will take a long time to reach Mesoamerica from the northeast. However, if the disease breaks out before European contact, the region could stabilize politically between that contact and the start of the epidemic. With this political strength and without the destabilizing influence of a virgin soil smallpox epidemic, it could fight off initial attempts at conquest (if the alternate Europeans even want to attempt that).

While outbreaks of new diseases like malaria will hurt the region, these epidemics will be a lot less lethal if the Mesoamericans suffer them while independent and not suffering enslavement by conquistadors.
 
The best way to even the playing field isn't to have European diseases be less devastating, that's to difficult, its to have the Americans have diseases that damage the Europeans as much as the natives were damaged themselves.

This would make a very interesting timeline.

Syphilis remains virulent for a longer period of time and it is recognized as a disease imported from the newly discovered continent. The effects on european population and the fear of other possible diseases drive european people and governments to refrain from further contact with the new lands.

Around 1600 voyages slowly resume and by 1650 exploration are again hotly pursued. By this time amerindians are starting to recover and they have also began to use the descendants of the horses left by the early contact.

When around 1700 english, french, portuguese, spaniards and hollanders come back for conquest, they find foes that are no pushovers.
 
different modes of infection

syphilis and smallpox have different modes of infection
the term "smallpox" was first used in Britain in the 15th century to distinguish it from the "great pox" (syphilis).
Is there epidemiology about percentages of smallpox versus great pox in relation to "what" killed off Mesoamerica?
 
So what I'd be looking for would be a longer period of limited contact. Maybe some political problems in Europe could delay any American ventures? I'm not really looking for a minimum POD here.

Limited contact didn't prevent diseases from spreading. When the Pilgrims arrived at Plymouth Rock, they found a village that had been abandoned in the wake of a smallpox (I think) epidemic. Europeans had visited the region just a couple of times, but that was enough to get their germs out in the open.

The best way to even the playing field isn't to have European diseases be less devastating, that's to difficult, its to have the Americans have diseases that damage the Europeans as much as the natives were damaged themselves.

Europeans actually did die of disease, in enormous numbers, whenever a new colony was founded in the Americas. What kept the colonization going was continual replacements from Europe. Having a much larger overall European population to draw from was the real key to their success. Native Americans didn't have reinforcements from another part of the world to keep their numbers up.
 
syphilis and smallpox have different modes of infection
the term "smallpox" was first used in Britain in the 15th century to distinguish it from the "great pox" (syphilis).
Is there epidemiology about percentages of smallpox versus great pox in relation to "what" killed off Mesoamerica?

Smallpox seems to have been spectacularly lethal. First, there's a complete lack of immunity, combined with no prior history with the disease. Because of this, the Western Hemisphere is more like Europe before smallpox showed up - the allele that allows some resistance to the disease is not nearly as common as it is in Europe (where it was endemic). Thus, a higher than normal number of people get the disease, which kills far more of them, than in a comparable epidemic in Europe.

Pretty much any initial contact between smallpox and the Western hemisphere will be exceptionally bloody. I think the contact has to be pushed back quite a ways if you want to see a population recovery. In addition to this, there's malaria - whole 'nother problem, when you consider how heavily populated the tropical zones were.
 

takerma

Banned
Do we know what diseases killed the colonists in large numbers? Is it possible for these to travel back to europe and cause something like Black Death? In theory you just need something just as deadly as smallpox was but to Europeans
 
Do we know what diseases killed the colonists in large numbers? Is it possible for these to travel back to europe and cause something like Black Death? In theory you just need something just as deadly as smallpox was but to Europeans

Most of the deaths were probably caused by European diseases that killed people who were weak from making the trip over from Europe on a small boat with insufficient food.
 
Top