Native Americans with a stronger immunity to disease and colonization

For all the more advanced weaponry and resources of the Europeans it was really diseases that played the by far biggest factor in the down fall in population at least of the Native Americans.

If instead of 80-90% of natives succumbing to diseases it was more around the low end for the black death in Europe of 30% of the population succumbing to disease. How would colonization have gone about with the millions of more natives in the continent than IOTL?
 
A lot depends on how many Native Americans there were to start with. If the number are as high as some recent estimates, european settlers might be a minority in the Americas.

The population figure for indigenous peoples in the Americas before the 1492 voyage of Christopher Columbus has proven difficult to establish. Scholars rely on archaeological data and written records from settlers from the Old World. Most scholars writing at the end of the 19th century estimated the pre-Columbian population as low as 10 million; by the end of the 20th century most scholars gravitated to a middle estimate of around 50 million, with some historians arguing for 100 million or more.[1] Contact with the New World led to the European colonization of the Americas, in which millions of immigrants from the Old World eventually settled in the New World.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas
 
The decimation of the Native American population was most important during the early period of European colonization. Once the Europeans had relatively self supporting colonies in North America, by that I mean births exceeding deaths, producing enough food to sustain themselves, and so forth. Once you have this, Native American resistance becomes more difficult, especially once flintlock muskets and light cannon are prevalent. Native Americans did not understand the European method of warfare, to them warfare was raids, prisoners, some loot. The idea of going in, killing women and children, burning the village and any food not taken was just not something usually done. As time went on and European weapons improved, the Native Americans were screwed. ALL of their weapons and ammunition had to be taken in battle/raids, or purchased and they did not have a lot of "stuff" to use to purchase guns.

A lower death rate from disease will "cost" Europeans more and will slow things down, but in the end the results will be pretty much the same. It is worth noting that Europeans due to superior technology and organization managed to take over pretty much all of Africa when they were not only outnumbered but also were on the receiving end of diseases compared to the natives.
 
It depends on where the Native Americans are, those living in the East are probably not going to see a large gain in fortunes European arrival in say the Caribbean is just too fast but in more remote areas like the Pacific Northwest or Patagonia have bought enough time to get some European tech and establish themselves as independent nations
 
There's a very important difference between Africa and America: both got taken over by Europeans, but Africa still has a mostly African population. The Americas don't. A situation with white settlers wiping out or marginalizing natives and building their own society in it's place is VERY different to hijacking existing institutions to their own ends, like what occurred in Africa. The lack of disease-induced collapse would allow many semi-urbanized societies to survive and eventually develop European style infrastructure, or end up with Europeans taking over the leadership while leaving the lower levels of their society intact. If the Mound-Builders avoid collapsing from disease like they did OTL, for example, they would have enough of a "buffer period" to develop metalworking and begin making(or at least repairing) their own muskets.
 
Okay if they can win wars like the Pequot War, and give better credence to uniting it wouldn't be hard, all they would need if for the settlers to not use Native guides. Even by as early the 1630's the Native-Americans of that era knew how to make and even repair muskets, the only hurdle was their inability to get a source of their own gunpowder aside from trade with the Europeans.
 
There's a very important difference between Africa and America: both got taken over by Europeans, but Africa still has a mostly African population. The Americas don't. A situation with white settlers wiping out or marginalizing natives and building their own society in it's place is VERY different to hijacking existing institutions to their own ends, like what occurred in Africa. The lack of disease-induced collapse would allow many semi-urbanized societies to survive and eventually develop European style infrastructure, or end up with Europeans taking over the leadership while leaving the lower levels of their society intact. If the Mound-Builders avoid collapsing from disease like they did OTL, for example, they would have enough of a "buffer period" to develop metalworking and begin making(or at least repairing) their own muskets.
I mean most of the americas are filled with mixed race people of significant indigenous ancestry, they are as Indigenous as Coloureds are in South Africa.
 
Colonization turns out downright impossible, people often forget that the natives liked adapt European Ways, they would adapt their technology.
 
Even without the utter decimation of disease, they still have the issue of political disunity. Europeans can still set them against each other in ways they might not necessarily have before, even if the Europeans might not always gain from it. The Mississippians in particular are where this POD might be interesting. They don't seem to have formed particularly large states, but they did form states (going by de Soto and likewise the archaeology of Cahokia and nearby regions). Since European technology will filter in from the East Coast first, this could put them at a temporary disadvantage from eastern groups which they will be more equipped to overcome earlier, since they have more organised societies. They still have the advantage of numbers and organisation. The reintroduction of the horse to North America will go differently than OTL, probably filtering from the east or southeast.

I could see Europeans settling and suceeding up to the Appalachians, beyond that is where it gets tricky since they might help reinvigorate the post-Mississippian cultures. I'm not sure how vulnerable those societies were to Spanish-style conquests where Spain imposes their authority in place of the indigenous leaders--I'd imagine moreso than East Coast natives, but less than the Aztec or Inca. There's also the issue that there's quite a few of them to take out. Because of this, you could easily have the trans-Appalachia region (basically the Mississippi and tributaries watershed, with another possible divide between north and south based on economic factors) become its own nation, based on the hugely different colonial history. Speaking of that, the end result is that the US/Canada looks far more like Latin America OTL in terms of ethnic makeup.

If you want to get into Latin America, I think we can rule out anything like Cortes or Pizarro happening. Mexico might be like India, where Europeans colonise it through exploiting native states. The Inca might as well be the China of South America. The rest of the continent, I'm not sure--the rest of the Andes could be like the rest of Asia, maybe colonised, maybe not (since butterflies are huge at this point). Argentina, Uruguay, and Southern Brazil might be seen as a parallel to the East Coast of the US in this case. The European demand for sugar will make sure the north of Brazil sees some colonisation.

Incidentally, this might result in more Native American slavery. Aside from the reasons of the ease of escape, another reason it was never practiced in large amounts was their relative vulnerability to disease compared to Africans. Butterflies on the African slave trade (slightly less demand) as well as in the lands of the American Indian. Mexico and the Mississippi basin could become important centers for the slave trade. The main destination is the Caribbean as OTL, which I can't see Europeans not succeeding in destroying the indigenous populations.
 
Biologically speaking, unless you have steady contact with Eurasia leading up to colonization, then you're going to have the epidemics. Even if you do have that steady contact, that just means that the epidemics are coming sooner.
 
Wouldn't this count as ASB?

At any rate, it probably still turns into a Native screw but this time, as pointed out, the Europeans use the Natives as slaves instead of Africans. If African slaves are still imported, the Europeans might encourage intermixing between their two groups of slaves in an attempt to "breed a better slave." The Europeans would probably ally with a few Native polities and use them as the force that raids and acquired slaves from other tribes, which would still fundamentally change the Native polities.
 
Would the British colonies have rebelled against the British successfully if they were out numbered by the natives?
By the 20 th century would still be in a minority or majority in the Americas.
 
Wouldn't this count as ASB?

Probably, unless you can find a way to make the American Indians suffer like Europeans instead of, well, during their first exposure to numerous epidemics.

Would the British colonies have rebelled against the British successfully if they were out numbered by the natives?
By the 20 th century would still be in a minority or majority in the Americas.

Are the natives on their side? I think if the natives are so numerous, you'll have something much more similar to Latin America, where the question will be much less important since being indigenous is almost synonymous to being from the New World.
 
Another factor is tribal rivalries and ancestral hatred that long predates Columbus. The Crow and Pawnee were long time enemies of the Sioux,Cheyenne,Kiowa and Comanche, the Ojibwe fought both Sioux and Iroquois, the Iroquois were enemies of the Algonquin, the Aztecs were outright hated by the other Mesoamerican tribes and the same went for the Inca in the Andes. Sometimes there was even disunity within the tribes, the various Apache bands often were bitter rivals and the Pueboloan people were very rarely united. It seems the most successful tribes were the Leagues and Confederacies. Those who united the various bands into alliances like the Iroquois League,Council of Three Fires,Illinois Confederation and others. As for disease immunity, I would say continued Norse trade and colonization throughout the Middle Ages, the Basque start fishing off Newfoundland and Labrador earlier and in greater numbers, there is continued and increased contact/trade with Siberian tribes and the Polynesians come with greater numbers and livestock. In other words, make sure that the Americas weren't quite so isolated up til the time of Columbus and there will be greater immunity to Old World diseases. The same also goes for Australia and New Zealand.
 
Top