North American development without colonisation

If, somehow (goodness knows how, ASB perhaps) there is no large scale settlement or colonialisation of North America by Europeans, Chinese, or other non American peoples (but still possibly trade and suchlike), how does it develop?

EDIT: And yes, I know that the Native Americans are actually a bunch of Siberian immigrants, or some such thing. You know what I mean.
 
The long term is obviously hard to say for sure, but in the short term, the Mexica continue to grow. Contrary to popular belief they were not on the verge of collapse, but rather the verge of victory against the Tlaxcala alliance. Once Tlaxcala is conquered and saddled with a puppet of the Triple Alliance, Huexotzingo is likely to fall in line as they were never really firmly on any side. They might get a deal similar to Teotitlan and remain independent and allied to the Aztecs. The next logical target for them would be the Tarascans, and with no more distractions in the heart of the empire they can more easily focus on them and grind them through either attrition like they did to Tlaxcala or just outright conquest. Growing after that might be hard though and at that point they'd seriously have to think about reforming, especially dumping the laws of Tlacaelel who'd be long dead at this point rather than a fresh memory.

The situation in the Yucatan is much murkier. I know the northern lowlands were divided into 16 petty states fighting for 3 factions, but I can't find solid info on which states supported which factions besides the home provinces of the Cocoms and the Tutul Xius obviously. My guess though is that the Cocoms would be better off, as they have more legitimacy and used to be dominant. The Tutul Xius were just rebellious upstarts and the fact that they were the ones to side with the Spanish hints at them being the weaker of the two.
 
Well, the lack of any historical records or even organized states makes guessing at things kinda difficult. Best I can figure, people like the moundbuilders, Beothuk, and the Sadlermiut end up surviving. Beyond that, no clue.
 
Incas were on a upswing too right before the Spanish arrived. I'd think they'd dominate the Andes down into OTL Chile and start moving into the rain forests.

North of Mexico, don't forget the Iroquois Confederacy or the southeast's "Five Civilized Tribes"!
 
These answers are about as good as you can get for hardcore realism-we really don't know that much about a lot of pre-Columbian America due to a lack of written records.

Just speculating, we could see the Inca doing in the Andes what the Han did in China-using their political dominance to impose a single ethnic identity over a wide geographic area. I'm skeptical that they could conquer the southern Andes as they were-that would require projecting a lot of power over a very large and very, very dry desert.

The cultures in North America would be vastly different, as political confederations made in response to European colonization would never have occurred. Entire tribes wouldn't even exist without European contact-the Seminoles, who formed as a coherent group from scattered people of different tribes fleeing white colonization, and the Comanche, who only became a separate people from their ancestral tribe due to the introduction of the Horse.

For the more complex cultures of North America like the Mound Builders and the Pueblo, there is some speculation among archaeologists that they were in decline before colonization. If this is so, with enough time the complex societies would re-constitute themselves, just as Europe eventually recovered from the fall of the Roman Empire.

In a far-off future without colonization (though going this long without European contact is pure ASB, something like "The Americas are whisked away to a different planet in 1491), Native American cultures would develop very strong maritime cultures, as the lack of horses and other pack-animals outside of a small place in the Andes would mean that water-based trade would be the most efficient and effective way of moving goods.
 
Top