The Americas are lost to international politics

Except this is hogwash. Even if we buy into the idea of "lol, no gunpowder and metallurgy, what primitives", they could still reach Europe, recruit local natives and conquer and colonise it that way.

How is that going to work with anything like the OTL Americas?

teg
 

Maoistic

Banned
How is that going to work with anything like the OTL Americas?

teg
Why wouldn't it work if it did in the Americas? What, are Europeans less susceptible to becoming defectors of the ruling states? We even have the examples of the Mongols who conquered Russia and made it as far as Hungary using nearby native allies. Another example is the way the Arabs conquered the European-held territories of Rome in North Africa, Syria-Palestine and Asia Minor, again using native allies and defectors.
 
Why wouldn't it work if it did in the Americas? What, are Europeans less susceptible to becoming defectors of the ruling states? We even have the examples of the Mongols who conquered Russia and made it as far as Hungary using nearby native allies. Another example is the way the Arabs conquered the European-held territories of Rome in North Africa, Syria-Palestine and Asia Minor, again using native allies and defectors.

Actually there are several reasons.

i) The technological disparity. While I would never claim that Native Americans were inferior as peoples, it is indisputable that their technological package had a number of deficiencies - the most notable being the lack of horses, the wheel and the ability to work iron - compared to Europe's. I mean just to make one example, it took centuries for the armies of the Old World to figure out methods of defeating cavalry. The moment a native American army in Europe faces cavalry, it is likely they will get massacred. I would note that all of your examples of long range conquest feature forces which were at least equal to their opponents in terms of war making - plus the Mongol and Arab conquests took place in a climate of long term decline among many of their opponents.

ii) Disease. Again, once Native Americans set foot in Europe, they are going to start getting diseases which they do not have immunity to.

iii) I'm personally not sold on the idea that dismantling a western European state would be as (comparatively) easy as it was for the Spanish to break up the Aztec and Inca empires. The latter both had, in terms of institutions, more in common with the bronze age states than late medieval western Europe. Granted there are plenty of weak spots and if this hypothetical Native American army lands somewhere in the midst of a major crisis then it is possible they could take advantage. However I think the other two factors, as well as the problems of bringing reinforcements across the Atlantic with Native American ships, means that they are more likely to come as mercenaries in the employment of native European states.

All of these could be mitigated, for example if more of the American megafauna survives, but then you would be looking at an American continent that looks absolutely nothing like it did in OTL. (I would love to see a timeline on the subject that gets close to the modern era.)

teg
 
Except this is hogwash. Even if we buy into the idea of "lol, no gunpowder and metallurgy, what primitives", they could still reach Europe, recruit local natives and conquer and colonise it that way.
I can imagine a Mesoamerican contingent landing in Spain, recruiting the oppressed Granadans and Jews against the Spanish and die at the first engagement given they are not bringing any big guns, technological advantage, diseases(not major or multiple ones at the same time anyway) and possibly even any numbers if we assume their naval tech is not that bigger. The idea is so ridiculous.

Why wouldn't it work if it did in the Americas? What, are Europeans less susceptible to becoming defectors of the ruling states? We even have the examples of the Mongols who conquered Russia and made it as far as Hungary using nearby native allies. Another example is the way the Arabs conquered the European-held territories of Rome in North Africa, Syria-Palestine and Asia Minor, again using native allies and defectors.
The Arab-Berbers knocked at the door of Iberia with contingents of the power of 10^4, Mongols with 10^5 almost while NAmericans would come at best with 10^3 with 10^2 being more likely and both of these groups took control of defeated enemies that could have been swayed away more easily than otherwise because of specific reasons and even then the support or unity faded away, there is absolutely no reason, not even a grain, to believe that Mesoamericans would be able to not only beat any sizeable populations around Europe or MENA but even be able to sway them to fight against either fellow Christian or if they are Muslims they are not a sizeable group anyhow and you didn't even resolve the fact that the Mesoamericans need to bring something geopolitical to begin with, the enemies of the Aztec didn't rebel just because some random people came to the region but because some people with crazy technology and military power could actually help them achieve their goals.
 

Maoistic

Banned
Actually there are several reasons.

i) The technological disparity. While I would never claim that Native Americans were inferior as peoples, it is indisputable that their technological package had a number of deficiencies - the most notable being the lack of horses, the wheel and the ability to work iron - compared to Europe's. I mean just to make one example, it took centuries for the armies of the Old World to figure out methods of defeating cavalry. The moment a native American army in Europe faces cavalry, it is likely they will get massacred. I would note that all of your examples of long range conquest feature forces which were at least equal to their opponents in terms of war making - plus the Mongol and Arab conquests took place in a climate of long term decline among many of their opponents.


ii) Disease. Again, once Native Americans set foot in Europe, they are going to start getting diseases which they do not have immunity to.

iii) I'm personally not sold on the idea that dismantling a western European state would be as (comparatively) easy as it was for the Spanish to break up the Aztec and Inca empires. The latter both had, in terms of institutions, more in common with the bronze age states than late medieval western Europe. Granted there are plenty of weak spots and if this hypothetical Native American army lands somewhere in the midst of a major crisis then it is possible they could take advantage. However I think the other two factors, as well as the problems of bringing reinforcements across the Atlantic with Native American ships, means that they are more likely to come as mercenaries in the employment of native European states.

All of these could be mitigated, for example if more of the American megafauna survives, but then you would be looking at an American continent that looks absolutely nothing like it did in OTL. (I would love to see a timeline on the subject that gets close to the modern era.)

teg

1) Yes, such "bronze age" technology. Sure. Then there's the fact that Native Americans would be relying on the same steel and horse weaponry and tactics you mention anyway.

2) The diseases are not going to work on invaders and settlers. They worked when accompanied by conquest and mass exploitation, but aren't going to magically kill Native Americans just by being side by side with Europeans. Then there's the fact that it was in combination of African diseases, such as malaria, not normally found in Europe.

3) There's absolutely nothing that makes European states more complex except your own preconceptions. If supposedly "simpler" societies like the semi-nomadic (according to Western historiography anyway) Arabs and Mongols were able to overthrow these same states, there's no reason to believe Native Americans can't do the same.
 

Maoistic

Banned
I can imagine a Mesoamerican contingent landing in Spain, recruiting the oppressed Granadans and Jews against the Spanish and die at the first engagement given they are not bringing any big guns, technological advantage, diseases(not major or multiple ones at the same time anyway) and possibly even any numbers if we assume their naval tech is not that bigger. The idea is so ridiculous.


The Arab-Berbers knocked at the door of Iberia with contingents of the power of 10^4, Mongols with 10^5 almost while NAmericans would come at best with 10^3 with 10^2 being more likely and both of these groups took control of defeated enemies that could have been swayed away more easily than otherwise because of specific reasons and even then the support or unity faded away, there is absolutely no reason, not even a grain, to believe that Mesoamericans would be able to not only beat any sizeable populations around Europe or MENA but even be able to sway them to fight against either fellow Christian or if they are Muslims they are not a sizeable group anyhow and you didn't even resolve the fact that the Mesoamericans need to bring something geopolitical to begin with, the enemies of the Aztec didn't rebel just because some random people came to the region but because some people with crazy technology and military power could actually help them achieve their goals.
10^4? 10^3? What is this language you're speaking? Also, even if we buy local Arabs and Jews aren't strong enough, one can postulate a landing in Ireland where Norman control isn't exactly strong and where Native Americans can recruit disgruntled Irish, slowly conquering the British Isles that way by also enlisting Scottish troops willing to aid them against England and then launching an invasion into mainland Europe from there. This idea that they need something "geopolitical" to bring also is something ridiculous since I don't recall such mass conquering groups like the Mongols needing anything like that in order to recruit native rebels and defectors.

Finally, stop obsessing with diseases. We see so many conquests where no diseases are required that to bring them up constantly in reference to Native Americans is ridiculous.
 
10^4? 10^3? What is this language you're speaking?
10 to the power of 4 and 3? Basically the Mongol-Turks and Arab-Berbers had forced that ranged from the tens of thousand to hundreds of thousand, while for N.Americans it would more likely to hover around hundreds(like the Spanish) to Thousands.
Also, even if we buy local Arabs and Jews aren't strong enough, one can postulate a landing in Ireland where Norman control isn't exactly strong and where Native Americans can recruit disgruntled Irish, slowly conquering the British Isles that way by also enlisting Scottish troops willing to aid them against England and then launching an invasion into mainland Europe from there. This idea that they need something "geopolitical" to bring also is something ridiculous since I don't recall such mass conquering groups like the Mongols needing anything like that in order to recruit native rebels and defectors.
Ireland didn't even have a population of a million at the time, it can't field anything against the English and still it's not like a force on the thousands could magically conquer it, nor would they have the power to challenge England.

I hate to say it, because I'm a fan of the game as well, but this is not EU4 or any grand strategy game where you can just have stuff like this happen, what you are proposing is utterly impossible, even without diseases.

The N.Americans don't have the naval technology, the logistics, the armours, the artillery, the knowledge and the numbers to face any European or North African population on a even ground, none absolutely.

Finally, stop obsessing with diseases. We see so many conquests where no diseases are required that to bring them up constantly in reference to Native Americans is ridiculous.
Oh well, is not like the impact diseases had to the Americas is unlike anything else seen in human history in terms of demographic collapse, societal damage and so on. Populations that NEVER have seen a European have been damaged almost irreparably(on the short to mid term anyway) in the decades following European contact with the Americas.
 
Nearly exactly same thing (independence movement and then rapid fission of states) has happened in OTL 19th century South America. It explains the huge disparity in development of South and North Americas in 20th century. The fragmentation could be much worse, especially for Argentina. Overall, fracturing of nations will delay development for may be one century.

Similar to my thought. If north America is a poor investment choice for Europeans. especially the London banks, then development will be slower and less to be purchased by Europe. rachet up political fragmentation, dysfunctional small nation governments, and local wars and you can get to a poorly developed continent. Investment I'd think would include immigration, a much lower population, with European & Asian emigrants looking elsewhere for opportunity, or those who arrive impovrished and killed off through local wars & banditry.
 
1) Yes, such "bronze age" technology. Sure. Then there's the fact that Native Americans would be relying on the same steel and horse weaponry and tactics you mention anyway.

And in any case, the pictures don't prove very much because other bronze age cultures - Ancient Egypt, the Hittites, Babylon, Mycenaean Greece to name a few - were capable of building similarly impressive structures but I still wouldn't give them a fighting chance against a competent medieval army. And how do the Native Americans get hold of steel and horses, and perhaps more importantly, learn how to use them effectively?

2) The diseases are not going to work on invaders and settlers. They worked when accompanied by conquest and mass exploitation, but aren't going to magically kill Native Americans just by being side by side with Europeans. Then there's the fact that it was in combination of African diseases, such as malaria, not normally found in Europe.

Except the disease outbreaks had already caused severe population decline before the conquests really got going on the mainland, although granted it usually took mass exploitation to push the death toll into the 80%-95% ranges. In fact it was the spread of European diseases into both the Aztec and Incan empires which generated the instability which allowed the Spanish to take over. An isolated group of would-be conquerors is going to get culled pretty easily by European diseases.

3) There's absolutely nothing that makes European states more complex except your own preconceptions. If supposedly "simpler" societies like the semi-nomadic (according to Western historiography anyway) Arabs and Mongols were able to overthrow these same states, there's no reason to believe Native Americans can't do the same.

While I can't speak for the Mongols, I'd argue that the Arabs were very lucky to be able to conquer the Byzantine and Sassanian Empires. The Arab were ready to spread out of Arabia just as both empires were utterly exhausted after a quarter century long war. Had the Byzantine or Sassanian Empires been in a better shape, they would have likely been able to drive the Arabs back into the desert. Plus the Arabs were about equal in most respects to their opponents and had been integrated into the wider political system. In contrast, a Native American invasion is going into a world they know very little about, involving military technology that is either totally alien (in the case of horses) or much more advanced than their own (in the case of armour, cannon etc...). This also raises the question of why anyone was actually going to side with these invaders because unlike the Spanish, they do not deliver a major force multiplier, let alone obey them politically afterward. Even if they could recruit the Irish, or Spanish Muslims or Jews, neither of these would be enough for the Native Americans to topple a major European state.

teg
 
The Idea that Native Americans could invade and defeat Western European States is ASB, they have never the manpower nor the desire. I mean the Conquistadors acted more like pirates than a proper invasion force, and had lots of allies in remote locations to work with, in the conquest of Mexico. Comparatively, Western Europe was far more united politically and culturally.
 
Oh well, is not like the impact diseases had to the Americas is unlike anything else seen in human history in terms of demographic collapse, societal damage and so on. Populations that NEVER have seen a European have been damaged almost irreparably(on the short to mid term anyway) in the decades following European contact with the Americas.

Yeah, even if we really wank Native American technology to the extent that they can steamroller Europeans in battle, I'd expect their invasion force to end up much like the Martians from The War of the Worlds.
 
I mean the Conquistadors acted more like pirates than a proper invasion force, and had lots of allies in remote locations to work with, in the conquest of Mexico.

Actually that give me an idea for how this sort of timeline might work out. In the early years of the conquest of the Americas the European states didn't really have the ability to project power in the Americas and relied on the conquistadors to do so for them. So what if the conquistadors didn't remain loyal to Spain? Let's say that Cortes declares himself king of Mexico or something, which leads to a trend of adventurers taking small armies and carving out their own realms in the Americas rather than claiming them for European powers. There would be fewer colonists available for the European proto-states to use, and less land as well. Eventually I suspect that the Europeans might come knocking and demand full control of the Americas but it could be pushed back by a bit.
 
Actually that give me an idea for how this sort of timeline might work out. In the early years of the conquest of the Americas the European states didn't really have the ability to project power in the Americas and relied on the conquistadors to do so for them. So what if the conquistadors didn't remain loyal to Spain? Let's say that Cortes declares himself king of Mexico or something, which leads to a trend of adventurers taking small armies and carving out their own realms in the Americas rather than claiming them for European powers. There would be fewer colonists available for the European proto-states to use, and less land as well. Eventually I suspect that the Europeans might come knocking and demand full control of the Americas but it could be pushed back by a bit.

This seems reasonable. So long as you have some event to keep the Spanish occupied.
 
Now these are all great suggestions. :extremelyhappy:

Could we ever see the colonies of Europe collectively eclipsing Europe to such an extent that most of Europe starts to severely limit their interactions with the outside world? Perhaps without their colonies Europe starts to go into decline and their own rouge colonies attempt to use their economic might to attempt to do to Europe what Britain did to India. This could require Europe's colonies breaking off from their homelands into quite large entities. A few large colonies in Asia could help out.

The colonies see a waning Europe like OTL Europe saw the dying Ottoman Empire, still quite strong but on the way out. They'd gang up against Europe with the intention of carving it up among themselves. The Europeans would withdraw into themselves to prevent their own colonies from collectively taking over.

@IamtheEmps, @ArchimedesCircle, perhaps just like the 13 colonies unified against the Britain the conquistadors states could unify against the threat of Spain and Portugal coming for them? Many colonies would have a small population but some were quite wealthy. They might be able to use their wealth and connections in their homelands to play European factions against each other.

I think in this "colonies take over" scenario the Russian colonists in Siberia are doomed. What is going to be the death rate when Russia suddenly stops supporting it's colonies, perhaps in the 1700s or 1800s?

@Carl Schwamberger, might such a disincentive lead to genocide being picked as an option less often? If there's hardly any immigrants to the region them you might choose to enslave locals provided there's an disease resistant population to exploit? Would they just wipe out a smaller region instead?

@Fabius Maximus, @IamtheEmps @teg, @Gloss, perhaps a much earlier contact could yield a more resistant population. With a less destructive first contact they'd have time to build a society that could exploit those kind of tactics perhaps? How far back would be a big question though.
 
For the isolationist European colonist America angle.

Let's say France devotes a similar proportion of its resources and population to colonizing Louisiana that Britain did to the 13 colonies. Would there be any plausible excuse for this nation to be weak in the cavalry department? At least weaker than the Spanish colonists to its South? Perhaps they over invested in their navy to protect their access to the Atlantic Ocean or they diverted funds from the cavalry to defend the Appalachian Mountains against raids by the 13 colonies and the western border against raids by other colonist states?
 
Last edited:
Top