WI: European colonization of the Americas runs into a little problem.

[Armored Diplomacy]

One of the most distorted perceptions of history is that the Native Americans all lived in tipis and tribes and had only the most basic weapons and technology. Many in what is now in the United States and Canada did live that way. But not in Mexico. When first Europeans came, they had built some of the greatest cities and empires in history, which only fell to European diesease and superior weaponry. Tenochtitlan, the Aztec capital, was five times bigger than London at the time. In the south USA, many Indians like the Pueblos had already gone past living in tribes, and had formed towns.

My question is; WI the technological progress of the Incas and Aztecs and the like was such that when the first Europeans arrived, they found a foe who could match or even surpass them in technology? Let's take this a step further, and say the Europeans' dieseases were also in North America at the time, so the Natives had already developed immunity. Want to go even further? Lets say the Indians who did live in tipis and tribes also banded together and built empires. Imagine a Cherokee or a Comanche Empire. Since the Pueblos were already urban, I can easily imagine a Pueblo Empire.

How does everyone think the course of history would be affected? Do the Native Empires never fall and are still international players today? Are the Europeans allowed to settle peacefully? And how do major world events such as WWII play out?

 

[Zuvarq]

One of the most distorted perceptions of history is that the Native Americans all lived in tipis and tribes and had only the most basic weapons and technology. Many in what is now in the United States and Canada did live that way. But not in Mexico. When first Europeans came, they had built some of the greatest cities and empires in history, which only fell to European diesease and superior weaponry. Tenochtitlan, the Aztec capital, was five times bigger than London at the time. In the south USA, many Indians like the Pueblos had already gone past living in tribes, and had formed towns.

My question is; WI the technological progress of the Incas and Aztecs and the like was such that when the first Europeans arrived, they found a foe who could match or even surpass them in technology? Let's take this a step further, and say the Europeans' dieseases were also in North America at the time, so the Natives had already developed immunity. Want to go even further? Lets say the Indians who did live in tipis and tribes also banded together and built empires. Imagine a Cherokee or a Comanche Empire. Since the Pueblos were already urban, I can easily imagine a Pueblo Empire.

How does everyone think the course of history would be affected? Do the Native Empires never fall and are still international players today? Are the Europeans allowed to settle peacefully? And how do major world events such as WWII play out?

In order to allow the Aztecs or Incas specifically (as opposed to a generic Mesoamerican or Andean empire) to develop Renaissance European level technology, you'd have to postpone the discovery of the New World.

In order to give the Native Americans immunity to European diseases, it requires either domesticable animals other than the llama and turkey to live in the Americas (though that would just give them their own disease to kill the Europeans with), or for Vinland to be much bigger, have more trade with the natives, and probably mostly survive. Of course with the latter, they have to recover from the wave of disease before they can start building up.

In any case, at least parts of the Americas will be colonized and conquered. However they will be colonized more like Asia was OTL than how America was OTL, with natives remaining the majority. Though places highly hospitable to Europeans, like Argentina, Uruguay, and the mid-northern part of the Atlantic coast of North America, will still become more European than native, probably.

In any possible scenario involving more limited European colonization of the Americas, there is no such thing as WWII. Well, there might be a global-ish war, and maybe even a second one, but neither will remotely resemble the ones that occurred in real history.

 

[PoeFacedKilla]

Although there were large military powers in the Americas, there were no nations. Basically, most Amerindian civilizations were still stuck in the city-state era (e.g. where we were before civilization.)

And for them to stand a chance in a war against a european power they would have needed gunpowder and to have developed guns on their own; tho the could get gunpowder through some pascific civilization.

 

[Georgie Porgie]

Basically, most Amerindian civilizations were still stuck in the city-state era (e.g. where we were before civilization.)

Given that Italy in the Renassience and Greece althrough the Golden Age where made up of city states I am not sure about the "before civilzation" quote.

I do agree about the gunpowder bit however, although a weapon similar to the Welsh longbow would have been as effective as well.

 

[Dalmighty]

If the Native Americans were slightly more technologically advanced, they would indeed start forming into states with larger populations.

And beyond that, they need the rudimentary skills to take European/Asian technology and be able to apply it to their civilization to keep up so to speak.

And with this, they would be more hostile to any colonists for 'invasion' and that itself would set back colonization for quite a bit, enough to make total territorial conquest of the Americas impossible.

 

[Johnrankins]

Although there were large military powers in the Americas, there were no nations. Basically, most Amerindian civilizations were still stuck in the city-state era (e.g. where we were before civilization.)

And for them to stand a chance in a war against a european power they would have needed gunpowder and to have developed guns on their own; tho the could get gunpowder through some pascific civilization.

By definition city-states are civilized since the original definition is that civilizations are those nations that have cities.

 

[9 Fanged Hummingbird]

While not fitting the parameters of the OP, the best realistic way to get the Americas to be more advanced I think is to avert the collapse of the Classical Era all across Mesoamerica. If the great urban centers that dotted the region remain then not only does Mesoamerica become more advanced, but their works can spread even further without the chaotic upheavals of civilization getting in their way. And really, Teotihuacan was probably stronger than the Aztec empire at its height. Also, not really sure how city-states aren't civilization (don't people generally hold the Greeks up to be the paragons of civilization or whatever?) and a great many Mesoamerican polities qualify more as kingdoms than city-states, being larger and more complex than just a single city with its own governing body.

 

[Umbral]

I think, to match the europeans in military technology, you'd need a POD very far back, or with significant contact with Europe. Europe just had a history involving too much exchange of tech with asia, the middle east, etc, they were drawing on a much larger military ecology.

I have had some thoughs about a TL where early Norse settlements do not invest heavily in Greenland, but go straight to North America. Parially due to good chemistry between an Indian ruler and a Norse Jarl. Larger numbers of indians swamp the Norse even with diseases in a few generations, but tech transfer is almost total.

Indians with Norse ship technology have half a thousand years to spread. And they're not going to need that much to get to Mesoamerica. If someone down there apply mesoamerican astronomy to navigation...

 

[PoeFacedKilla]

By definition city-states are civilized since the original definition is that civilizations are those nations that have cities.

Yes, but the dawn of civilization begins when Uruk conquers the surrounding city-states and becomes the sumerian empire. Thats why I said where we were BEFORE civilization; yes they were civilized while living in those cities, but they weren't a civilization.

IDK much about the greeks, but I do know that those Italian city states began as Roman towns therefore they were once part of a nation.

 

[zoomar]

Yes, but the dawn of civilization begins when Uruk conquers the surrounding city-states and becomes the sumerian empire. Thats why I said where we were BEFORE civilization; yes they were civilized while living in those cities, but they weren't a civilization.

IDK much about the greeks, but I do know that those Italian city states began as Roman towns therefore they were once part of a nation.

You have a very strange definition of "civilization". You might want to learn something about the Greek city states by the way.

If you are using "civilization" as equivalent with "state" (something I do agree with, by the way), then both Greek and MesoAmerican kingdoms (actually a better term than 'city states' since both ruled non-urbanized hinterlands) are both civilizations and states. A state does not need to be an "empire" to be a civilization.

 

[Snake Featherston]

A bare minimum for this process to start is the North American horse not going extinct as it did IOTL, as well as having some kind of animal-dependent agriculture. The combined impact of both of these changes completely butterfly away any recognizable state institutions in the Americas as we know them. And with those butterflies we also butterfly away the chains of events leading to something like WWI, let alone WWII, as the colonization of the Americas will be an extremely different process. There will be no direct takeovers and slaughters of the Natives, for one thing, more of the process seen in Asia and Africa of initial involvement on the fringes helping to foster further growth in influence, wealth, and military technology ultimately overwhelming most states in those continents, one or two major exceptions surviving as independent states. This in itself means none of the states in the New World, from Canada and the USA on down, will ever exist. Without New World colonization as we know it, the evolution of the European state system post-Westphalia will also be different in a very great degree. Without it following anything of the OTL path dependent on slaughter of American natives by working them to death and plagues as per OTL, there can be no rise of Spain as per OTL from the silver mines of Peru in anything like OTL. Without the rise of Spain, England's rise will be different if it happens at all, meaning that again the chain of circumstances shaping OTL Europe will be completely different and thus no guarantee of even something like the Great French War, let alone the World Wars.

 

[PoeFacedKilla]

You have a very strange definition of "civilization". You might want to learn something about the Greek city states by the way.

If you are using "civilization" as equivalent with "state" (something I do agree with, by the way), then both Greek and MesoAmerican kingdoms (actually a better term than 'city states' since both ruled non-urbanized hinterlands) are both civilizations and states. A state does not need to be an "empire" to be a civilization.

It doesn't have to be an empire, but doesn't it need to be more than just one city? I mean other wise, well many city-states in the old world had alphabets, agriculture, and philosophy before 3500 bce, but yet non of them are considered civilization, civilized yes but not civilization.

 

[Ptholemaios]

I'm surprised how many people imply Americas could have more advanced technology only through earlier or greater contact with Europe. You really think the Amerindians were incapable of development of metal smelting, wheel (for Incas) and animal husbandry (for a horse replacement) on their own? The PoD it would take would probably be as simple as an ancient Mayan discovering the copper/bronze smelting - I think the resources are in some reasonable proximity. With metal and some form of cavalry, Mesoamerican civilisations (and then some northern tribes too) can stand up to the Spanish and later Europeans in general. (That's all discounting the disease factor, obviously)

 

[Snake Featherston]

I'm surprised how many people imply Americas could have more advanced technology only through earlier or greater contact with Europe. You really think the Amerindians were incapable of development of metal smelting, wheel (for Incas) and animal husbandry (for a horse replacement) on their own? The PoD it would take would probably be as simple as an ancient Mayan discovering the copper/bronze smelting - I think the resources are in some reasonable proximity. With metal and some form of cavalry, Mesoamerican civilisations (and then some northern tribes too) can stand up to the Spanish and later Europeans in general. (That's all discounting the disease factor, obviously)

Amerindians *did* have metallurgy of their own, they just used it for jewelry more than weaponry, as like in early to middle Bronze Age societies weaponry that was metallic was too expensive to work for all soldiers in all armies, even if they had used it for that purpose. Similarly the Indians did have wheels, but they were used for toys. Different cultures viewed the same concept differently. The emergence of a cavalry arm, however, might well have forced different changes in itself that altered the other two concepts, as cavalry and such humble things as chariots offer different uses for the wheel......

 

[twovultures]

I'm surprised how many people imply Americas could have more advanced technology only through earlier or greater contact with Europe. You really think the Amerindians were incapable of development of metal smelting, wheel (for Incas) and animal husbandry (for a horse replacement) on their own?

Not incapable, but they had a lot of strikes against them developing those things. Animal husbandry and metallurgy is not just something you stumble onto, these are essentially technologies that must be developed through millenia of trial and error. Farming rose later in the Americas than it did in Eurasia, which meant that Native Americans had less opportunity for that trial and error. Assuming there even were 'horse replacements' in the Americas (I'm skeptical of the claim that you can take any wild animal and make it livestock, but others on this board think it's possible), the native cultures did not have the time to domesticate and breed these into an animal that could fill the niche of the horse. Same with bronze: while the Native civilizations were making steps to entering a bronze age, they had not quite reached that far by the time the Spanish arrived. Even if some had, the lack of a horse equivalent and geographic barriers would have slowed down the spread of that knowledge.

 

[zoomar]

Well, even in the old world, the rise and widespread advancement of technology depended on trade and exchange among many disparate centers of civilization. I don't agree with everything Diamond says in Guns, Germs, and Steel, but I believe he makes a very cogent argument that technological civilization spread and advanced so much more rapidly in the old world because trade and contact among the various Eurasian and North African centers of civilization was made easier by the fact that a generally temperate and wide climatic band extended from Spain to China with numerous areas condusive to urban civilization. In the New World, the two main centers of civilization (the Andes and Central America/Mexico) were much more islolated from each other.

It's not that Native Americans were less creative or inventive than people in the old world - they simply had far fewer opportunites to exchange ideas and learn from outsiders.

 

[Snake Featherston]

Not incapable, but they had a lot of strikes against them developing those things. Animal husbandry and metallurgy is not just something you stumble onto, these are essentially technologies that must be developed through millenia of trial and error. Farming rose later in the Americas than it did in Eurasia, which meant that Native Americans had less opportunity for that trial and error. Assuming there even were 'horse replacements' in the Americas (I'm skeptical of the claim that you can take any wild animal and make it livestock, but others on this board think it's possible), the native cultures did not have the time to domesticate and breed these into an animal that could fill the niche of the horse. Same with bronze: while the Native civilizations were making steps to entering a bronze age, they had not quite reached that far by the time the Spanish arrived. Even if some had, the lack of a horse equivalent and geographic barriers would have slowed down the spread of that knowledge.

More accurately while Native Americans did have metallurgy, they did not have the infrastructure or the cultural idea to turn metal into tools that make good weapons, nor did they have the kind of metal that made for weapons, as opposed to decorations, in accessible quantities where it could be used. Bronze Age societies did not, in actual fact, universally use metal weaponry long after it first appears in the archaeological record, however they did have metal *weapons* in the first place which did not, in actual fact, appear at any point in the New World anywhere.

 

[Snake Featherston]

Well, even in the old world, the rise and widespread advancement of technology depended on trade and exchange among many disparate centers of civilization. I don't agree with everything Diamond says in Guns, Germs, and Steel, but I believe he makes a very cogent argument that technological civilization spread and advanced so much more rapidly in the old world because trade and contact among the various Eurasian and North African centers of civilization was made easier by the fact that a generally temperate and wide climatic band extended from Spain to China with numerous areas condusive to urban civilization. In the New World, the two main centers of civilization (the Andes and Central America/Mexico) were much more islolated from each other.

It's not that Native Americans were less creative or inventive than people in the old world - they simply had far fewer opportunites to exchange ideas and learn from outsiders.

The Old World also had societies like the Achaemenids, early Caliphate, and Mongols that united the areas linking these multiple spheres in a process that very drastically furthered that contact by virtue of conquest. Which has more to do with the real-world spread of said ideas than the idea of some climatic band pre-ordaining it.

 

[zoomar]

The Old World also had societies like the Achaemenids, early Caliphate, and Mongols that united the areas linking these multiple spheres in a process that very drastically furthered that contact by virtue of conquest. Which has more to do with the real-world spread of said ideas than the idea of some climatic band pre-ordaining it.

True, but the climatic bands made it easier for people like this to conquer these spheres.

 

[Snake Featherston]

True, but the climatic bands made it easier for people like this to conquer these spheres.

I dunno, the Gobi Desert hardly seems like the most inspiring place to start a major conquest from, as does the coastal cities of the Arabian peninsula.