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

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.
There were metal weapons in the New World. The Inca at the very least used copper IIRC, and the Mesoamericans also had copper weapons, which weren't as effective as flint or obsidian. And the Tarascans were just starting to make bronze, I think they may have had bronze daggers.
 
There were metal weapons in the New World. The Inca at the very least used copper IIRC, and the Mesoamericans also had copper weapons, which weren't as effective as flint or obsidian. And the Tarascans were just starting to make bronze, I think they may have had bronze daggers.

Ah. I was under the impression that Amerindians used metal for decorative purposes while using obsidian and the like for weapons. Well, you learn something new every day. Did these weapons tend to be used by the elite alone or were they more generally used?
 
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.

Or, the Eurasian horse going extinct along with the North American horse (though that alone would probably not be enough).
 
Ah. I was under the impression that Amerindians used metal for decorative purposes while using obsidian and the like for weapons. Well, you learn something new every day. Did these weapons tend to be used by the elite alone or were they more generally used?
More general I'd say, I'm sure elites would prefer obsidian. Copper wasn't particularly strong and it bent easily, and obviously it can't compare to the cutting power of flint or obsidian. As far as I know, the only copper weapons were axes, and these were introduced I think in the Postclassic, at least that's when they appear in the Maya area. Diego de Landa mentions them being used as tools, which was probably a more common use of them, for woodcutting.
 
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?

This is a problem of scale. You can't think that everything in society derives entirely from the raw intellect and talents of the individual people that live in it. When dealing with population-scale phenomena, you have to think more in terms of probabilities than in terms of individual talent.

For any given innovation, we can go ahead and assume that every population on Earth has the same proportion of "geniuses" with sufficient raw intellect to produce that innovation. But, raw intellect can only work within the limitations imposed by its environment. So, naturally, large populations with access to large landmasses will likely have more "geniuses" and more resources, and will therefore be more likely to produce more innovations. And, this becomes a self-feeding process: once someone gets ahead in the innovation game, they increase their capacity to continue innovating, so they become increasingly farther ahead.

Of course, it's not entirely a game of probabilities, but the probabilities do have a major impact.
 
Ooooorrr we could go the Asian route.

Though I think some Natives in North America did mine copper and use them as tools.
 
This is a problem of scale. You can't think that everything in society derives entirely from the raw intellect and talents of the individual people that live in it. When dealing with population-scale phenomena, you have to think more in terms of probabilities than in terms of individual talent.

For any given innovation, we can go ahead and assume that every population on Earth has the same proportion of "geniuses" with sufficient raw intellect to produce that innovation. But, raw intellect can only work within the limitations imposed by its environment. So, naturally, large populations with access to large landmasses will likely have more "geniuses" and more resources, and will therefore be more likely to produce more innovations. And, this becomes a self-feeding process: once someone gets ahead in the innovation game, they increase their capacity to continue innovating, so they become increasingly farther ahead.

Of course, it's not entirely a game of probabilities, but the probabilities do have a major impact.

I'm not too keen on resorting to probability in alternate history. It's more of a possibility question. CAN it happen? If yes, it can be used as a basis for an ATL. Of course, it may be rare or unusual, but the point of AH is taking what did not happen - for whatever reason - and making it happen.

So, taking into account additional information provided by further posters. North American horse doesn't die out, and Amerindians develop bronze weapons (and certain branches of agriculture I guess?) at approximately the same time Europeans did, with no or insignificant delay - so the technology of both continents is competitive.
 
Colonisation of Americas via West Coast

I seem to remember a Poul Anderson story where Mongols got to North America via the West Coast. WI Japan or China got to America around say 1200AD? I don't know if they had the resources to get lots of people there, but even a sustaining colony and trade across the Pacific would make a difference to what the Europeans found, through simple technology transfer.
 
More general I'd say, I'm sure elites would prefer obsidian. Copper wasn't particularly strong and it bent easily, and obviously it can't compare to the cutting power of flint or obsidian. As far as I know, the only copper weapons were axes, and these were introduced I think in the Postclassic, at least that's when they appear in the Maya area. Diego de Landa mentions them being used as tools, which was probably a more common use of them, for woodcutting.

When doing research for another thread some months back I found that most of the metal weapons were decoration for elites. Although it seems that the stone maces of the South American cultures were slowly shifting towards copper before the Spanish arrived. Some were even made of silver or gold. While pure gold is soft, it is still heavy and the idea of a mace is to break bones. So, even if it deformed it could still be used for that purpose and reforged. Some axes and spear points were copper bladed also.

While I wouldn't consider this an expert site on the subject, the pictures of the weapons are interesting. http://www.precolumbianweapons.com/mace.htm
 
Last edited:
I'm not too keen on resorting to probability in alternate history. It's more of a possibility question. CAN it happen? If yes, it can be used as a basis for an ATL. Of course, it may be rare or unusual, but the point of AH is taking what did not happen - for whatever reason - and making it happen.

I think we can go ahead and assume that most of the board is in complete agreement with you. I know I am. Still, I think the typical approach is to find the most plausible means of attaining the desired possible outcome.

Though I worded it poorly, I was giving you the reasons why people resort to early contact with Europe in "Advanced New World" timelines: because the probabilities are not very high that the New World could keep up with the Old World without a little boost.
 
Top