T
Black Death pest was not a 'new' epidemic and many people in the Far East had been suffering it from centuries, so they had enough time to develop immunities to it.
Immunities to plague doesn't mean immunity to plague : the disease still ridden regularly Europe up to the XX century while the surviving population developped immunities. Even more resisting, the asian populations didn't exactly considered it as a common cold.
There are archeological proves that entire populations in the southern North America wiped out at the time of Cabeza de Vaca expeditions
.
No, they proove that really large part of the population died out and that places were deserted. It says nothing about possible migrations, by exemple.
And don't compare this with European villages as I'm refering to 'tribes' as genetic pools different to neighbouring ones, that fully succumbed to epidemic, and that did not happened in Europe, as villages did not represent 'genetic pools'.
I don't compare it genetically, but archeologically. by simple archeological clues, you would say the entiere population in european regions died out, but we know that a good (if not major) part just left (maybe to die elsewhere, but that is speculative).
My point is : archeological clues can only give one aspect on the question (how did these guys died, which proportion of men/women/childs, etc; but says little to nothing to things unrelated directly to these.
As it does not seem they were massacred, illness (in form of epidemic) is the only plausible explanation.
I really advise you to read my posts more carefully : I didn't said that native population was slaugthered by 3/4, but that in the places more populated AND more sourced (that is, historically more sourced and likely to give contextual informations), epidemics death ratio was certainly reinforced by a bad treatment of native population (somehow, you don't go well by doing forced labor) and was prevented to recover for the same reason.
If European population dies out in a 3/4 proportion, their immediate neighbours and possible conquerors will be as much touched by the disease, allowing it to recover more easily than OTL Native Amerindians.
Black Death hit Europe in the 14th century, so not Columbus anymore. If Native Americans would have reached a depopulated Europe centuries after this, they would not probably have to cope with smallpox.
On this board putting an asterisk right before a name means "atl-equivalent"
It goes easier and faster to write rather than "ITTL Trans-atlantic exchance comparable to OTL columbine one".
So, *columbine, means atl-equivalent of columbian exchange.
Native Amerindians were really vulnerable to old world diseases because they were an isolated population since millenias : more you wait, more important the backleash; critically in an Europe where epidemics were far more virulants (As smallpow and plague were still a thing in the XIX there, I don't see a reason why it shouldn't be this way ITTL)