Was there ever a way for Native Americans to prevent European colonization?
>no guns
>no metal tools / weapons
>no large scale organized military (except maybe the Incas?)
>hugely susceptible to European diseases
I've tried to think of ways that the NAs could have stopped the Europeans but just can't think of one
Maybe they could have fought off some of the initial settlers but if the Europeans started coming in greater numbers with greater weapons NAs wouldn't stand much of a chance, and once disease takes over they are done
>>1037382
>Be mayan/Aztec
>Spaniards arrive
>Decide not to freak out as they insult your culture.
>Welcome them with open arms
>Show willingness to trade and consider allowing missionaries.
>Trade tonnes of gold for knowledge of metalworking, guns, other important shit.
>If Spain gets uppity invite Portugal and maybe France
>play them against each other so they can't just attack you
>Develop and sheeit.
The Mesoamericans were only conquered because Cortez freaked out. It was avoidable. In Africa, India, Japan, China trade was set up without conquering the natives so the same is possible in America. Until the 19th century at least but if the Natives played their cards right they would be better equipped to hold them off at that stage.
>>1037407
>welcome the Spanish
>contract various diseases
>Spanish decide that they would rather take your shit than trade with human sacrificing savages
>everyone who survived the new diseases is either killed outright or otherwise subjugated
>your wife is now choking on Spanish dick 24/7
>>1037407
>Welcome them with open arms
Isn't that what Montezuma did and the Spaniards ended up systematically killing most of the Aztec commanders while they were unarmed during a festival?
it was gg for injuns no matter how you look at it. eurofags would have still kept fighting each other and made rapid advances in guns it was just a matter of time until ironclads and cartridge rifles started showing up and rekking them
What would've happened if the Natives gave the Europeans diseases and not the other way around?
>>1038003
Somewhat like africa i think.
the europeans would still carve up the continent but the natives would remain the majority and wouldn't assimilate as easely. So the americas would be full of multiethnical states with shitty borders that make some tribes share their countries with other tribes and some tribes being split betwen different nations.
>>1038003
What is Tropical Africa and Southeast Asia?
Only reason why whites did not settle en masse in those lands is -besides the environments and existing kingdoms- due to the interesting diseases which THEY had no immunity to. Malaria being the greatest.
>>1037382
If most of them hadnt been killed by smallpox by the time europeans settled north america then maybe, but probably not
>>1038034
Western africa was covered in shitty little medieval kingdoms
Numbers.
Unification.
Numbers.
Bows have a higher fire rate than a musket and is superior in many facets.
Numbers.
History might have been entirely different if they got their collective shit together.
>>1038034
You know who sold slaves to Westerners? African states.
And don't get me started about Southeast Asia, place is crawling with Empires and Seaborne Kingdoms.
>>1038003
The Natives DID give the Europeans diseases.
>>1037433
Yep, anon has no clue
>>1038065
Not nearly as bad as the Europeans gave the Natives diseases
>>1038020
>tropical africa
>existing kingdom
>>1037382
assimilate and adopt european technology as rapidly as possible, unfortunately they were too racist, xenophobic and afraid of new ideas to do this effectively, they massacred the men Columbus had to leave behind due to a ship getting wrecked, and then it got worse
>>1037407
This. Basically play the Euros off against each other. Would have required a lot of unity which they didnt have though.
>>1038044
And when the Europeans pull out centuries old brigandine armors that would be impervious to repurposed hunting bows?
>>1037407
this sorta happened in brazil. but the tribes weren't all united like in central america
>>1038934
>Kingdom.
>Has to be a civilization.
>>1037382
Nuh they were backward even compared to the Inca and Aztecs
>>1037382
The Lakota confederacy was the one real successful bulwark against western expansion, and it still ultimately conceded defeat in the face of far superior numbers as well as a tech advantage.
Muskets were too foreign to be adopted en masse before then. Centralized authority was scattered at best, and any real attempt at uniting tribes with centuries old grudges proved to be difficult, if not impossible.
The Natives, especially if North Anerica, were simply not used to the idea of a unified nation state.
I guess they could steal the European's guns much like the Maori.
>>1039030
Or just Zerg rush them like the Zulus
>>1037382
They die in every scenario where they don't have access to modern vaccinations. It will always come back to that. The disease waves left the lands empty, and europeans were able to settle there and crush the pitiful resistance.
I recomend to read 1491 and 1493. Both books deal with how badly mainstream view about colonization is.
Especially how deadly european diseseas were to natives.
In short they wipe out like 97% of local population. In few waves they crippled local civilization, limited gene pool, destroy population and even have amazing ecological impact(the small ice age was caused by population decline in North America and sudden reforestation of depopulated areas - bizons were a specie that repopulated Great Plains for example).
In North was settlers were facing were remnants o great confederations that were constatly weaken by plagues and gang(tribal) warfare.
>>1037382
>>no metal tools / weapons
Huh?
>>no large scale organized military
Mezoamerica and Inca, to a lesser extent Oasisamerica.
>>1039233
Have any of you read A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies? I'm certain it's very biased but it gives a lot of examples of Spanish conquistadors just senselessly killing the natives.
>>1039441
>Spanish are invited to Cholula
>Hear rumors of an ambush
Solution: Call all the nobles of the city to a meeting and slaughter them. Proceed to leave in charge the nobles who supported them and somehow didn't went to the meeting.
>Spanish are invited to Tenochtitlan
>There's a festival going on
>Hear rumors of an ambush
Solution: Block the entrances of the plaza with canons and kill 8 000 to 10 000 nobles in order to prevent hostilities.
>Smallpox kills the Inca Emperor and his heir
>Two brothers fight for the control
Solution: Capture one of them and demand a room full of gold as ransom. Kill him after receiving the ransom and proceed to get an alliance with the other brother.
>>1037382
Maybe by developing the technology to eliminate all disease, there really was no possible counter to losing your entire population to a disease spread by carriers immune to it
>>1037382
Yes the Europeans had very few troops with them and relied to a large extent on Native allies. For example the Aztecs killed three fourths of the Spanish army and would've completely killed them if not for the Native allies of the Spanish specifically the Tlaxcalans.
If Native Americans realized that the Europeans would eventually all drive them out and united they could've won or at least delayed complete conquest for a while. The Europeans might have lost interest, started trade and contact, and the Natives would've died in big numbers from disease but bounce back.
Of course that is like saying Americans should team up with ISIS, North Korea and Iran whenever the alien invaders come from Neptune. They would never do it.
Only way for it to happen (assuming North-American Natives) is if they would had needed to be much more centralized and unified at least to some early form tribal kingdoms instead of loose tribal confederacies.
The natives usually hated each other just that much and were so disunited that eventually Europeans would had turned them to their side.
Even if they would have had lets say a mid-sized kingdom, only by showing formidable force, being able to restrict Europeans only to trade instead of colonization might have helped. Technology the natives could had most likely adapted very fast had the conditions been more hospitable for that.
Diseases would still rekt 90% of the natives
>>1037407
>Africa, India, Japan, China trade was set up without conquering the natives so the same is possible in America
>Implying any of these places could have been conquered by pre-Industrial Europe
>Implying that Europe wasn't forced to cooperate with everyone else
>>1038934
>What is Great Zimbabwe
>What is Ancient Ghana
>What is Aksum
>What is Puth
>What is Mali
Back to /pol/ with you faggot
>>1037433
>open arms
It was a much more terse relationship than that.
Montezuma's first message to them was to leave. Only Cortez's persistence and perceived invincibility in battle allowed them into the capital.
Most native americans were killed by foreign disease they had no resistance to. I think it some areas it's like by the time real colonization began, disease had killed off 90% of the natives. The natives did in fact have large settlements that became ghost towns.
>>1039996
And it's a misconception that they were decentralized and constantly on the verge of collapse before the Europeans got there. All it took for disease to wipe out most of the population already was exposure to a few Europeans before any mass settlement took place.
>>1038065
syphilis is the only one i can think of. not nearly as bad as small pox
If you take diseases out of the equation, I believe the Americas would still be mostly controlled by natives.
>>1040075
Tfw will never see modern incan civiization
>>1039857
The main weapon of the people of Cuzco was the axe, usually made of copper or bronze, the Inca nobility used a special type of bronze axe, called cancacuchuna champi, which resembled european halberds, it was a status symbol.
>>1040145
some inca axes
>>1040182
>>1040188
>>1040194
>>1040197
>>1040203
>>1040203
Is this like a mace-axe?
>>1040219
Because first human immigration to the Americas occured 30k years after immigration to Europe and Asia. The rest of the world had a 30,000 year head start.
>>1040227
Yes.
>>1040234
Oh. Then what the natives came up was pretty impressive by comparison.
>>1038958
>assimilate and adopt european technology as rapidly as possible
Enjoy your trail of tears.
>>1040241
>>1037407
The portuguese set up trade with the natives until they decided to colonize later on.
The first stage was to just trade, since they initially had no interest in the land.
>>1040145
>>1040182
>The Inca
are the inca the broest of the american civilizations? I understand that the aztecs were way too savage and that even though the mayan were almost gone when the europeans found them, their way of life would have been too savage for the europeans to work with also probably.
But the inca were relatively "non savage" compared to the other civilizations, no?
>>1037382
Engaging in counterfactuals is not really productive, but it was basically impossible to resist European colonization. Perhaps if the Indians cast aside all tribal affiliations and formed a nation-state they could have delayed, but not stopped it.
>>1037382
You talk about the natives as if they were an at least partially unified entity, when in fact the complete opposite was the case.
>>1037407
>Be mayan/Aztec
dropped
>>1040252
It did work for the Mapuches for a bit though, they held off the Spaniards, but ultimately were annexed by Chile.
>>1038003
>guys what if instead of native immune systems being shit it was the other way around?
And like what if they had abnormally well developed prefrontal cortexes and massive rippling muscles and perfect skeletal structures?
>>1038044
>and is superior in many facets.
lol
>>1040261
The Maya were never gone, they just abandoned their old cities. But they were living in new ones by the time the Spaniards came. They never 'died out'. There was even a temporary Mayan nation in the 1800s the British recognized. And to this day some people of the said nation still refer to the British as the red people, due to their uniforms.
>>1038003
It's called smoking and it's killed more Europeans than the amount of Natives ever killed
>>1040325
note I said "almost gone", what I meant is that the classic mayans we think of with the giant pyramids and astronomy and their crazy football games were hardly there when the spaniards arrived, no?
>>1040308
>awaken my masters
>>1040313
bows got range, accuracy and rate of fire... also European soldiers stopped wearing armour so no protection
>>1037382
>>no guns
True, but most European "guns" only allowed a slow non efficient shot
>>no metal tools / weapons
Incorrect
>>no large scale organized military (except maybe the Incas?)
Incorrect
>>hugely susceptible to European diseases
The only correct thing you said
Most Amerindians groups were not even conquered, only the ones who ironically allied themselves with the Europeans to fight their enemies/get territory. On the same hand, the Europeans didnt want to go killing everybody just because.
I think you dont know very much about the period you are talking about.
>>1040366
>accuracy
lol
have you even fired a smoothbore weapon in your life?
>range
l
o
l
the immediate lethal range of shot is much longer than that of say a 70 lbs bow.
>>1038958
this post is everything wrong with this board. read a source every now and then you fuckhead.
>>1040433
kek
>>1040261
I would say that they adapted very well to the lifestyle of the Spanish colony, so maybe.
>>1037382
>hugely susceptible to European diseases
That is always going to be the one great insurmountable obstacle. Smallpox and other European diseases are going to utterly wreck the Natives and there's not a whole lot, if anything, that they can realistically do about it based on the medical knowledge available at the time.
The only real counter to this is if the Natives had some equally virulent and lethal disease that would go back to and ravage the Old World, but they didn't. Syphilis is the closest that existed, but it just doesn't spread as easily nor kill as rapidly or totally.
![Opechcancanough_copy-459x552[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/pFWdfif.jpg "Opechcancanough_copy-459x552[1].jpg")
>It's too late
>why didn't you listen?
>you could have stopped them
>>1040351
The pyramids, ballcourts and such were still there (minus the stelea), but just smaller scale. In the northern lowlands they were broken up city-states from the former League of Mayapan, in the southern lowlands they were also city states, but were the longest to resist coloniaztion. In the Southern highlands they were more like kingdoms but with a significant Toltec influence. In the northern lowlands though elements of Classic culture were returning like the stelea, the city-state polities, with two major powers, the Xiu and Cocom families. Similar to how in the Classical period you had the Kan and Mutal dynasties. And they still were writing in the Maya script, but by this time the writing looks more abstracted a bit.
>>1037419
Thus, the Mexicans were born.
>>1040761
were they still operating as the classical mayans though? With giant public executions, playing the ballgames and all that jazz?
>>1037407
Mayans are totally different from the Aztecs.
They should have equated white skin with disease and just shot any whites on sight
>>1038958
Manco Inca assimilated the european tactics and technology in record time, in just a few years after the first contact between Pizarro and Atahualpa, the incas were already making iron weapons and armor, gunpowder (i think a chronic even said that they were making fire guns), and trained cavalry troops. Manco Inca lived for a while with the spaniards and probably understood the huge advantage of the european inventions. That's why he spent so many men and resources to copy them and thanks him we can say that the Inca civilization resisted the spaniards for 40 years, dying as a civilization of iron and gunpowder.
>>1040786
Perhaps not on the same scale, but they have were big on the sacrificing. In the southern lowlands like the Aztecs they had skull racks and found many sacrificed warriors (some of which included women). The ballgames were still prevalent. Pic related is from Iximche.
But they were different from the Classical maya in many ways too. There was strong Toltec and Aztec influence in some áreas. And the way the government was organized was different as well. The K'iche for instance were governed by four lords of the major lineages. Two of these lords were the more important ones (one the head of the priests, and the other more secular).
>>1037382
Maybe if NA received the smallpox virus when Viking colonists were around in the 900s and were allowed to let their now mostly immune population to rebuild before the Western Europeans arrived.
That could buy them some time, but in reality even with high populations I'm sure the Europeans would just do what the UK did in India and play the tribes against each other until their influence is so great that they can just instantly take over.
>>1038003
They did, syphilis is a New World disease.
>>1038958
>Columbus turns tribal warfare into total war and enslavement for Caribbean tribes
>Hurr injuns were the evil ones!
Fuck off back to /pol/
>>1040075
Just like India remained mostly controlled by their natives right?
![zpage147[1].gif](https://i.imgur.com/1j3VUxW.gif "zpage147[1].gif")
>>1040405
>>1040366
The Indians themselves considered muskets better weapons. By King Phillips War the Indians were armed almost entirely with muskets, even though they were expensive and required Europeans for ammo and repairs.
A musket has a longer effective range and is *far* more powerful than a bow and arrow.
>>1041202
interesting thanks for the info
>>1041258
Are you trying to make an argument?
>>1040366
>European soldiers stopped wearing armour so no protection
Not in the XV-XVI centuries
Next question, why native americans didn't domesticated animals?.
Why don't make a huge fence around buffalos instead of chasing them?
>>1042006
Make a fence in an area a thousand miles away from huge supplies of wood and in a world where long distance trade is difficult without horses?
>>1042006
>Why don't make a huge fence around buffalos instead of chasing them?
Are you able to make a large enough fence that you don't have to supplement their food, or show that harvesting and providing food to fenced buffalo isn't far less efficient than hunting the massive wild herds?
also this
http://www.livescience.com/33870-domesticated-animals-criteria.html
>>1042006
They did, dogs and Llamas were both domesticated, with the former being important in nomadic societies as they helped carry supplies for long distances before horses were introduced.
>>1042006
For the same reason buffaloes are still not domesticated today.
They could gather them, Montezuma even had a couple in his zoo, it's just that they aren't domesticable as turkeys, ducks, dogs, llamas, alpacas and such.
>>1042097
>Montezuma even had a couple in his zoo
Proofs?
>>1042115
>"It has crooked shoulders, with a bunch on its back like a camel; its flanks dry, its tail large, and its neck cover’d with hair like a lion. It is cloven footed, its head armed like that of a Bull, which it resembles in fierceness, with no less strength and agility"
- Cortes' accounts collected by Solís y Ribadeneyra
>>1042274
Just found a better citation
>>1042358
That's still a long distance to get to Tenochtitlan
>>1042466
Capture a calf, put it in a cage and have a bunch of dude carrying it like a palanquin.
>>1042097
>>1042068
Fine then, why didn't use the llamas for human transportation?
I understand that a llama isn't strong, but why not a chariot pulled by multiple llamas?
>>1042501
Have fun riding your chariot up this
>>1042501
The carriages weren't used in the andean mountains even in the spanish viceroyalty, only in the arid flat coast, it wasn't until the invention of the train that the wheel became a common thing in the andes.
>>1042627
And the Chimu used llamas to carry the wounded soldiers after a battle, so there's that.
>>1042501
llamas are total dicks
>>1037407
hehe, portugal belonged to spain and france was getting its ass kicked to the point the spanish even captured their king.
>>1037382
>hugely susceptible to European diseases
This is the critical issue; no amount of alt-history tech is going to save them from the measles but even discarding that, the Indians were simply too far behind the times to survive; any Old World culture (short of the even more primitive Africans) was guaranteed to fuck their shit up.
>>1042649
Its time we give them a lesson they won't forget!
>>1037382
The first step would be to unite, the second would be to pick an area that you can actually hold (they would claim vast areas with only small numbers that couldn't populate those large areas), the third would be not attacking the European settlers. The issue the new settlers had was the savage injuns attacking them. History wants to ignore that and claim the first settlers were peaceful, yet they were constantly warring with each other. When the new settlers came they were seen as just another rival tribe, but with better technology and more resources to steal. They were targeted by a lot of powerful tribes. Ultimately it was an underdog triumph story.
>>1042501
That chariot and those harnesses are made with lightweight and strong modern materials that were unavailable to ancient Andeans. But assuming they had already invented the harness and wheel, with native materials its weight would probably be increased by about 40lbs (needs real thick wooden wheels and joints because it can't use nails) which would require another llama to accommodate the added weight just to tow a ~160lb man. Men can haul much more than llamas can, and they don't require a sophisticated cart and harness system to do so.
There's also infrastructural problems: a four llama wide cart would have a hard time fitting on the trails that wind through the Andes, and making them large enough that two carts could safely pass without knocking the other off the cliff would've been an enormous undertaking.
>>1037382
Yes, if Europeans wouldn't have been so dirty to bring deseases.
It has always bothered me that they made those big and tall pyramids but their houses were never more than one floor tall.
>>1042890
Buildings like this one were common in the huanuco region, in the central Andes
>>1042951
>>1042890
>>1042964
There are also some in northern peru.
>>1042985
>>1037407
The Aztecs could have avoided conquest if they hadn't been absolute dicks to every other nation within their reach, Cortez's orders were to trade and explore, if he hadn't been counting on the support of a few million natives he wouldn't have attempted outright conquest. Epidemics would have still given the locals a beating but the Aztecs were notably clean and their cities were pretty neat, without the pressure of a war they could have managed to stop the plagues before they completely crippled them.
>>1042990
>>1042890
Some Indians did build multi-story houses, but most houses everywhere are made from wood so they don't often survive. Making a two-story stone house requires a ton more manpower than a wooden one because of the weight and shape of the materials involved.
>>1042993
It is very similar to the fortifications of the Recuay culture (200 BC-600 AD) in ancash region - peru
>>1043112
But the two cultures were different, the recuay were very warlike people and marcahuamachuco was more like a religious center.
>>1043134
>>1042890
"As far as I can tell, these Indians worship water, because it makes the corn grow and sustains their life." About the pueblo, he reported that, "Although they are not decorated with turquoises, nor made of lime or good bricks, nevertheless they are very good houses, with three, four, and five stories, where there are very good apartments... and some very good rooms underground [ Kivas], paved, which are made for winter and have something like hot baths."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawikuh_Ruins
>>1043136
Sometimes the incas built two-story houses and towers
>>1040366
>bows got range, accuracy and rate of fire... also European soldiers stopped wearing armour so no protection
Yes, around 1670. Having said that armor did start to be much lighter during the mid point of the 30 years war. See pic for the armor that was mostly used in 16th century European wars.
>bows got range
The very strongest type of bow found in North America, and I think the new world period, was the plains Indian bow at 180 to 200 Ibs draw weight. Because of the use of stone arrow heads it could penetrate munitions grade plate at 30 yards. English longbows with a 130 Ibs draw weight could do the same at 40 to 45 yards, and arquebus could do the same at 50 to 55 yards. It is important to note that using a tire 180 plus ibs draw bow in battle means that you have to pace yourself or rapidly tire yourself out.
Also there is the matter of amount ammo a enlgish longbowman would carry 30 to 35 arrows. Northern plains archers would have to use a a heavier arrow shaft to to a much heavier draw weight thus would have to carry less. A early modern gunner would carry 40 shots.
European range weapons were just better then the best the new world had. Also all Europeans had guns, not all native american had high draw weight bows.
>>1038044
>Numbers.
>Unification.
The better developed native american were divide into four areas: the American south west (US south west), along and east of the Mississippi, Mesoamerican, and the Andes mountains. They had limited contact with each other at best. Event then Inside those areas the major players were in long term struggles each other. Other then the Andes region because of one very large empire. It is important to that the Inca empire still came down in the face of its first European invasion.
>>1040234
no one was doing anything of note 30k years ago
>>1043601
>flint arrowhead penetrating steel
no chance. It'd break apart on impact. flint is basically glass
>>1044210
>no chance. It'd break apart on impact. flint is basically glass
You are right on the arrow head breaking apart. However there is a few accounts from Spanish garrisons in central Texas of Comanche war bows driving arrows thru their plate armor. Or rather the arrow shaft because they noted the stone arrow head would break on impact. They also note that it only do so if they were standing sideways ( normal when using a gun) to the archer. If they were standing face to face the arrow would deflect.
Note that Texas is the only place the Spanish recorded that happening. It is also the only place that the Spanish had long terms dealings with Great Plains Indians and their very strong bows. Either it is true, or the garrisons were lying their asses off.
>>1039030
I was under the impression that the British sold the Maori the guns
They certainly sold them the agricultural equipment
The fact that Maoris had almost completely adapted European technology of warfare and agriculture within a generation is quite fascinating
Shame about the Abos
>>1045067
Prior to European arrival Maori already had agricultural chiefdoms and forts which would have made it easier to adapt to European tech, compared to the jump from hunter gatherers without access to agricultural crops to sedentary organised militaristic groups that aboriginal society probably needed to put up a similar resistance..
>>1042501
Nigga do you even know how Llamas are fucking used in Incan lands?
For one thing: theyre sure footed in climbing those mountain passes and roads the Incans built.
For another they're one of the shittiest beasts of burden imaginable
Say you have five bags of something relatively heavy. You're going to need 10 llamas to carry that shit. Because a Llama will bitch and stop moving when its even feels a bit tired.
>>1045019
Not the guy you are replying too but around what time was that?
>>1041228
It really is?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3330186/Columbus-did-NOT-bring-syphilis-Europe-Disease-remains-child-died-170-years-voyage-America.html
>>1037382
>I've tried to think of ways that the NAs could have stopped the Europeans but just can't think of one
The natives could have easily killed every single non-native that set foot on their land, but instead of recognizing the threat from foreign invasion and uniting against a common enemy, they chose instead to try and manipulate the whites to attack their historical enemies, and to exploit the whites for the goods they brought.
Their approach failed, just as the current white approach towards the non-white invasion of their lands will fail in about 100 years.
>>1046344
When meeting a wholly foreign culture you've never see before, very few groups immediate reaction would be to put aside all your differences with the neighbours you've known for centuries and immediately kill the new people without talking to them. Regardless, the strategy of allying to win old grudges would have simply changed the power balance instead of wiping out all the civilisations in the region if it weren't for mortality due to disease.
This is also in no way analogous to current immigration policies, fuck off.
>>1046470
Found the soiled skinned anon.
>>1037407
>play them against each other so they can't just attack you
kek this did happen but the other way around
>>1046586
How so?
>>1039936
>Ghana
>Mali
>Aksum
>Puth
>tropical
>>1047377
We already know how this meme goes.
>>1039040
That didn't work too well for the Zulus tho
>>1041149
>thanks to him we can say that the Inca civilization resisted the spaniards for 40 years, dying as a civilization of iron and gunpowder.
I don't know why, but something about this line is oddly satisfying..
Yeah, by having better immune systems.
>>1045019
They're almost certainly lying. The stone would shatter, and a wood shaft isn't going to pierce iron or steel-it WOULD shatter. It's also a much softer material and flexible. It has none of the properties it needs to reliably p[pierce. Just being shot into another piece of wood can fuck up an arrow shaft.
We have a tale of an Indian chief wearing an old conquistadors hauberk and using it to deflect gunfire, too, and from the same region.
Soldiers drink, eat, sleep, shit, masturbate, fuck, lie, and embellish.
>>1052359
This would be the only way. I think they'd aquit themselves pretty well otherwise. Massive amounts of life lost, but with bigger populations, resistance and guerilla movements might even be viable, instead of just the occasional revolt.
>>1039828
>Of course that is like saying Americans should team up with ISIS, North Korea and Iran whenever the alien invaders come from Neptune. They would never do it.
What the hell makes you think that?
>>1037382
By the time Ohio was still on the frontier/gaining statehood, the United States could score major strategic defeats over complex Native confederations by killing just tens of people, often taking larger casualties. Consider that by the War of 1812 the United States could mobilize 400,000 militia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fallen_Timbers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tippecanoe
>>1037382
Americans are just niggers with the wrong skin color by mistake.
>>1037382
Inca were in a civil war when the Spaniards showed up. Spanish cucks sided with one side of the inca and then betrayed them all in the end
>>1037382
>I've tried to think of ways that the NAs could have stopped the Europeans but just can't think of one
Here's two:
>don't ally with the foreign white man against the Aztecs, just enjoy being sacrificed instead
>win King Phillip's War instead of losing it
>>1037407
>The Mesoamericans were only conquered because Cortez freaked out.
Well, they were making human sacrifices to their pagan gods. Of course he freaked out about that.
>>1039936
>look how much I know about Africa! Here's a list of totally tropical kingdoms!
>>1059287
And they were yanking people apart with horses in Europe, what's your point?
>>1059298
They didn't do that to glorify pagan gods.
If Natives were highly susceptible to Old World disease, why weren't Europeans highly susceptible to New World disease?
>>1040261
The Inca were also used to being the greatest civilization in the known world, and didn't treat the Spaniards as a major potential threat, but treated them with arrogance. Specifically, they treated the Bible as unimportant. Had it not been for that specific diplomatic error, they perhaps could have gotten along. It would have required the king to convert and allow Spanish missionaries, probably, but it would have been possible.
>>1059305
Diseases aren't all equally devastating.
>>1042349
>How the fuck did they manage to capture that thing
Rope probably.
Like three dudes walking along with it and poking it with sticks if it goes the wrong way. There may have been casualties, but he's the goddamn Inca.
>>1042996
Those aren't ruins there, that's a modern village.
>>1059325
>Mexico
>Inca
Are Native American threads the best /his/ threads?
how come the europeans didnt contract diseases from the mesoamericans?
>>1059305
Europeans had worse hygiene and medicine, and had for centuries at least.
>>1037407
That never works though. because the euro power can just power sperg and wreck your shit if they feel like it.
Usually once they feel the setting is at the point where "yes we can wreck their shit and/or ruin their economy and conquer them" they'll do it.
>>1042890
In the andean region, that didn't change much after the arrival of the spaniards.
The colonial buildings were generally one-story, and rarely two, in order to reduce fatalities after an earthquake.
>>1037407
There are a few issues with this theory, most prominent being that Asia didn't have the same issues with disease that the New World did
>>1037382
North Americans? Hell no. They were too depopulated from a previously horrible plague in the medieval times. Probably brought from the vikings or something.
The Aztecs were fucked from all the bad blood from the flower wars.
The Mayans were too disunified, but if they weren't they might have had a chance until their neighbors fell.
The Incas had a chance, but the Spanish sort of got REALLY lucky, and just marched in, captured the king to be, killed him, and placed a puppet on the throne to fight the new civil war with Spanish backing, and eventually taking his throne away. If they weren't in a civil war they might have had the ability to fight off the conquistadores and establish relations with Europe, or at least try to adopt European weapons before it was too late.
But the NAs? Hell no. They might have been able to if their history went a bit differently, but they were only unified in select regions, and didn't bear enough raw manpower to do anything about the colonists.
>>1060583
>Probably brought from the vikings or something.
Or, you know, the Spaniards, who had arrived two hundred years before the English/French started settling up there.
>>1059305
>>1059338
Are you guys aware of how many diseases were suddenly introduced?
-Smallpox
-Tuberculosis
-Cholera
-Diphtheria
-Chickenpox
-Typhoid
-Typhus
-Influenza
-Measles
-Scarlet fever
-Pertussis
A considerable ammount of these came from domesticated animals (cattle, poultry, pigs, etc) and that's why the New World didn't have as many diseases. Many other diseases originated in conditions of bad sanitation, perhaps due to the coexistence with animals in large urban settlements.
>>1038065
The only one is syphilis and is still debated.
>>1037407
with all due respect to the south/north american cultures, the asians were infinitely more advanced as a civilisation. I'm not calling the natives savages, but they lived in huts and villages still. China and Japan are ancient cultures that have been around for thousands of years, and advanced before they met with europeans.
>>1062785
The Olmecs had aqueducts since 1500 b.c., while Romans had them since 300 b.c. And the oldest city of the Norte Chico civilization was founded 4500 years ago.
>>1037382
and now they have all that plus casinos, and theres more of them now then ever, they made it out just fine
>>1062785
>but they lived in huts and villages still
>>1062857
So were many people of Asia.
>>1062857
you know they had citties and all that crap, you know that, everione knows it, but the fact it all collapsed before columbus even stepped foot on a ship says something
>>1062857
>possibly 40,000 people
Mesoamerican armor looks pretty comfy.
>>1062864
you know they had citties and all that crap, but the fact that Mesopotamians, Egyptians, Mycenaeans, Greeks and Romans collapsed says something
>>1062883
It must have been, I mean, the whole attire was made with feathers. And they were quite good at it, pic related was also completely made with feathers, no painting.
>>1062971
The feathers were just outside for prestige and to deflect spears. The armor itself was quilted cotton three to four fingers deep.
>>1059316
Oh please!
>muh bible
The inca king who rejected the bible was obviously uninformed about the real emotional value of the wicked thing. For him it was an alien block of something with layers of white things and black hyerogliphics. He rejected the book not because of idiocy or pride. For the incas these white faggots in front of them were just a bunch of savage murderers, with no regard for the incan people at all.
>>1063015
Well yeah, obviously. Doesn't change that this was a crucial diplomatic error though.
>>1063020
It was not a diplomatic error. That's the whole point. It was rational: a king must defend his honor and that of his subjects. If savages that are killing your people as you speak show you a cultural artifact like its not big deal you will dismiss it. Imagine a guy breaking into your house, crashing all of your pottery against the floor while saying «dude, if you reject the superiority of my space alien overlord you are gonna have a bad time... ». Just think about it. You would probably break the freak's legs or something
I think they only could have delayed it by fighting instead of often helping the Europeans.
>>1039936
Jesus Christ people just say Kongo. It was a legitimate state with up to 500,000 people in it with a successful trade economy. When someone asks you to name a tropical African state, just say Kongo. One more time: Kongo. Repeat: Kongo. We don't need to have 4 comments making fun of you and devolving into /pol/-blaming as long as uou just say Kongo.
>>1059334
The ones I enjoy the most that's for sure
It depends on how many smallpox really killed. Its highly disputed, some say as high as 90%.
I tend to agree with the larger estimates. If there really were 9x as many indians, it wouldnt have mattered what their weapons were made out of, the europeans would be relgated to trading and exploitation.
Imagine europe trying to colonize all of africa in the 16th century... just doesnt seem possible unless they were depopulated.
>>1059316
The Spanish weren't worried that the Inca wasn't impressed by the Bible. They were worried that he was signalling his massive army to attack them.
>>1065401
It was a concious choice by the conquistadors to show the Inca the bible: that way they could justify the use of violence against the king and his subjects. Look at it as part of a public relations campaign targeted to god and religious believers, rather than other things.
>>1060583
>The Mayans were too disunified, but if they weren't they might have had a chance until their neighbors fell.
"Even the first conquest took a long time, from the 1520s to the late 1540s. The Maya were hopelessly divided into local village groups—and although that hurt them tactically, I get the impression that in the long run it helped them. This is an interesting thing about guerrilla war: It can actually be much harder to stomp a divided irregular force than a totally organized one.
When the weaker tribe joins in a conventional army, it may win a lot of heroic battles but it won’t ever win the war. The Empire—Roman, Persian, British—can afford bad commanders, bad troops, lost battles, because it’s got a system already in place. The rebels lose one battle and then—zzap!—the enemy’s scum-of-the-earth conscripts are loose in your heartland and you’re lucky if half your village survives that little spree.
Or, to take a more what-they-call-topical example, Iraq—remember the ridiculous search for a Mister Big who could be grabbed and neutralized, ending the whole mess? That was all based on the idea there had to be an HQ, a single center to the insurgency. First it was going to be Saddam, then Zarqawi the Invisible, then, I don’t know, Gollum or something, but it never happened. They just divided by neighborhood and went into another long sulk, which’ll end with a bang one of these years.
So the Aztecs and Incas, overcentralized to the point of God-king crazy, fell like a Lego penthouse, but the Maya, all spread around the selva in sullen little villages, held out for 20 years."
http://exiledonline.com/the-mayan-caste-war-viva-los-machetes/
>>1065401
Well Atahualpa had some soldiers with him in Cajamarca, but not as many as some chronicles say, some even reaching the ridiculous sum of 40,000 soldiers in a such tiny plaza which is no longer taken seriously by historians since the last century, truth is that his three generals and most of his army was not with him, but in Quito, Jauja and Cuzco.
Spanish deserve credit, tho. Played his cards very well and used the surprise factor for the quick capture of Atahualpa.
