If Amerindians weren't largely wiped out by disease would the Americas have ended up a lot like the current state of Africa?
>>713302
No
No, theres fuel and natural resources there, as well as great shipping options.
Problem is indians and settlers had beef going back to the 1600s before the u.s. even existed. They wouldnt peacefully coexist long enough for the global cuckings of the post ww2 era.
>>713302
I doubt it. While I've hardly studied the matter, two things strike me as being very important.
Where the Europeans are concerned, Africa is a very disease-ridden, dangerous place, which prevented large scale immigration to the various African colonies.
Furthermore, the various African political entities were considerably more advanced than the Amerindians. AFAIK, the Africans had things like ironworking, wheras the Amerindians didn't until they came into contact with the Europeans. Granted, neither of them had the technology to match the Europeans, but the Amerindians were considerably behind the Africans from point of contact.
Both of which make it far easier to subdue and eventually settle, should the incentives exist.
Yes.
There would only be trading for furs and small amounts of minerals until the industrial revolution. Then machine guns would pacify the shores and European steam ships would make their way inland up the Mississippi and Amazon rivers.
Imagine it. Belgian Louisiana.
>>713310
>They wouldnt peacefully coexist long enough for the global cuckings of the post ww2 era.
This, if Native Americans hadn't been wiped out by diesease there would've been much more resistance to European colonization. While I feel that the eastern seaboard would've still been colonized successfully, much of the great plains and the Rockies would still largely be under native control, but they could probably be settled with effort. The US probably wouldn't exist in it's current for either, as the increased threat from large Indian populations would probably lead to an increased reliance on the UK for protection.
>>713329
Iron working is good and all, but I think overrated. European colonies only survived Amerindian attacks because of disease drastically reducing their population. Else the first Europeans would have been outnumbered many hundreds to one.
>>713340
The eastern North America would have been no more colonized than West Africa. Trade with Europe created kingdoms in Africa dependent on European guns. The same would have been true with the Americas. Natives in Brazil and the North American east coast would use guns to secure goods for Europeans traders.
>>713344
And those Amerindian attacks were usually fended off by literally isolated posts of farmers and townsmen with whatever weapons they had lying around. If the natives posed a greater threat, and the potential rewards for colonization were still there, you'd see actual detachments of real soldiers coming over with the colonists.
>>713302
Central America is an example of American colonialism going quite a bit less horribly wrong.
>>713414
No you wouldn't have. There would have been no colonists. There just would have been soldiers and traders to manipulate native governments like they did in Africa until the Scramble for Africa. They would trade for everything like the French did. Give the natives guns for furs and such.
>>713440
Again, I'm not so sure. Look at the Russian colonization efforts of Siberia, which happened in a similar timeframe, and as far as I know, there's no large scale disease wipeouts of the various mongolian peoples as they pushed east. You do see an ever expanding network of military occupation alongside civilian settlement. And while it's not overseas, it's still at tremendous distance and expense.
If the Russians could do it for Siberia, why not other Europeans in America?
>>713460
I don't know much about slavic displacement of central Asian natives, though I'm curious about it.
The way I'm imagining it is that imagine every war Europeans had with natives but quadruple the number of native soldiers if not more. Europeans already had a though time trying to establish colonies with the benefit of natives being depopulated by disease. Companies couldn't find anyone willing to risk their lives after hearing about the continued failures and high death rate of colonists. Keep that death rate up for a longer period of time and the whole idea of colonization would fail. And it would just be too expensive to cut out a beach head and continually send troops there to pacify natives when there are other European powers breathing down your neck, especially when the same resources could be attained by simply trading with the natives at a fraction of the cost it would take to fight them.
And lets not forget the Spanish would have likely failed too. Without England learning first hand of the power of Spain attained form American silver, England may have never attempted colonization.
>>713460
>If the Russians could do it for Siberia, why not other Europeans in America?
Well it helps that Siberia was connected to Russia by land, and that there were no major competitors for it. Colonizing North America is much more expensive from both a fiscal and manpower standpoint, since you need ships, people to crew them, and more ships and people to bring supplies to these colonists, much easier to do all that overland with horse and cart. If North America had a more significant native population, we would've seen the Europeans playing more politics withe the natives, rather than risk the expense of full colonization, unless someone could pull a Cortez.
>>713551
Given the distances involved with the major population centers, you'd think that would hurt, not help. There's a reason that trade with the orient was conducted by sailing all the way around Africa rather than going overland, even though it's about a third of the distance.
>>713517
>>713551
Also, don't forget, the native attacks was a very small factor in problems with colonies historically. They're often far more plagued by trying to adopt agriculture in an unfamiliar climate, and just the usual logistical troubles of setting up new communities, which factor in way more heavily than sporadic Amerindian attacks.
>>713551
That's not really true though. Trade has always been cheaper and easier over water. That's why Europe traded with China almost entirely by land and why it used to be cheaper for some American cities just 100 miles away from one another to ship goods down the East Coast shore and up the Mississipi instead of just sending it by cart.
>>713440
Europeans had centuries of experience in fieldcraft and fortification. With sufficient men available they could have built defensive lines in one month that no amount of natives would have been able to overcome.
There would be a lot of jeeps and denim for sure
>>713617
And not enough food to support themselves even if they didn't have natives breathing down their neck.
Furthermore, it would have only been a matter of time until most if not all natives had guns due to trade with Europeans.
>>713645
They would bring enough with them to last throughout the initial engagements and can be resupplied and reinforced on a regular basis. Furthermore, the natives would not exactly magically learn how to employ firearms to the greatest effect,
>>713330
>Belgian Louisiana
Pig disgusting, any nation with their capital in New Orleans needs a Monarch from the House of Orléans.
>>714277
The same could be said of Europeans in Africa but Africa was largely uncolonized until the industrial revolution.
>>714816
Not him, But Africahad the disease element going the other way, even as late as WW1, you have Europeams dropping remarkably fast from the local bugs. Makes large scale settling unfeasible.
the indians wouldn't have amounted to anything
their transitory life style would have precluded them from forming impressive industries
>>714932
There was a lot of Malaria deaths throughout the Americas, but point taken.
I still don't think there would be any large scale colonization. The Spanish would have failed so the English would have never tried.
>>714954
Like Africa.
>>713302
Probably more like South America, depending on the level of colonisation that still took place. Maybe some European countries on the seaboards, but the natives hold on long enough to assimilate technology and form entirely native or mestizo nation-states.
Might have ended up a bit better than S. America, both from more favourable conditions (>>713310), and being colonised by someone less retarded than Iberians.
Not like Africa, but not like its current state either. Native Americans would still fall to clever politic plays and slowly creeping European settlements. Possibly the whole continent would be full of fortresses and castles built as European powers expand. The slower growth and higher population would however also allow Native Americans to acquire some technology.
So: 1500s. Spain colonizes the Caribbean. Cuba, Hispaniola, etc.
1600s. European struggles for Canada and the North of the United States. Aztecs fall to Spanish plots and are replaced with a subservient government. India style. Spain secures Central America. Portugal secures some enclaves in the Southern Pacific.
1700s. A few trade routes secured by European outposts across the Atlantic ocean. Horse nomads in the West and South of the United States are however hard to overcome. The coasts of Brazil, Colombia and Venezuela are all secured. If Incas acquire horses and shipsl from Europeans, they survive this century. Else, they fall like the Aztecs.
1800s. Incas are defeated in war, if they hadn't been beaten before, and are given surrender terms that make them a pseudocolony. Other smaller Native American civilizations that had managed to hold on in the Pacific are all defeated. Horse nomads remain the only threat in the continent. Conquest of India starts. Industrialization of Europe kickstarts at this point. A bit late.
1900s. The Americas are all fully secured late in the century.
2000s. Independence wars are fought. But you now probably end up with several more countries in the continent.
>>715037
>majority native populations ruled by Europeans
So it ends up a lot like Africa.
>>715195
not really, as there'd be tens of millions of european settlers
>>715227
I don't think there would be. Aztec and Inca would be stronger both politically and by population. The slow down in colonization would allow for natives to acquire guns.
A big part of why English in particular came to North America was because the natives mostly died of disease and it seemed like there was just free land everywhere to go around. In reality most if not all of it was either being farmed or were used as hunting grounds just years earlier before the natives were wiped out.
There would be a whole hell of a lot less incentive to send colonists. It would be easier just to trade with natives. Sell them a few guns for a few hundred furs and you turn one hell of a profit.
>>715423
How long do you figure it would take for them to develop a doctrine for using those firearms? Those don't develop overnight.
>>715423
what, you think there were fecken multistory wigwams everywhere?
>>713340
wouldn't the Europeans have just launched attacks on them there may have been more but are they more unified?
>>713340
Build up along the eastern seaboard means sooner or later campaigns would be mounted for more territories. In the end the results would have merely taken longer.
>>717878
It wouldn't matter that much because of their numerical advantage. Ships can only hold so many soldiers and it's kind of pointless to mount an entire invasion just to clear land for some shit kicking Englishman farmers when the actually profitable stuff like furs can be traded for.
>>717889
Do the English have a wormhole to the Great Plains? I was assuming they would be dealing with the semi-agricultural Amerindians of the East Coast, the Aztec, and the Inca.
>>717977
The worst possible mistake in warfare is to rely on outnumbering the enemy.
>>717987
After dealing with those on East Coast. it's time for the next move.
>>717996
Is it all the natives under one flag vs the English
or
The English land and get caught up in the massive tribal cluster fuck and using superior technology begin to push into the continent while play the tribes against each other
>>718026
>Amerindians weren't largely wiped out by disease
It's going on that premise.
All the tribes being under one flag is something that is on the realm of fantasy.
>>718050
seems like the British paly them off against one another while slowly pushing into the continent
>>717996
Anon, they could just trade for furs. They aren't going to invade the Americas just for some colonists. The only places Europeans colonists showed up in large numbers where places where there weren't many people to begin with, namely locations where disease wiped the natives out or South Africa where there were just pastoralists.
>>718007
>implying the shit kicking English colonists who could fight Malaria AND an Iroquois Confederacy armed with flintlocks.
For fuck's sake, there wouldn't even be a strong incentive to leave England for America if the land wasn't left vacant by disease. Europeans only took it because natives weren't using it. That wouldn't be the case if disease didn't wipe the Amerindians out.
Native Americans in the North had walled cities and a developing feudal structure, that was far beyond the tribal situation of Africa. Look up the history of the Choctaw.
If the Injun population had been given a few more hundred years to surge, forcing centralization and industry, they would have been in a far better position than Africa, whose only hope would be rapid, successful Islamification.
Remember, Injuns adapted to whiteboy culture pretty quickly. And many tribes recognized that, through submission and cooperation, they could be their equals. Blacks on the other hand still haven't figured that out.
>>718076
I'm fully aware of that. I'm just going on a military approach. The single (and huge) problem is logistics. That alone would be worth some serious study time.
>>718140
>Africa didn't adapt to European encroachment
>>713302
Probably just a huge Brazil-like thing
>>713636
We like denim because it's easy to bead on lol
Aahniin.
>>718140
But those tribes got backstabbed and weakened over time.
Abd blacks have been submissive and cooperative but the thing is that shit only works in cases were the power dynamics are equal and not "lol like you can say no Faggot"
>>718026
Not just the English. The French enslaved Native Americans in New France.
