Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Good, because I really don't want to hear about it either.
I mean if we are going to discuss conjecture, let's discuss conjecture. And don't give me your political rubbish "white-trash" crap and attitude. One of the reasons why Europe had alot of different diseases and suffered a myriad of plagues was because of poor sanitation and over-crowding....frankly one of the reasons why Europeans went westward in the first place, besides the promise of wealth, fame, glory and prestige....
The fact is that Europeans by the time they had reached the americas had a far more advanced civilization, militarily, from an industrial perspective and also militarily. How do you think they came, divided and conquered and carved up both of these continents? Do you think they wouldn't have been able to do so if they weren't? They had guns, weapons, ships, advanced miliatry tactics etc....we can go down the list, the ameri-indians were no match on many levels for European colonists....
Doesn't mean superior, means "far more advanced"....more advanced? Yes, very much so.......
Don't try and twist my comment out of context, it's a basic fact. if the amer-indians had done the same, been able to muster the technology and means to cross the Atlantic, invaded, and turned the "English" shires into britonic tribal reservations we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
End of story.....
In bold, how can a civilization be advanced (the most advanced in the world at the time) when they couldn't even clean, live together in a orderly fashion, destroy the countryside and cross an ocean yet not have the understanding that the Amerindians are to be treated with respect (not to mention Africans) ?
Even animals are better than that, just because an Elephant as the means to kill all the antelope by stomping doesn't mean the elephant should kill the antelope.
So to compare the culture of Europeans at the time to Amerindians is ludicrous, some cultures are more hostile than others.
Many civilizations existed in the Americas, and I'm not talking about the usual suspects.
Also when Europeans first arrived in the Americas the diseases they brought turned their societies upside down with all the infections, which went in the European colonists favour.
Europeans imposed their culture, religion on to the world because they thought (still do) they were superior backing up their claims back home with scientific racism.
Yes in Mesoamerica they may of did killing rituals or whatever etc but why be critical of them for?
When in England people went around accusing women of being witches because...
It rained for a bit too long.
We now know that many ancient cities existed in Africa, people in the empires traded with Arabia through selling slaves, exchanging ideas, food and raw material. Africans introduced many things to Europe...
The colonial era was more like the "cheating era" steal ideas claim as their own and then enslave them or ethnically cleanse the land.
EricOldTimw, you are brainwashed and have a Eurocentric view of the world if you haven't opened your eyes then that's your lose not mine
To the people who don't really get racism and how it affects a certain group...
Quote:
The African Holocaust is the greatest continuing tragedy the world has ever seen. It was also the most impacting social event in the history of humanity. Not only in terms of scale but also in terms of legacy and horror. It is a Holocaust which is constantly denied, mitigated and trivialized. The African Holocaust is white-washed and Africans denied their human value and treated as a people only suitable for slavery.
Holocaust TransAtlantic
The Maafa reduced humans with culture and history to a people invisible from historical contribution; mere labor units, commodities to be traded. From this Holocaust/Maafa the modern racial-social hierarchy was born which continues to govern the lives of every living human where race continues to confer (or obstruct) privilege and opportunity.
And in the 21st century the legacy of enslavement manifest itself in the social-economic status of Africans globally. Without a doubt Africans globally constitute the most oppressed, most exploited, most downtrodden people on the planet; a fact that testifies to the untreated legacy of Slavery, colonialism and apartheid. Not only is this reality in the social-economic spectrum, it is also experienced in the academic and political value the Maafa receives compared to the Jewish genocide.
If you can't see how the above reflects the real world then you need open that box of yours.
Now, the thread was about if Europeans didn't colonise the Americas so harshly, I do think the Americas would be similar to East Asia.
Some countries would be as rich as south Korea and some more like Cambodia.
English, Spanish and French would be spoken but as second languages.
Well, I agree that what killed most Indians was the pox and the flue...
Guns were useful because they used light guns with "granalla" or sharpnel, devastating effect.
Iron armors, good against obsidian, protected from any projectile.
Horses, psychological effect.
Plus, people like Hernán Cortez were professional soldiers, he was a university man that fought in Italy and knew all the military technology of the Renaissance.
Yes, industry was far more advanced, of course. Take all the work needed to build a carabela or a fortress like the one at Veracruz. It was the renaissance, plus at that time Spanish had been at war during 7 centuries.
Plus, at that time they were "jack of all trades", just as the Roman armies, they could build roads, fortresses and ships, had engineers and were very practical men.
16th century guns were not a military advantage. There was an initial, and short-lived, shock and awe advantage. In a full-scale war against undepleted American civilizations, those guns would not have won the day.
Iron armor offered good defense against arrows, but came at the expense of mobility. It did not offer good defense against slings. And the loss of mobility probably would have been too costly to justify in Mesoamerica and the Andes.
Horses offered mobility and logistics advantages. Against full-strength American civilizations, those advantages would likely have been overcome. And they would not have existed in the Andes or the Amazon.
There were professional soldiers in the Americas, as well. Consider, also, how the professional British military failed to overcome the comparatively irregular Revolutionary forces.
It took a lot of work to build Mesoamerican pyramids, as well. Or to build Andean roads. It took a lot of knowledge to cultivate the American landscape with fire. And it took a lot of knowledge to develop maize. It is fallacious to assume that pre-contact industry was more productive in Europe than it was in the Americas. We simply do not know.
Full-strength American civilizations would have had all types of diversified trades, and would have been well-suited to engage in total warfare compared to the conquistadors, who were more akin to an expeditionary force. In the midst of their internecine warfare, the European civilizations likely could not have afforded total war on the other side of the planet.
When we studied Native American history in school, we learned about many tribes. Chances are you don’t remember learning of Cahokia, a long-extinct civilization originally near what is now Collinsville, Illinois. First established around AD 600 and inhabited by a unique indigenous people, Cahokia was a civilization comprised of about 50 communities over 2,200 acres.
They built 120 earth mounds – some over ten stories tall – in the largest prehistoric earthen construction site north of Mexico. The Cahokians were advanced people who did not appear to be related to any major known Native American tribes. By 1250, Cahokia’s population rivaled Paris and London; at its peak in 1300, Cahokia numbered an estimated 40,000 people. It wasn’t until 1800 that a modern U.S. city would finally surpass that number.
After 1300, the population declined for unknown reasons and the city would lie vacant for another century.
Yeah, well, where are they now? LOL... I mean that's great, a very interesting read, but they didn't invade, conquer and subdue continents.....Europeans did. So while they may have been "advancing" at one point, around 1300, they dissappeared...
16th century guns were not a military advantage. There was an initial, and short-lived, shock and awe advantage. In a full-scale war against undepleted American civilizations, those guns would not have won the day.
Iron armor offered good defense against arrows, but came at the expense of mobility. It did not offer good defense against slings. And the loss of mobility probably would have been too costly to justify in Mesoamerica and the Andes.
Horses offered mobility and logistics advantages. Against full-strength American civilizations, those advantages would likely have been overcome. And they would not have existed in the Andes or the Amazon.
There were professional soldiers in the Americas, as well. Consider, also, how the professional British military failed to overcome the comparatively irregular Revolutionary forces.
It took a lot of work to build Mesoamerican pyramids, as well. Or to build Andean roads. It took a lot of knowledge to cultivate the American landscape with fire. And it took a lot of knowledge to develop maize. It is fallacious to assume that pre-contact industry was more productive in Europe than it was in the Americas. We simply do not know.
Full-strength American civilizations would have had all types of diversified trades, and would have been well-suited to engage in total warfare compared to the conquistadors, who were more akin to an expeditionary force. In the midst of their internecine warfare, the European civilizations likely could not have afforded total war on the other side of the planet.
Your kidding me right? Initial and short lived? Europeans came in droves!! That doesn't sound very short-lived to me? If it was....I wouldn't be here, I'd be sipping tea and crumpets and living in "Castle Donnington" in Leicester.....the ancestral home of my lineage. Oh and besides, alot of those Indians sure liked to use those guns and modern weapons once they could get tbheir hands on them. These weapons were the basic building blocks of all of the modern weapons that nations use today.....
British compared to what? 1st barely 2nd generation Colonists? That's European vs. European..... We simply do not know? We DO know, and it's obvious that manifest destiny revealed itself in the fact that the roots of European colonialism has given rise to modern nations in Europe and the Americas while the Andean road builders, the Wigwam and Longhouse builders have died out and/or been absorbed. They didn't stand a chance, their future and demise was determined the "minute" the very first European ever hit the shores of these continents, their era was over and a new one, a new chapter was begun, it's history and a fact. Maybe we'll see in 4 or 5,000 years where everything goes from here......doubt I'll live long enough to see it though. It's what we see similarly repeated throughout history, everywhere.
Full-strength American civilizations would have had all types of diversified trades, and would have been well-suited to engage in total warfare compared to the conquistadors, who were more akin to an expeditionary force. In the midst of their internecine warfare, the European civilizations likely could not have afforded total war on the other side of the planet
Pure conjecture and you're opinion, I have to disagree with unfortunately. Too many "would haves" in your text here. Actually it's the Europeans who WERE able to establish colonies, and engage in warfare on different sides of the planet. It's because of this "very fact" that they were able to exploit the 4 corners of the earth as easily they could. They organized, had a stringent system of laws and a complicated political system, established supply lines, had ships that could traverse oceans and carry vast amounts of cargo. They had superior weapons, like cannons, muskets, they had long before developed "crucible steel" for making string iron and steel weapons, swords that wouldn't break etc......besides, many of the ameri-indians thought initially that Europeans were "spirit-beings" or even "gods" ...I mean, come on, you can't be serious here?
I mean the Egyptians were advanced, but where are they? All of these great civilizations....look at Rome ( another European mediterranean culture ) I mean all of these great civilizations, where are they today? Maybe we'll eventually see the same thing and Europe will one day become a land of ruins, then again maybe aliens from Neptune exist and will colonize the planet LOL..
I mean, we are talking about hyoptheticals, the great "what if's" we can do nothing more than surmise and imagine...I don't know what to say.
Last edited by EricOldTime; 10-27-2014 at 01:30 PM..
I'm sorry but the reason why Africa is in such a state IS because of European colonialism. Africa had many empires, traded with Asia, Arab world and Southern Europe. So comparing North America in this scenario to current day Africa is false.
One thing is for sure indigenous Americans would be better off.
It seems you think Europeans are the only people capable of living non animal like.
Your kidding me right? Initial and short lived? Europeans came in droves!! That doesn't sound very short-lived to me? If it was....I wouldn't be here, I'd be sipping tea and crumpets and living in "Castle Donnington" in Leicester.....the ancestral home of my lineage. Oh and besides, alot of those Indians sure liked to use those guns and modern weapons once they could get tbheir hands on them. These weapons were the basic building blocks of all of the modern weapons that nations use today.....
What I was saying was that 16th century guns provided an initial and short-lived advantage. The hypothetical at the center of this thread is, "if the people of America had not been decimated by disease, then what result." If they had not been decimated by disease, you would not be here.
19th century firearms are a very different story. The increased use of weapons with rifling changed the firearm landscape. But the 16th and 17th century weapons were crude and were not an overwhelming advantage for European conquest of the Americas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricOldTime
British compared to what? 1st barely 2nd generation Colonists? That's European vs. European..... We simply do not know? We DO know, and it's obvious that manifest destiny revealed itself in the fact that the roots of European colonialism has given rise to modern nations in Europe and the Americas while the Andean road builders, the Wigwam and Longhouse builders have died out and/or been absorbed. They didn't stand a chance, their future and demise was determined the "minute" the very first European ever hit the shores of these continents, their era was over and a new one, a new chapter was begun, it's history and a fact. Maybe we'll see in 4 or 5,000 years where everything goes from here......doubt I'll live long enough to see it though. It's what we see similarly repeated throughout history, everywhere.
The point of the exercise is what you are missing. What if disease had not killed 50 to 95% of the native population in the 16th and early 17th centuries? I posit that the American civilizations would have more than stood a chance against European forces.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricOldTime
Pure conjecture and you're opinion, I have to disagree with unfortunately. Too many "would haves" in your text here. Actually it's the Europeans who WERE able to establish colonies, and engage in warfare on different sides of the planet. It's because of this "very fact" that they were able to exploit the 4 corners of the earth as easily they could. They organized, had a stringent system of laws and a complicated political system, established supply lines, had ships that could traverse oceans and carry vast amounts of cargo. They had superior weapons, like cannons, muskets, they had long before developed "crucible steel" for making string iron and steel weapons, swords that wouldn't break etc......besides, many of the ameri-indians thought initially that Europeans were "spirit-beings" or even "gods" ...I mean, come on, you can't be serious here?
The point of this thread is conjecture, and the central turn of the counterfactual is the Old World's disease. That is why these are all "would haves." This is not a history thread.
And European swords were broken by Inca slings. Those slings could kill horses at range with a single blow. Your understanding of history is based on euro-centric fantasy. Muskets were not superior weapons. They had short range and were inaccurate. European armor was bulky and limited mobility. There is a strong case to be made that the Spanish would have been repelled by full-strength Aztec and Inca civilizations. That the British would have been forced north by full-strength Algonquin and Iroquois civilizations to the extremity of the North American continent. Civilizations of the Americas, too, had stringent legal systems, complicated political systems, sophisticated supply lines, navigation weapons, etc. They also had complex agricultural and land management practices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricOldTime
I mean the Egyptians were advanced, but where are they? All of these great civilizations....look at Rome ( another European mediterranean culture ) I mean all of these great civilizations, where are they today? Maybe we'll eventually see the same thing and Europe will one day become a land of ruins, then again maybe aliens from Neptune exist and will colonize the planet LOL..
All civilizations rise and fall. The Egyptians were be replaced, in Egypt, by Greek, then Roman, then Islamic, then Turkic, then Modern Egyptian nations. What happened in the Americas is different. Disease destroyed the societies of the Americas, then European expeditionary forces played the remnants off of each other to finish the job.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricOldTime
I mean, we are talking about hyoptheticals, the great "what if's" we can do nothing more than surmise and imagine...I don't know what to say.
I don't know why you would post on a thread about a hypothetical if you believe that hypotheticals are not useful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idahoan Pict
The City the Bridge
You only have to read the Conquest of Mexico by Bernal Diaz del Castillo...and how an army of 450 defested armies of 300.000. Just read it. Or read Prestaon abot Cirtez and Pizarro.
You should read 1491 by Mann and Guns, Germs, and Steel by Diamond.
Diaz wrote 50 years after his time in the Americas and certainly had his own agenda; scholars look on his work very critically. I think your second reference is meant to be to Prescott. Prescott is a more reliable author, with distance, bibliography, and citation. But a lot of scholarship occurred in the 170 years after Prescott, including a great deal of anthropology, archaelogy, and genetics study. That subsequent scholarship is the subject of Mann's 1491.
Yeah, well, where are they now? LOL... I mean that's great, a very interesting read, but they didn't invade, conquer and subdue continents.....Europeans did. So while they may have been "advancing" at one point, around 1300, they dissappeared...
be interesting to know what happened to them LOL
That's where you have problems because you equal conquering to being more advanced - I don't I see it has being primitive and animal like.
I'm sure there are many other civilizations in the Americas that traded not with Europe but possibly with polynesians.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
