View Full Version : Why are the American civilizations seen as tribal?
Everything I've read about the Aztecs, Mayans and Incas seems to say that they were past the tribal stage. They lived in cities, were ruled by monarchs, and had a number of achievements in the arts, architecture, engineering, etc. But when I played EU3, which is supposed to be about history, they are depicted as tribes with absolutely no technology whatsoever. Right now I'm reading The Maya, Eighth Edition by Michael D. Coe and now I'm pretty sure that the EU3 depiction of the Americas is horrendously inaccurate, but I was reading about the Magna Mundi game the other day and they have them depicted as tribes too, although in their game they're supposed to be more capable.
So the popular notion, even among history buffs, seems to be that the Mesoamericans and Incans were tribal and I'm wondering where that comes from. Do people just assume that they were tribes because they were Indians and they used stone tools or am I wrong and I don't understand the difference between a tribe and a state? I don't dare ask the Magna Mundi people because they seem touchy on the subject. I did try to argue that the Mayans should be given a higher level of government and I even included an excerpt from my book about their society and politics but the devs just ignored me.
I've been wondering a bit about that as well but I think that it comes down the game being Eurocentric in its design and I think it may also be a mechanic to ensure that the Indians don't develop to fast and thus resist the European colonization of the Americas.
Iirc mesoamerican cultures were ruled by many semi-divine dynasties, each with its own central capital...
So they were a tribal state, with alliances and internal struggles coming and going; this doesn't mean they were a backward country...
Tenochtitlan was one of the largest cities in the world at that time...
Advanced astronomy, hydroponics, writing system, urbanism, mathematics, individuals were able to assert dominance over large areas, structured societies etc...
They lacked iron metallurgy afaik, but their obsidian and bronze weapons were quite fierce: you can't cut down tuberculosis though :S
I've been wondering a bit about that as well but I think that it comes down the game being Eurocentric in its design and I think it may also be a mechanic to ensure that the Indians don't develop to fast and thus resist the European colonization of the Americas.
I've realized that about EU3 but I thought Magna Mundi was supposed to be more historically balanced.
Iirc mesoamerican cultures were ruled by many semi-divine dynasties, each with its own central capital...
So they were a tribal state, with alliances and internal struggles coming and going; this doesn't mean they were a backward country...
Tenochtitlan was one of the largest cities in the world at that time...
Advanced astronomy, hydroponics, writing system, urbanism, mathematics, individuals were able to assert dominance over large areas, structured societies etc...
They lacked iron metallurgy afaik, but their obsidian and bronze weapons were quite fierce: you can't cut down tuberculosis though :S
I guess this is where I'm getting confused, I don't really know what the word "tribal" means. I always thought it meant a more primitive society, but you seem to be saying it means something different. So this leads me to my next question: What does the word "tribe" mean, in an anthropological context?
Vladimir
02-03-2012, 19:05
Tribal systems exist in some modern countries. It's about how the society is organized and not their level of technology.
What does the word "tribe" mean, in an anthropological context?
It's a society, where its divisions and organization are decided by kinship relationships among its members...
It's a society, where its divisions and organization are decided by kinship relationships among its members...
Ah ok I get it now. That describes the Maya exactly actually.
Sasaki Kojiro
02-04-2012, 00:14
The Cherokees had their own newspaper and were basically as civilized as the american settlers. IIRC the georgia government just wanted their land and lied about them to Jackson, who either didn't care or was incompetent. That's what you get when you move too far towards popular democracy too quickly.
As for the aztecs my impression is that most people know about them having big cities and a civilization...
The Cherokees had their own newspaper and were basically as civilized as the american settlers. IIRC the georgia government just wanted their land and lied about them to Jackson, who either didn't care or was incompetent. That's what you get when you move too far towards popular democracy too quickly.
As for the aztecs my impression is that most people know about them having big cities and a civilization...
I've read that Jackson had been involved with Indian wars as a soldier and that he hated Indians as a result. The Cherokees sued the government to keep their land, the case made it all the way to the Supreme Court and the Cherokees ended up winning (IIRC). Jackson decided to ignore the Supreme Court and forcibly displaced them anyway.
I don't think most people know just how interesting they were, though. Michael Wood did a series of documentaries on the Conquistadors and went into really great detail on the Incas, Aztecs, and many others. They were definitely a different kind of people from the native americans north of Mexico; a very different kind of "tribal." I wish it was easier to find more good documentaries like those.
And yeah, the Cherokee got one of the worst deals in history.
I'm in the middle of watching that series on Netflix and yea it is really good. I kinda got the impression that the Aztecs and Incas were defeated through treachery more than anything else; had they been more cautious and guarded their rulers better things could've turned out much different.
Fisherking
02-04-2012, 07:52
Face it, Jackson was a bigot and his hatred ran much deeper than just the Redstick and Seminole Wars.
The first tribe he moved were the Choctaw who were his staunch allies in both wars.
They had founded their own school system in the 1820 and lived better than the settlers around them.
That in its self was part of the problem. Their land was better and more developed.
Jackson got much of his wealth as a land speculator. Cheating and bullying the Indians off their lands.
His treatment of the 5 civilized tribes was just the biggest land grab of his career.
Montmorency
02-04-2012, 22:33
Then again, Jackson adopted and raised two Indian children.
And despite all that for some reason Jackson is immortalized on the $20 dollar bill. What did he do to get his face on there anyway?
Sasaki Kojiro
02-05-2012, 00:42
Jackson first appeared on the twenty dollar bill in 1928. It is not clear the reason the bill was switched from Grover Cleveland to Andrew Jackson. According to the U.S. Treasury, "Treasury Department records do not reveal the reason that portraits of these particular statesmen were chosen in preference to those of other persons of equal importance and prominence."[4]
Huh, go figure...
I'm going to preface this argument by saying this is just my opinion - for the moment, just throw out what you know about "tribalism", Aztecs or Mayans, and the Europeans.
I think the word "tribal" was just a term, and way, to rate another societies advancements to your own, and if they seemed lacking in comparison (such as the Mayans or Aztecs in comparison to European powers when it came to certain technology), they would be considered "tribal". Tribal has its own definition and meaning, but I think there's more to it than that and was just adopted more recently as a way to describe a certain type of social structure - not that they, necessarily, were tribal in any sense of the word, but, more or less, were primitive in comparison to the people judging them. No one will argue that the Mayans or Aztecs didn't make great advancements that were well ahead of the rest of the world, but from a technological standpoint, militarily or otherwise, they were primitive, especially in the eyes of the Europeans;
They practiced human sacrifice on some level, their tools and weaponry were almost entirely limited to stone (obsidian), some practiced slavery on a massive scale, they didn't have ships that could sail across the ocean, and they had a vastly different idea on their origins compared to those in Europe (Polytheism vs. Monotheism). From a technological standpoint, they were well behind the curve. From an enlightenment standpoint, however, they were far beyond.
You would have to imagine what the Mayans or Aztecs would look like to someone who had never seen anything like them before - they were incredibly different, and their way of life would seem out of this world compared to something more personal and experienced. There were similarities in social structure that I'm sure were recognized (kings and queens, peasents, and what have you), but for the most part, they were alien to the Europeans in almost every way possible.
I think another point to bring up is that, while a group of people could be considered part of the "Aztec Empire", they were largely autonomous, and their sense of identity was only strictly enforced around their largest social hub. This is much different than Europe, where practically everyone identified with a particular culture group (French, English, Spanish, for example). Within the bounds of borders, it was almost exclusive; a vast majority of the people in Spain were Spanish and looked to their King or Queen to rule them. This was not so for the Aztecs, which was based almost entirely on tribute from smaller villages, which were then left to their own devices while being considered part of the whole.
The Lurker Below
03-30-2012, 21:56
sorry, not trying to oversimplify, but a here's a question response to the original question:
why are the scots referred to as clannish?
Brandy Blue
03-31-2012, 03:00
why are the scots referred to as clannish?
I think my post didn't appear so I will try again. I hope it does not result in a double post.
1: The word clan comes from Gaelic and so is associated with Scotland
2: Right up until early modern times clan loyalty was socially and politically very important in Scotland.
3: Even today many Scots feel a sense of pride in their clan. I have seen students in Scotland dressed for graduation wearing kilts with their clan tartan. Most preferred to wear trousers but some chose to proclaim their clan identity in this way.
4: People like to stereotype other people
5: Sometimes there might be an implied message in calling the Scottish clannish. I think the English used to think of the Scots as backward and calling them clannish implied they were socially on a tribal level. Later (19th century, I think) the English no longer thought of Scots as backward primitives but noble and romantic. Suddenly belonging to a Scottish clan was cool. I believe the system of clan tartans originated at that time.
The Lurker Below
04-01-2012, 15:58
thank you Brandy Blue. there you go OP, take the post above and in # 2 - 5 replace all instances of scots with amer indians.
Franconicus
04-03-2012, 16:47
Two thoughts of mine:
Tribal: I guess you would 16th century Sicily tribal, right?
I think that the Aztecs were very advanced i agriculture. Of course they lacked iron, the wheel and the horses. Getting this from from the Europeans and knowing that there was something interseting on the other side of the ocean would have made them developping quickly, i guess.
I also thing their society was very developed. These slavery thing and sacrificies should not be judged in a 21st century Christian light.
These slavery thing and sacrificies should not be judged in a 21st century Christian light.
I'll call slavery the "lesser of two evils", and considering that most civilizations throughout history practiced it at one point, but human sacrifice? That is an isolated practice and altogether barbaric - it doesn't matter how intelligent they are, and being Christian has nothing to do with it.
The Lurker Below
04-03-2012, 18:18
I'll call slavery the "lesser of two evils", and considering that most civilizations throughout history practiced it at one point, but human sacrifice? That is an isolated practice and altogether barbaric - it doesn't matter how intelligent they are, and being Christian has nothing to do with it.
abraham would like to have a word with you
also - what's up with cutting off parts of a babies wienie? sounds "altogether barbaric"
what won't people do in the name of religion.
abraham would like to have a word with you
also - what's up with cutting off parts of a babies wienie? sounds "altogether barbaric"
what won't people do in the name of religion.
Mutilation and murder are two different things, buddy. We could argue about it all day, but since this particular conversation is steering wildly out of control and has zero to do with the topic, I'll just leave it at that.
BTW, I'm not Christian.
I'll call slavery the "lesser of two evils", and considering that most civilizations throughout history practiced it at one point, but human sacrifice? That is an isolated practice and altogether barbaric - it doesn't matter how intelligent they are, and being Christian has nothing to do with it.
I could be wrong but I believe a lot of ancient societies practiced human sacrifice, however the Mexicans took it to a whole new level.
I could be wrong but I believe a lot of ancient societies practiced human sacrifice, however the Mexicans took it to a whole new level.
Most certainly a possibility. However, I'm more or less pointing out that while the rest of the world had moved on, the Aztecs were still doing it when the Spanish arrived. Slavery in Europe (on a equivalent scale) was probably last seen in the Roman era, and human sacrifice well before that.
AggonyDuck
04-05-2012, 15:40
Most certainly a possibility. However, I'm more or less pointing out that while the rest of the world had moved on, the Aztecs were still doing it when the Spanish arrived. Slavery in Europe (on a equivalent scale) was probably last seen in the Roman era, and human sacrifice well before that.
The Europeans were by no means averse to forced labour and after the conquest of America did implement slavery on a far wider scale than the Aztecs had ever done. As to human sacrifice, I wouldn't differentiate between sacrifying humans in religious rituals and murder for other motives like conquest and profit. They're both equally morally reprehensible in my view.
The Europeans were by no means averse to forced labour and after the conquest of America did implement slavery on a far wider scale than the Aztecs had ever done. As to human sacrifice, I wouldn't differentiate between sacrifying humans in religious rituals and murder for other motives like conquest and profit. They're both equally morally reprehensible in my view.
Sanctioned slavery was "incompatible with Christianity" (though I won't argue that their weren't "loopholes"). What some people do outside of the ruling opinion is... well... their problem, I guess. I didn't say they didn't, and whether or not they did it more is arguable.
And I'm glad your moral views are so finely tuned. However, you're attempting to turn the argument into something it isn't. This isn't just about what is right or wrong to us, it's also about what is right or wrong to the Europeans at the time. Popular opinion was that slavery was bad, and human sacrifice was worse. Holding them all accountable for something would be similar to me holding you responsible for what some psycho from Finland does. If we could prove that a vast majority of Aztec "vassals", or whathaveyou, were against slavery/sacrifice, I would accept that in their favor.
I would also argue that "murder" and "murder during war" are two completely different things. Equally reprehensible if you want to think of it that way, but still different.
Kagemusha
04-05-2012, 20:15
How would you then approach for example witch hunts, killing of heretics and religious persecution of other religions in Europe like Jews for example? Could such have anything in common with human sacrifice, as the people being killed died because of their religious beliefs? How does church sanctioned murder differ from human sacrifice?
How would you then approach for example witch hunts, killing of heretics and religious persecution of other religions in Europe like Jews for example? Could such have anything in common with human sacrifice, as the people being killed died because of their religious beliefs? How does church sanctioned murder differ from human sacrifice?
Heh, this conversation is taking a dangerous turn. I'll try my best to explain what I think without sounding like an ass... which is kind of hard considering the territory we're walking in to.
Innocent or not (probably innocent), being a witch or heretic, to me, would be considered a crime no different than one that someone committed today that carried the death penalty (and what about treason? That was considered a crime punishable by death for many, as well - it's just a difference in belief). Persecution, however, is more tricky. You would have to base it on what is known now as opposed to what was known then (in terms of creation "myths"). Still, it's hard to argue in defense of it, because it's definitely not a good thing no matter how you look at it (especially WW2). For 400-500 years and beyond, you would just have to put yourself in their shoes, when the Church was the absolute authority and what you believed in was the law. No one will argue that what the Church did back then was correct, but you also have to pity them for not knowing the greater truths... That still doesn't make them right, though.
On human sacrifice; on the one hand you have the Aztecs that sacrificed (probably unwilling, and probably slaves) innocents to appease a deity, and on the other, you have people being put to death because so-and-so said their deity said that was against the law and was one of the most terrible crimes. It kind of just goes back to the above argument and not knowing what is morally right in a world that is controlled exclusively by someone (God) that will never tell you himself/herself what is right or wrong. This may still seem like a grey area, but I personally don't consider them the same.
Franconicus
04-09-2012, 18:19
I agree, conversation is going a dangerous direction. Comparing the sacrifices of the Aztecs with the killing of heretics and witches ... seems to belong definetly into the backroom.
Madae, don't get me wrong, the Aztecs were a bloodthirsty and brutal, expansionistic and nastionalistic people (would not call it tribe!). However, they did it with an amazing degree of organisation and religious legitimation, which I guess, are typical for a well organized and developed culture. I the light of humanism fo course, it is bloody primitive.
HopAlongBunny
04-09-2012, 22:47
It seems to be a term that fits whatever definition people chose to give it; making one suspicious when no definition is given.
I remember talking to a guy at work who came to Canada from Somalia. He had no problem describing the social system there as "tribal". We were talking about loyalty and trust relationships; he felt Canadian bonds went: family, friends, then whatever...work, church, football team etc. In Somalia, he said tribe trumps everything; familial connections were unimportant, you may or may not even know who your "birth parents" were. The tribe raised you, fed and clothed you, saw to your education, and in his case aided his immigration to Canada.
The example just raises the question again of how you define that social structure and its relationships. What specifically makes it "tribal"?
What specifically makes it "tribal"?
Common close ancestry, dictating social and political order...
But in the 1800s, the word was used also as a derogative term, to describe what was perceived as an inferior society...
Well, I suppose that it matters what your frame of reference is. If you read Cortes's first letters to Emperor Charles V, you can see how impressed he was with Tenochtitlan, compared to his native Extremadura, for example.
There was a basic similarity between early sixteenth century Iberian and Mesoamerican society that held the conquered areas together. Call it tribal if you will, but helping out your family and those who were linked with you by patronage of different kinds was working in both societies before the Conquest. So was organized religion, and an aging Aztec noble witnessing the first autos-da-fe in Mexico City later in the century may have seen something familiar that reminded him of the days of his youth.
The more successful conquest cultures (defined as what comes about after an area is militarily conquered) have worked because they played off of the similarities that people found between themselves and their new overlords and vice versa. Or at least they thought that what they were doing was understood by the other side. James Lockhart has done interesting studies for this in Mexico if you are interested, working through Nahua-language documents for what he called "mutual misunderstandings" IIRC.
I think that ultimately a lot of societies are tribal at their core, in fact in one way or another all of them are. Depending on how far you're willing to push the definition. You could say without too much license that feudalism and indeed absolutism was pretty tribal with its focus on dynasty and how early modern absolutists considered their empires the patrimony of a certain dynasty.
The Wizard
07-13-2012, 16:27
In reply to the OP I would say that, first and foremost, you really shouldn't take the EU series, or the Magna Mundi mod, too seriously in the historical department. It's called Europa Universalis for a reason -- Eurocentrism is inherent to the series. Hence "tribalism" where there was in reality complex civilization, and hence backwards technology and total military weakness where there was in reality great competence. They are very fine games, but you should definitely follow the books you read before the games you play.
In reply to the OP I would say that, first and foremost, you really shouldn't take the EU series, or the Magna Mundi mod, too seriously in the historical department. It's called Europa Universalis for a reason -- Eurocentrism is inherent to the series. Hence "tribalism" where there was in reality complex civilization, and hence backwards technology and total military weakness where there was in reality great competence. They are very fine games, but you should definitely follow the books you read before the games you play.
True. I just figured since the game is supposed to be about history and caters to people who are interested in history I would see some degree of historical accuracy. Kinda sad that that's not the case.
Well, it is quite accurate as long as you accept that its a subjective version of history designed around the European point of view. Regardless of how nuanced, complex, and relatively 'modern' some of the native american groups were, they still never stood a chance at all.
Still, if you really want to take over the world with the native americans in EU3 you can. There's some good Cherokee AARs on the paradox forums.
I disagree with you slightly on the "never stood a chance at all" part. It was the mostly likely conclusion to be sure, but Hernán Cortés' group only numbered 500 men, his army consisted mostly of Tlaxcalan allies. It was an Indian vs. Indian fight. The battle for Tenochtitlan was one of the longest battles in history; the Aztecs put up a good fight. The same goes for the conquest of the Inca.
Anyway the thing that bugs me the most about they way they're depicted is that you can't even do anything if you play as them. You can't trade, your options for expansion are limited, you can't build buildings, your technological research moves at a snail's pace. In reality trade was an extremely important part of Mesoamerican society, their cities were essentially commercial centers and they had trade networks running all over the place. Mesoamerica was transitioning from stone to metal tools. The Aztecs were getting close to developing writing and were making other sorts on innovations, like mandatory education.
I know you can win if you play as them, but I don't have the patience to sit there and turtle for hours and hours on end when I know if they were more accurately depicted that wouldn't be necessary. I think that a Mayan city state or the Aztec empire would make for a really unique and interesting game play experience, so it disappoints me that they exist in the game as nothing more than filler. I decided I'm going to make a mod.
The Wizard
07-14-2012, 16:41
So you're essentially arguing that the Eurocentric nature of the game is justified? I think that's a very contentious claim. Especially because you seem to ignore the fact that the success of the conquistadors was very much in doubt in the actual timeframe -- they might as well have failed, and had they failed, the window of opportunity in terms of conquest would likely have closed quickly, especially when it comes to the Inca empire. Then it would have been more like Western expansion in the Asian seaboard -- a couple of outposts on the littoral of giant territorial states with whom the Europeans could never have competed on equal terms at such a large transoceanic distance.
Tuuvi: perhaps the Death & Taxes or MEIOU mods are for you. I know for a fact that the latter mod has a much better depiction of non-Western states, in the Americas as well as Asia. Which sadly leaves Africa, but even that is much better than in vanilla.
The thing is that even if the Aztecs had beaten Cortez, it wouldn't have mattered. The Spanish would have come again with a bigger force eventually. But the real killer, of course, was diseases. There is no scenario where the natives could have beaten back the Europeans, only scenarios where it takes slightly longer.
I agree about the natives being boring to play in EU3 though. Once again, this is because it was Euro-centric. The natives of the Americas never colonized abroad in an organized manner, nor did their economies lend themselves to the kind of aggressive mercantilism that the old world nations did; in EU3 terms, there's really nothing the natives can do besides sit tight and consolidate. Its a bummer though, I agree--it would be cool to start a game off as the Cherokee, mount a huge conquest of the Americas, and develop your own guns and ships before the Europeans show up. But, as cool as that would be, there's absolutely no historical context for it.
Well, I'm only talking about Mesoamerican and Andean states. Groups like the Cherokee were more tribal in nature, they didn't build urban centers and live in complex societies ruled by monarchs like the Aztecs and the Inca. I'm not asking to be able to develop guns and cannons before the Europeans and go on a worldwide rampage. I only want to be able to do the things they did in real life: send out merchants and attempt to dominate trade; build temples, barracks, armories, etc.; invent new technologies. Stuff like that.
So you're essentially arguing that the Eurocentric nature of the game is justified? I think that's a very contentious claim. Especially because you seem to ignore the fact that the success of the conquistadors was very much in doubt in the actual timeframe -- they might as well have failed, and had they failed, the window of opportunity in terms of conquest would likely have closed quickly, especially when it comes to the Inca empire. Then it would have been more like Western expansion in the Asian seaboard -- a couple of outposts on the littoral of giant territorial states with whom the Europeans could never have competed on equal terms at such a large transoceanic distance.
IIRC Atahualpa was planning on capturing the Spaniards and killing them, but he was going to keep the blacksmith and others he thought would be useful alive so he could learn from them. The Inca didn't have a market economy, everyone worked for the emperor so he had a great deal of control over what people produced and how they made it. This is pure speculation on my part but I think if Atahualpa hadn't gotten himself ambushed the Inca could have adopted iron and steel and started breeding their own horses very quickly.
Tuuvi: perhaps the Death & Taxes or MEIOU mods are for you. I know for a fact that the latter mod has a much better depiction of non-Western states, in the Americas as well as Asia. Which sadly leaves Africa, but even that is much better than in vanilla.
I will give those a look, thanks.
Kagemusha
07-15-2012, 06:37
The thing is that even if the Aztecs had beaten Cortez, it wouldn't have mattered. The Spanish would have come again with a bigger force eventually. But the real killer, of course, was diseases. There is no scenario where the natives could have beaten back the Europeans, only scenarios where it takes slightly longer.
I agree about the natives being boring to play in EU3 though. Once again, this is because it was Euro-centric. The natives of the Americas never colonized abroad in an organized manner, nor did their economies lend themselves to the kind of aggressive mercantilism that the old world nations did; in EU3 terms, there's really nothing the natives can do besides sit tight and consolidate. Its a bummer though, I agree--it would be cool to start a game off as the Cherokee, mount a huge conquest of the Americas, and develop your own guns and ships before the Europeans show up. But, as cool as that would be, there's absolutely no historical context for it.
Teotihuacan may have had 1 million people before no city in Europe. Eastern Asia showed the limits of european colonialism. Do not paint Europe with guns and germs as something uber and non stoppable.
Brandy Blue
07-17-2012, 02:17
The population of Mexico dropped from 22 million in 1519 to 2 million in 1600 according to this guy: http://www.chron.com/news/health/article/Expert-Native-disease-killed-Aztecs-not-1570996.php
Can that really be true? Blame it on European disease or on hemorrhagic fever like he does, his numbers suggest that something almost unimaginably catastrophic happened.
The population drop due to disease really was that catastrophic. I dunno about the native hemorrhagic fever hypothesis though, because the percentage of Native Americans wiped out by disease was just as bad in South America and further to the north in what is now the US. Also, if it was a disease native to North America, then how come it didn't affect the Spaniards?
I can't remember the source (it was a decent history book though) but I even remember reading that 90% of the North Americans died around that time, leaving the continent almost desolate, empty and weakened for the Europeans to colonize.
The Lurker Below
07-18-2012, 21:25
seems like a lot of posters here would find 1491 by Charles Mann to be a very interesting read
Brandy Blue
07-19-2012, 04:33
Also, if it was a disease native to North America, then how come it didn't affect the Spaniards?
I think we can assume that the Aztecs and other natives had been exposed to centuries of American diseases, just as the Spanish had been exposed to centuries of European (and Asian and African) diseases. Nevertheless, the American germs do not seem to have hampered the Spanish much AFAIK. I am at a loss to explain it. Still, I am skeptical about the native disease theory because such deadly plagues must surely be rare. I think its more plausible that the local fever merely weakened a lot of people, making them more vulnerable to a whole cocktail of deadly Old World diseases. Is it possible that alcohol played a minor role as well?
I could be wrong, but I believe that they had alcohol there before. I know of at least one tribe using corn and spit to create a sweet (although highly disgusting) drink.
Catiline
07-19-2012, 07:47
seems like a lot of posters here would find 1491 by Charles Mann to be a very interesting read
I looked quickly and thought you were talking about Gavin Menzies' 1421, which is one of those history books which should be hunted out and burned
seems like a lot of posters here would find 1491 by Charles Mann to be a very interesting read
I've read it and I really liked it, that book helped spark my interest in the ancient Americas.
Is it possible that alcohol played a minor role as well?
The Aztecs and others did brew a kind of beer made out of maize. I've read that in Aztec society intoxication was strictly forbidden except for the elderly, who could drink however much they wanted as a reward for all their years of hard work. So I don't think so.
Tellos Athenaios
07-20-2012, 18:11
I'm not sure about that. The scale and scope of the epidemics that swept through North and South America after first contact with the Europeans took decades to run its course, and de-populated entire societies. The battles and military campaigns are not what sealed the fate of the natives, biology and bad luck did. I don't see how the conquistadors' campaigns could ever have been objectively 'in doubt' when, should they have failed, they could just come back again and again while the native populations get smaller and weaker.
Actually at the time such a thing was very much in doubt: the business plan for expansion to those parts had yet to be established, so to speak. European powers were at each throats often enough that what happened in some god forsaken jungle was really "your problem" and at the very bottom of the long list of things to attend to. This only changed when it turned out a lot of gold and silver was to be found in the New World, funds that the Spanish (Emperor) desperately needed as they/he had mortgaged pretty much their/his entire empire to a few German bankers...
The Wizard
07-23-2012, 12:05
I'm not sure about that. The scale and scope of the epidemics that swept through North and South America after first contact with the Europeans took decades to run its course, and de-populated entire societies. The battles and military campaigns are not what sealed the fate of the natives, biology and bad luck did. I don't see how the conquistadors' campaigns could ever have been objectively 'in doubt' when, should they have failed, they could just come back again and again while the native populations get smaller and weaker.
I am not, but unless you allow for a situation radically different from what actually happened, the natives of the Americas did not stand a chance. Unlike Asia, the inhabitants of the Americas did not have a built-up resistance to Afro-Eurasian diseases. There. Is. No. Scenario. Where. They. Could. Have. Won. Not unless you allow for totally alternate reality-type scenarios like a great scientific revolution where the Aztecs or Incas or whoever develop means far beyond what they had in this reality.
*Obviously the fact that the Spanish lost control of their posessions with time proves that Europeans are not inherently superior (and honestly, who believes that kind of stuff?) but I don't think you realize the scope of the devastation or the determination of the European powers to get that gold, no matter what it took.
I'm sorry, but I don't ascribe to biological determinism (or any determinism, for that matter). Jared Diamond is a fun read but his determinism puts him outside the pale of proper historical analysis.
Sure, the Amerindian societies were devastated by disease, losing up to 90% of their population in some areas (on average 40-60%), but claiming this means there was only one option (European conquest) amounts to a strange postmodern blend of Eurocentrism and the modern fascination with biology, with a hefty dollop of convenient hindsight. In other words, you are denying the indigenous peoples their own inherent strength and resilience, imposing a narrative of the inevitability of their subjugation by biologically superior Europeans. That this Western superiority came about by chance in said narrative (which puts it apart from older narratives of European racial superiority) is a moot point, because the effect is still to deny Amerindians an active role in their own history.
The entire biological determinist argument ignores the simple fact that the Spanish (and Portuguese) conquest was a conquest of Amerindians by Amerindians. The Spaniards merely inserted themselves at the top of the redistribution pyramid we know as the "Aztec empire," replacing the three Nahuatl cities of the Texcoco basin which they had occupied. This replacement of an indigenous elite by a European one is what we call the "Spanish conquest," and it was a matter of luck and indigenous cooperation in societies unsettled by ancient conflict and widespread infectious disease. Had the indigenous cooperation been absent, no degree of pox-infected blankets could have helped the Europeans conquer the Amerindians. 50% of their population they may have lost, but that still left millions upon millions of people that the tiny bands of conquistadors could never have stood a chance against.
The population of Mexico dropped from 22 million in 1519 to 2 million in 1600 according to this guy: http://www.chron.com/news/health/article/Expert-Native-disease-killed-Aztecs-not-1570996.php
Can that really be true? Blame it on European disease or on hemorrhagic fever like he does, his numbers suggest that something almost unimaginably catastrophic happened.
I can't remember the source (it was a decent history book though) but I even remember reading that 90% of the North Americans died around that time, leaving the continent almost desolate, empty and weakened for the Europeans to colonize.
That was in the hardest-hit areas. Still, the numbers are staggering. Notice, however, how this estimate refers to a period up until 1600 -- long after the conquest. Ergo, the huge drop in population is not merely attributable to disease, but also to the brutal exploitation of the indigenous population by the new European elite, as well as the large-scale warfare conducted under Spanish auspices to expand their control north- and southward. Disease was not the only killer; rather, it was the most potent ingredient in a deadly cocktail.
I dunno GC, The Wizard makes some good points that don't just consist of modern sensibilities about equality. Mexico was one of the most densely populated areas in the world before the conquest. Even today Native Americans make up a good portion of the population in Mexico, Central America and South America. He also points out that over-exploitation and warfare were also factors in the huge population drop after the conquest. So if the conquistadors had failed in their first attempt, there would've been plenty of people left over to resist a second attempt.
But on the other hand, I've read that the Native Americans were more susceptible to European diseases not only because of lack of exposure but also because their populations have a lower diversity of HLA profiles due to the fact that the initial migrations into the Americas were very small. Plagues would've kept occurring over and over again even if the Spanish failed. So you could be right.
Also there's one thing I've been wondering: At the time of the conquest, did the Spanish or any other European nation have the technology/finances to send an entire army across the Atlantic over to the Americas? If they didn't, at about what time did they acquire that capability?
Ironside
07-24-2012, 08:13
The entire biological determinist argument ignores the simple fact that the Spanish (and Portuguese) conquest was a conquest of Amerindians by Amerindians. The Spaniards merely inserted themselves at the top of the redistribution pyramid we know as the "Aztec empire," replacing the three Nahuatl cities of the Texcoco basin which they had occupied. This replacement of an indigenous elite by a European one is what we call the "Spanish conquest," and it was a matter of luck and indigenous cooperation in societies unsettled by ancient conflict and widespread infectious disease. Had the indigenous cooperation been absent, no degree of pox-infected blankets could have helped the Europeans conquer the Amerindians. 50% of their population they may have lost, but that still left millions upon millions of people that the tiny bands of conquistadors could never have stood a chance against.
That discounts that the conflict was quite built into the Aztec system. In that case, the conflict would always show up.
And the conquest of the Inca took about 40 years. That's plenty of time to adapt and organize a stronger resistance if it's feasible. And the Spanish didn't hide that they were brutal conquerors for that long.
That was in the hardest-hit areas. Still, the numbers are staggering. Notice, however, how this estimate refers to a period up until 1600 -- long after the conquest. Ergo, the huge drop in population is not merely attributable to disease, but also to the brutal exploitation of the indigenous population by the new European elite, as well as the large-scale warfare conducted under Spanish auspices to expand their control north- and southward. Disease was not the only killer; rather, it was the most potent ingredient in a deadly cocktail.
True, but when it comes to loss of military power, diseases were unmatched. Even if you survive, you're weakened during the disease and might not recover fully from it. Armies are extra prone to having it and it's significantly weakening morale as well (something desperatly needed vs a technically superior opponent).
There's also the question of how much population loss a civilisation can take before it breaks apart. The civilized areas of Amazonas died out without any Spanish conquest, and iirc something similar happened in North America. Compare to the Black death. The repeating plagues kept the European population from recovering in about 350 years and had massive influence on the political map.
Also, the subjegation of regions outside the larger empires were already running far before 1520. So even if there were no diseases and the empires survived the first waves, large chunks of America would still been colonized. After that, it's harder to predict. The American empires might have lost after long and heavy combat, survived into modern day or even gone on the offensive with stolen tech.
The Wizard
07-25-2012, 11:28
The reason I speak so strongly about the absolutely foregone conclusion that was European conquest of the Americas is because it was, in fact, an absolutely forgone conclusion. I get it, you don't like determinism. That doesn't change what happened.
The only way the Native Americans survive is if the Europeans decide to ignore them (not gonna happen) or the Native Americans develop Penicillin.
I'm sorry my view seems Euro-centric, but modern sensibilities about equality have no bearing on the fact that history was, in fact, completely one-sided here. Every native American victory was hollow and insignificant in the long run. Its incredibly revisionist to suggest that there was any way they could have fought back in a manner that would prevent their conquest.
This post ignores most of the arguments I've made, just like the previous ones you've made. No "modern sensibilities" inform my position; on the contrary, a historian's sensibilities inform it. Until you address the historical contingency of the conquest of the Americas by the Spaniards in particular, I cannot take your position seriously. No matter how often you restate the neo-supremacist views of Diamond et al. Inevitability does not exist in human history, and certainly not in the particular event of the European takeover of the Americas.
That is the crux of my argument: not that I have some pet alternative history theory, but that the "inevitability" thesis, included in all these hard science-influenced popular history works, is damaging to our understanding of actual history.
(...)
The alternative history scenario isn't the main thing at issue here. It serves as a shorthand for something larger and more important: the essential contingency of all history, alongside the crucial role played by Amerindians in the conquest of their own societies by an alien civilization.
It is essential that people acknowledge the fact that the Spaniards won not by their own power, but carried on the back of indigenous effort. This forces one to abandon the hindsight-informed "inevitability" argument and to see that the fall of pre-Columbian civilization was a historical contingency that could quite readily have gone differently. As such, the Eurocentric view that sees Europeans (and their germs) as the only important actors in the piece, where in reality most of the conquest was done by the aboriginal population, becomes untenable.
Which, in turn, puts the lie to the Eurocentric view included in games like EU3 which depict Amerindian societies as totally backward and barbarous, taking away from them (and the gamer who wishes to play as them) their essential autonomy of action. Something they possessed in actual history: regardless of their long-term subjugation by a foreign power in history, they remained the central actor in the process.
Ironside
07-25-2012, 17:01
The alternative history scenario isn't the main thing at issue here. It serves as a shorthand for something larger and more important: the essential contingency of all history, alongside the crucial role played by Amerindians in the conquest of their own societies by an alien civilization.
It is essential that people acknowledge the fact that the Spaniards won not by their own power, but carried on the back of indigenous effort. This forces one to abandon the hindsight-informed "inevitability" argument and to see that the fall of pre-Columbian civilization was a historical contingency that could quite readily have gone differently. As such, the Eurocentric view that sees Europeans (and their germs) as the only important actors in the piece, where in reality most of the conquest was done by the aboriginal population, becomes untenable.
Can you give good examples outside the Aztecs on this? They had the minor problem of needing puppets to fight war against, so those puppets would always rise if the opportunity occured. And it says nothing on how they would respond to long term warfare. They would lose population probably for about at least a century, simply because of diseases.
I'm not sure of your point. Pretty much all nations would suffer internal instabillity during crises and won't usually suddenly ally 100% against the invader. That's nothing uniquely American, rather something you can expect. Nor that it wasn't a single nation.
Compare to Africa. In less than 50 years, it was conquered, compared to the 300 years before that. That's because of repeating rifles/machine guns/artillery/improved logistics,+ vs muskets/bows/spears/swords/(cannons?), not that the Africans suddenly started to behave differently. It was simply a tech advantage and that the non-unified nations didn't have large enough armies to compensate.
There's few nice tests to see how much "invitability" there was in a situation. Would a catastrophic loss or a major victory change things? Would the removal of the important players matter? Losing Cortez and Pizzaro would not stop the continous weaking of the American empires, nor would it stop more looting expiditions to the regions. Major colonies would already been established. Lesser inflation from the colonies, with the desire for more gold and silver would make Spain keep up the pressure.
Can you give good examples outside the Aztecs on this? They had the minor problem of needing puppets to fight war against, so those puppets would always rise if the opportunity occured. And it says nothing on how they would respond to long term warfare. They would lose population probably for about at least a century, simply because of diseases.
After the conquest of the Aztecs, the Spaniards used Indian soldiers to conquer the rest of the area.
Montmorency
07-26-2012, 05:44
In nearly every instance of early colonialism around the world, the colonizers pitted various native factions and nations against each other; the successful elements either then formed a client state to the Europeans, or were enslaved outright - yes.
However, for a long-term (at least up to the beginning of the modern era) repulsion of foreign colonizing attempts by American Indians,, there are few scenarios:
1. All westward expeditions are lost at sea or are immediately destroyed by hyper-hostile indigenes.
1.a. Tribes exposed to disease in any first contacts generally escape widespread pathology through luck.
This way, populations continue to grow or are at least preserved. Europeans neglect westward exploration for decades at a time, preferring to concentrate resources on the tense contemporary European political/religious situation and the Afro-Asian angle.
2. An early perception of generally hostile intent from the incoming Europeans by the natives, as well as a surprising and prolonged unity and alacrity in reacting to any attempt at colonization beyond small mercantile outposts, regardless of diminishing numbers due to assured pandemic.
2.a. This one is suggestive of a sequence of powerful autocratic leaders who happen to somehow figure out just what needs to be done to check the invaders.
Here, the Europeans take such losses that, denied a real toehold anywhere but the least inhabited portions of the continents, they voluntarily set aggressive maneuvers aside - leaving only handfuls of pirates and adventurers for the inexplicably cooperative natives to deal with.
To seriously entertain the thought that either of these could have come to pass with minimal alteration of the relevant circumstances is to be guilty of wishful thinking and, even worse, videogame logic. Reload the save and use hindsight to win the game? Simply ally with this empire here at this time, institute these reforms, swell the coffers with trade monies...
I might add that known historical events must of course be considered inevitable by dint of their having happened. Events in time cannot have "easily gone the other way" unless the historical variables are physically altered, presumably through time travel. I don't see a historical perspective that denies causality as in any way credible.
Final word: the Europeans, in historical reality, turned native "autonomy" into an instrument of their own subjugation. I will give you that it's right up there with disease and technology as a driving force in the collapse of pre-Colombian civilization across the Americas. However, ultimately all the crucial variables were, speaking broadly over the colonial period, against the Indian Americans. The Europeans triumphed and the escape hatches are exceedingly far-fetched.
Would you complain that the many peoples conquered and/or massacred by Mongol hordes in the 13th century are victims of supremacist attitudes since the consensus is that there is no way these nations could have militarily turned the tide against them?
Something that I had forgotten about but just now remembered: The Mapuche of Chile managed to resist complete Spanish occupation for 300 years. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arauco_War)
Would you complain that the many peoples conquered and/or massacred by Mongol hordes in the 13th century are victims of supremacist attitudes since the consensus is that there is no way these nations could have militarily turned the tide against them?
The problem is that there is a perception that the empires of the Americas didn't really amount to anything and that they where just a bunch of backwards savages. Basically they have received a similar treatment to the ancient Celts of Europe.
Ironside
07-26-2012, 10:39
After the conquest of the Aztecs, the Spaniards used Indian soldiers to conquer the rest of the area.
Fair enough. I did find that indian allies were the main battle force in a lot of the battles (far from all though). The few Spaniards present did have a profound inpact though, causing loopsided victories, by vastly smaller forces. Particularly early on.
Something that I had forgotten about but just now remembered: The Mapuche of Chile managed to resist complete Spanish occupation for 300 years. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arauco_War)
True, but it's similar to Afghanistan vs British India. It's more of a region not worth it, rather than military strength. Smaller attacking armies and regions fit for partisan warfare.
The problem is that there is a perception that the empires of the Americas didn't really amount to anything and that they where just a bunch of backwards savages. Basically they have received a similar treatment to the ancient Celts of Europe.
True, but that's not the way to do it. As Montmorency has been pointed out, the Spanish fought human opponents. If you instead apply video game logic, then you can twist it that the Americans lost due to stupidity that the Spanish could abuse, since the Spanish used tribal and internal divisions and dirty tactics to win. I'm doubt that's going to help.
The biggest problem is that the American nations lost and was wiped out. The second was that they were military inferior in most ways (not by logistics though afaik). So that ends up getting applied to thier social stucture as well, even when it's undeserved. So going back to the original post. The problem in a game occurs when you have social techs on one side and military techs on another. Take EU3. Now I haven't played it, but usually social techs and military techs comes more or less together. To be close to history gamewise you would need to have the Americans to have decent social techs research and haha lol on the military techs. That needs quite some planning for a Eurocentric game, in particular since mixing the techs works decently on Asia as well.
The Chinese importance is obviously displayed in that the Mongols used Chinese engineers and foot soldiers for the conquest of China and other regions. Sounds more like propaganda than anything else does it?
And the Lakota and other Sioux resisted the US Army well into the 1800s, despite being essentially nomadic tribesmen. I agree that its wrong to be patronizing about it, and that a discerning student of history would be doing him or herself a disservice by skipping over the things that made the various native cultures unique and interesting. There is a great wealth of complexity that is often glossed over, and that is a shame.
But even those tribes that resisted mightily reaped little or often no reward at all for their efforts. That is the point.
I don't think the two wars are comparable. AFAIK the US didn't attempt to settle the Great Plains region until the 1800's. The Arauco war, on the other hand, began in 1536 and lasted clear until the 1800's. The Mapuche managed to expel the Spanish from their territory and form a frontier along the border. They held onto their independence clear until the Chilean revolution. In a sense, they won the conflict.
True, but it's similar to Afghanistan vs British India. It's more of a region not worth it, rather than military strength. Smaller attacking armies and regions fit for partisan warfare.
Hm you might be right but the wiki article gave me a different impression, it seems that the Spanish made a concerted effort to take the region, and failed.
Anyway, while I still disagree that the Indians where doomed militarily against the Spanish I do agree that their eventual conquest was the most probable outcome, so I'm gonna give this a rest.
Ironside
07-27-2012, 07:53
Hm you might be right but the wiki article gave me a different impression, it seems that the Spanish made a concerted effort to take the region, and failed.
Anyway, while I still disagree that the Indians where doomed militarily against the Spanish I do agree that their eventual conquest was the most probable outcome, so I'm gonna give this a rest.
The Spanish did several serious attempts, but their numbers were lacking due to low interest from most Spaniards. Had the region been rich, the army size would've been vastly increased (possibly more than tenfolded).
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.