Local Diseases

[Badass Buddha]

Superior firepower? The conquest of the Aztec Empire had little to do with guns, and was largely a success due to native allies and disease.

As you said, it would have happened later, but they eventually would have come back with larger, better equipped, and more advanced armies that would have won.

What do you mean?

In the US at least, our greatest challenge came from the nomads in the central plains, who relied on the buffalo for food. Because the trigger-happy (US) Americans slaughtered the buffalo almost to extinction for the lulz (those of you who played Oregon Trail know what I'm talking about), the nomads were crippled. While this phenomenon was not limited to the central plains people, it was especially pronounced there due to their reliance on a single animal, whereas other groups relied on a variety of animals and plants or practiced agriculture. Of course, for this to happen, it's assumed that the Europeans would have already subdued/annihilated the groups on the East coast and have large colonies there in order to be in a position to make furthur inroads, but I do not think that it is an unreasonable assumption, seeing how the European goods were in such demand, who would refuse a request for a "trading post/enclave".

If disease was non-existent amongst the Native Americans, then the situation may have mirrored Africa and India. Trading colonies and so forth that would have eventually developed into a total claim/conquest on the two continents. Then eventual independance, mass expulsion of whites, and many, many wars. The natives would likely never have developed into minorities, but it is exceedingly difficult to imagine a world where the whites wouldn't have a couple continents in which to run away from their mess in Europe.

I'm kind of picturing a situation more like apartheid-era South Africa.

And horses, don't forget the horses...

Actually, once the Aztecs and Inca stopped being afraid of them, I can't imagine them being very useful. The realms of the Aztec and Inca consisted mainly of extensive jungles and mountain ranges, where horses are craptacular.

It would be pretty stupid of them to bilndly continue eating something lethal for generations until someone developed resistance.

Yeah, that would be pretty stupid. *Knocks back a bottle of Jack Daniels and takes a drag on a cigarette before ordering Fugu*

[Nirvanish]

Sorry to go off topic again Klearchos but I feel I should mention a great book which details the effect of disease in war. Its called "The Illustrious Dead" by Stephan Talty. The book chronicles the impact of Typhus on Napoleon's Grand Army as it marches into Russia. I found the book in mp3 format( I need some way to cope with a long commute) and it is fantastic. If I happen to find the torrent I will link it on here.

[Krusader]

Sorry to go off topic again Klearchos but I feel I should mention a great book which details the effect of disease in war. Its called "The Illustrious Dead" by Stephan Talty. The book chronicles the impact of Typhus on Napoleon's Grand Army as it marches into Russia. I found the book in mp3 format( I need some way to cope with a long commute) and it is fantastic. If I happen to find the torrent I will link it on here.

That would be against ORG forum policy.

[moonburn]

according to my knowledge the missisipians had millions of people and most recent research says that in the Amazonian jungle lived millions of people who where decimated by plages brought by the europeans

to add to the lack of proper defences the native americans gen pool was less divirsified then the europeans so it wasn´t just a matter of being more accostumed to living with diseases but also how strong is your organism is about fighting those deseases and when we come down to that and pardon my germanic but the indians where "genetically inferior"

but if we removed the disease part of it then i´m sure the world history would have been far more bloody cause imho doesn´t matter how strong the indians where the europeans bloodthrist for wealth would have eventually destroyed them (at least politically) and enslaved them because europe can pump up more people then the indians could reproduce themselfs

as for claiming that it would be a bit like africa nowadays africa is the most depopulated continent in the world and had the colonialist powers wanted to mantain it they would have easily but the problems where ww1 and ww2 that 1st removed political power from europe and transfered it to America and depopulated the population of the colonialist powers so they couldn´t continue to send so many europeans to africa as they had done for america for 300 years


ofc if we think about it the reason why france portugal the netherlands spain and most importantly the uk lost africa was because they didn´t shared it with germany and austria-hungary and as france kept and uk kept sending men to africa the germans where getting crowded (and we all know hiw pissed people get when they don´t have their personal space) so when the war started the pissed off germans beated up the depopulated and happy french ofc one could put russia in the mix but as far as i know russia went well the way to the pacific so they had more then enough room

almost forgot after ww2 the americans started pressing the colonial powers to give them freedom so they could enter those markets and since the political power was now in north america the europeans had to concede to both the american and russian pressure since most freedom and liberation movements in africa where sponsered sometimes by several powers at the same time

an interesting thing was during the portuguese colonial wars where the rebels/freedom fighters had better guns then the standing army and received suport from urss cuba sweaden america france and so forth and so forth
and wheater people admit it or not the africans would have never won their independence wars without the "european" suport (in this case europeans also includes the americans and russians) the 1st african army victory over an european army was in somalia or nubia where an italian army was defeated but the trufh behinde it was the african king received weapons and military training from the french and in every african war for independence up until our days every single one of them as some europeans behinde it trying to screw someone

[Nirvanish]

Sorry about the mistake. I would still suggest it goes onto peoples' 19th century history must read list:)

[Ludens]

This is getting very OT. The EB fora are not the place to discuss colonial history (check the Monastery). I'd also be careful with phrases like "genetically inferior" as these are closer to value judgements than scientific statements.

As I am guessing that the OP's questions have been answered, I am closing this topic. PM me if you disagree.

Thread closed.