Local Diseases

[podoh]

The most notable example is the colonization of the Americas, where both Native Americans and Europeans suffered greatly from such diseases.

In respect to diseases and immunity there is a difference between the Americas and Eurasia. Like Ludens said, there always has been some exchange over the Eurasian continent, both of diseases and their respective immunities. Such an exchange was only possible from East to West, because the climate differences weren't as big as when travelling from the North to the South. That's why the exchange between Europe and Africa in the course of history had been much smaller; therfore Europeans travelling to Africa had, untill the 19th century very poor chances to return alive, whereas this was much less a problem for travellers to Asia.
On the Americas there never was a great opportunity for such an East-West exchange, because the main direction of the Continent is North-South. Because of this small exchange, the native Americans had around 1500 a much less developed immune system than the Eurasians. So the Americans died in great numbers, where the Europeans - although hit by local diseases as well - could succesfully conquer and settle the Newe World.

My point regarding our question is: the diseases in Eurasia were pretty well spread, so the consequences of travelling would never have been nearly as dramatic as the events in the Americas. Like Ludens said: mortality wouldn't have been spectacularly bigger for a Greek army in India for example, than it would have been for a Greek army is Greece itself. (I'm not saying it would have been the same, because probably it would have been bigger, but not as spectacular as in your example of the American colonization.)

If you're interested in this whole exchange-of-diseases thing, I can strongly recommend the book "Guns, germs and steel" by Jared Diamond to you. Most of my argument here are taken from there.

[Klearchos]

Very informative post podoh, thank you.

[Ludens]

If you're interested in this whole exchange-of-diseases thing, I can strongly recommend the book "Guns, germs and steel" by Jared Diamond to you. Most of my argument here are taken from there.

I can heartily recommend that book. It sets out to investigate why it was the Europeans rather than the Africans or Native Americans that came to dominate the globe. Instead of assuming a racial or cultural basis, it looks at how geography has affected the development of technology, society and infectious diseases (hence: "Guns, Germs and Steel"). That could have been very boring, but instead it is a very informative and easy-to-read book that makes a good argument against racism.

Diamond mentions two other causes for the decimation of Native American cultures by disease. European society had access to far more domesticateable animals, and their germs. The cities of Western Europe were also very dense, making a very effective breeding ground for disease. As as result the European explorers carried more and deadlier pathogens with them than did the Native Americans.

[seienchin]

Of course in the conquest of america disease played a huge role. No denial. Bur european supremacy over the world was not in the 15., 16.,17., century. It slowly started in the 18th century and had nothing to do with diseases among their enemies.
Also what about other conquering nations like the mongols, the turks etc. etc. etc.. Japan is another nice example. They didnt rise faster than china and conquered 1/4 of it and the rest of south east asia, because of germs ot their superior society. The only conquest of the eruopeans where germs helped was in amerika and maybe the europeans wouldnt have conquered america so fast without them, but that they would have conquered is completly out of question.
It seems to be rather a problem of technology, aggresiv potential and military strategies. (Which would also explain, turks, mongols etc.)
And by the way Geography may be an important point, but still people from every thinkable enviroment had huge empires.

Still. I think I might take a look at that book. Maybe its focus is more on society and geography issues than on germs...

[Mediolanicus]

Of course in the conquest of america disease played a huge role. No denial. Bur european supremacy over the world was not in the 15., 16.,17., century. It slowly started in the 18th century and had nothing to do with diseases among their enemies.
Also what about other conquering nations like the mongols, the turks etc. etc. etc.. Japan is another nice example. They didnt rise faster than china and conquered 1/4 of it and the rest of south east asia, because of germs ot their superior society. The only conquest of the eruopeans where germs helped was in amerika and maybe the europeans wouldnt have conquered america so fast without them, but that they would have conquered is completly out of question.
It seems to be rather a problem of technology, aggresiv potential and military strategies. (Which would also explain, turks, mongols etc.)
And by the way Geography may be an important point, but still people from every thinkable enviroment had huge empires.

Still. I think I might take a look at that book. Maybe its focus is more on society and geography issues than on germs...

All thosepoints are explained it the book.

Germs is but one explanation.

And you right about the real supremacy in the 18th century and onwards, but that would not have been possible without the 15-16 th century conquests, in which germs played a big role.

[Ludens]

It seems to be rather a problem of technology, aggresiv potential and military strategies. (...)

Still. I think I might take a look at that book. Maybe its focus is more on society and geography issues than on germs...

Well, it's called "Guns, Germs and Steel". Germs are only a minor part, but important to explain why the advanced Native American civilizations folded so quickly when confronted by the Europeans.

[Rahl]

The only conquest of the eruopeans where germs helped was in amerika and maybe the europeans wouldnt have conquered america so fast without them, but that they would have conquered is completly out of question.

I don't know where i read it but i remember that the one of the first Spanish who landed in north america came back with a report that the area was densely populated. Maybe more then 50 million people lived in north america and most of them got killed by hepatitis or something that was brought by some french there.
I don't believe that the world would look like it looks now if there really would have been more then 50 million native americans in north america when the first settlers/conquereres came about 100 years after this first spanish guys. Especially when you think of the problems the american colonies and later the USA had with only 1-2 million native americans...

[WinsingtonIII]

I don't know where i read it but i remember that the one of the first Spanish who landed in north america came back with a report that the area was densely populated. Maybe more then 50 million people lived in north america and most of them got killed by hepatitis or something that was brought by some french there.
I don't believe that the world would look like it looks now if there really would have been more then 50 million native americans in north america when the first settlers/conquereres came about 100 years after this first spanish guys. Especially when you think of the problems the american colonies and later the USA had with only 1-2 million native americans...

I don't think it was 50 million in North America alone. It was 50 million throughout the Americas as a whole, and 25 million were in the Aztec empire and 12 million were Inca, so that's about 2/3 of the population at least being concentrated in Central and South America. North America, having no real empires with large cities, was much less densely populated.

[Badass Buddha]

Instead of assuming a racial or cultural basis, it looks at how geography has affected the development of technology, society and infectious diseases (hence: "Guns, Germs and Steel").

I would say that culture is an extremely important factor in the development of a society and its propensity for expansion. Some cultures are better at it than others.

Maybe its focus is more on society and geography issues than on germs...

Its focus is on geography's affect on the development of different cultures.

I don't believe that the world would look like it looks now if there really would have been more then 50 million native americans in north america when the first settlers/conquereres came about 100 years after this first spanish guys.

While the sedentary peoples in Central and South America would have probably held the Spanish at bay at first, I think that they, along with those in what is now Canada and the US would eventually have been worn down by the Europeans' superior firepower, and in the North also by the destruction of their sources of food. It would have been more brutal and taken a lot longer, but we would have done it eventually.

[Cyclops]

Interesting question by the OP. I think disease pathways were open across Eurasia and Africa, so in general diseases didn't evolve in isolated pockets.

Was there a serious problem in Southern Italy with malaria after the EB period? I seem to recall the Goths having a problem with the "lethal dews of Campania".

Its arguable there should be provinces where "plague" (in the sense of the M2TW mechanism): big cities of course but perhaps also swampy territories.

The invasion of the Americass was definitely aided by disease ripping the heart out of the big organised politcal entities.

Both the Aztec and Inca polities were hardly stable structures though. Divide and conquer was the order of the day, like the various East India companies.

The example of the Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch and British in S & SE Asia shows that aggressive European sea powers could conquer relatively large areas even without disease to assist, so long as there was political division to be exploited (Japan China and Thailand just managed to hold it together enough not to be completely carved up).

[Megas Methuselah]

While the sedentary peoples in Central and South America would have probably held the Spanish at bay at first, I think that they, along with those in what is now Canada and the US would eventually have been worn down by the Europeans' superior firepower,

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.

and in the North also by the destruction of their sources of food.

What do you mean?

It would have been more brutal and taken a lot longer, but we would have done it eventually.

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.

[stratigos vasilios]

If you're interested in this whole exchange-of-diseases thing, I can strongly recommend the book "Guns, germs and steel" by Jared Diamond to you. Most of my argument here are taken from there.

Didn't they make a 3 part documentary series on that book as well? I wonder how close the documentary was to the book?

[Zradha Pahlavan]

Didn't they make a 3 part documentary series on that book as well? I wonder how close the documentary was to the book?

They did. It followed the book quite well from what I saw.

Another good book about diseases and the way they affected history is "Armies of Pestilence".

[antisocialmunky]

"Guns, germs and steel" by Jared Diamond

That's pretty much thread. There is a synopsis of the book on teh wiki.

It should also be noted that diseases are less prevalent in sparsely populated areas so if you want good health, go to the steppe away from those dirty city dwellers.