Native American Empire

[Sprayber]

In keeping in tradition with speculation about history. Could the Native Americans have produced a nation to rival European ones if left alone? Or if the US had stayed east of the Mississippi, could the remaining Native Americans have ever really compeated with the US?

Answer for N. American and S. America if you wish.

[Bereta_Eder]

Not if they stayed nomadic I think.

Plus the ancient Civs that produced a more elaborate scheme like the Mayas or the Aztecs were man - eaters. The Conquistadors nearly vomited when entering a sacrificial temple where thousands were sacrificied by reaping their hearts out.

"Glorification" of american indians has some serious loopholes.

Not that english settlers who "donated" blankets infected with european diseases and wiped out whole villages by that were any better but still. Some indians were very bloodthirsty and canibalistic.

[Bereta_Eder]

(=not good for the deveopment of civ - scientific or other)

[Boris Godunov]

Left alone, I have no doubt the Native Americans would have produced a complex civilization similar to those of Eurasia. It just would have happened thousands of years later. The process of achieving urban civilization relies on many factors being met, such as availability of surplus food to spur large population growth, regions of dense population to spawn artisan classes, etc. Considering the way of life and population density for most of the Native Americans, I think urban civilization would have been a long time coming.

However, the Meso-American cultures were already creating urban civilization, but would still be over a thousand years behind Eurasia in technology, if left in complete isolation.

You should read Guns, Germs and Steel. It would likely answer your question about this far better than anyone here could post, as it examines the biological origins of civilizations and explains why societies developed so differently, depending on geography and the availability of food and resources.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by paiktis22
Not if they stayed nomadic I think.

Plus the ancient Civs that produced a more elaborate scheme like the Mayas or the Aztecs were man - eaters. The Conquistadors nearly vomited when entering a sacrificial temple where thousands were sacrificied by reaping their hearts out.

"Glorification" of american indians has some serious loopholes.

Not that english settlers who "donated" blankets infected with european diseases and wiped out whole villages by that were any better but still. Some indians were very bloodthirsty and canibalistic.

While the Aztecs certainly did practice human sacrifice, the Mayas were not known to do so. And it did not often involve cannibalism. Cannibalism was extremely rare among Native American groups.

The Aztecs were the major practicioners of Cannibalism, and some deep jungle Brazilian groups. But for the Aztecs, already a very violent and bloody culture, it was a matter of religious ritual, not nourishment.

Regardless, human sacrifice was just as prevalent in some early Eurasian societies, so I don't see it as an impediment to future civilization at all.

[Bereta_Eder]

Canibalism was not that rare in indianoi (sorry it's silly not to have 2 different words for indians and american indians in the english language so from now on indanoi=american indians). Nor was human sacrifice that uncommon.

Also the magnitute, the sheer volume and brutality of human sacrifice by the aztecs was unprecedendent.

Conquistadors were hardened warriors just after liberating the Iberian peninsula. When they entered the aztec temple and came face to face with thousand of women children and men having their hearts ripped out and then eaten by priests of that "religion" vomited.

Some Indianoi outdone anything previous recorded in human hisotry when it comes to sheer brutality, homicide and canibalism.

[Sprayber]

I believe the closest that the Native Americans really got was the Iroquois League but since they were located in the Eastern part of the US they came into contact with Europeans early and had no chance to get going. If the League had been somehow protected or had been farther away it might have been interesting at what they could come up with.

[Caligastia]

Re: Native American Empire

Originally posted by Sprayber
In keeping in tradition with speculation about history. Could the Native Americans have produced a nation to rival European ones if left alone?

I believe they could have, but I think they would have needed another couple of thousand years. Their main problem was isolation.

[monolith94]

The Mayans were indeed known to do so! In fact they were probably just as bloody. My main problem is with THIS statement:
"Not if they stayed nomadic I think. "
EXTREMELY few Native American tribes on the north american continent were nomadic, basically only the plains indians. Native americans built quality buildings, and although they didn't have the population that Europe had after the agricultural revolution, it is almost a certainty that they had a larger population than Europe before the agricultural revolution. The native american tribes used many methods to make the best game grounds possible. They used fire to clear out brush, small trees, and allow the bigger trees to thrive, which provided better habitat for game.
You guys should check out the Atlantic Monthly article on this for more.
Also the Aztecs only had MASSIVE sacrifices after great victories when they brought home lots of prisoners… ewwww

[Sprayber]

A better question might be is with contact with European civilizations, would some groups of Native Americans have borrowed and be stimulated by ideas from Europe and eventually be able to rival them. Or would they still have to wait to develop on their own.

[monolith94]

"Also the magnitute, the sheer volume and brutality of human sacrifice by the aztecs was unprecedendent."
That is… until Hitler/Stalin came along… also I'd REALLY like to see some sources Paikty

[Boris Godunov]

Amerindians is the commonly used designation for the American natives.

The only reason that the Aztecs brutality was worse than "anything recorded in history" is because such things were in Eurasia's pre-history past, and Eurasian cultures had thousands of years in which to conveniently forget all about it. Certainly the brutality described in many Eurasian myths and legends (even Greek) is quite severe.

Of course, there is also much speculation that the Conquistadors exaggerated the barbarity of Aztec culture a bit to further justify their conquest. Of course, the local tribes the Aztecs had conquered did not hesitate to help overthrow them (and in fact were instrumental in helping the Spanish do so), so that says a great deal as to how Aztecs were regarded by their contemporaries...

[Bereta_Eder]

That's quite a cumbersome word.

When The Conquistadors met the Aztecs and other Indianoi they had no reason to justify anything. They merely recorded what they saw. The need of "Justification" of the extermination of Indianoi came to american life much much later.

Plus European history even in the dark ages or even in the Greek dark ages has not recorded anything of the homicidial and canibalistic magnitude of the Indianoi.

[Bereta_Eder]

For Stalin your info is a bit biased, sorry if I keep a critical eye.

As for the Nazi Germans, yes they killed millions.

However I am pointing the gruesome canibalistic practice of the Aztecs who's magnitude is unrivalted, expept maybe by the Turks. (beheadment of children etc in the Armenian Genocide of 1.5 million of people).
But they were not canibalistic.

[MrFun]

The Iroquois partly brought about their own destruction by dividing among themselves during the American Revolutionary War, with some Iroquois chiefdoms choosing to side with the Americans, and others siding with the British. It was easier for the Americans to destroy the Iroquois Confederacy this way.

Who can know what would have happened had the Iroquois remained united, against the Americans, and fighting on the British side in that war??

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

You should read Guns, Germs and Steel. It would likely answer your question about this far better than anyone here could post, as it examines the biological origins of civilizations and explains why societies developed so differently, depending on geography and the availability of food and resources.

That is an interesting book -- I especially liked how the author explained why the variety of African animals were never domesticated.