Native American Empire

[Ned]

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.

Two points: It was the Spanish in Florida that gave the Indians small pox infested blankets. Ponze de Leon spread the disease throught the SE when his army marched through.

On the Aztecs, yes they were so bloodthirsty that the every surrounding tribe hated them. Cortez made alliances with them to defeat the Aztecs.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Ramo
It's unlikely that any Amerindian civilization would have developed technological parity with the Eurasians unless they magically acquired large domesticatable animals (prior to any Eurasian invasion).

I think materials more of a key not domesticated animals. There was no use of bronze or iron in the New World. Without those they were stuck in the stone age even with domesticated animals.

[Ramo]

I thought Canada is fairly resource-rich in terms of iron and copper...

[Ethelred]

Doesn't matter if the resources weren't used. There weren't any civilizations in Canada in anycase. Bronze requires trade because copper and any of the metals that were mixed with it to make 'bronze' aren't found together.

Bronze wasn't just copper and tin as the ancients called a lot of differents things tin. Apparently they had noticed that different sources of 'tin' gave different results. Tin, anitimony, zinc and arsenic were all used in bronze making. I guess a lot of it was what we call brass today and of course some was quite deadly because of the arsenic.

[Ramo]

That doesn't mean civilization wouldn't eventually spring up in Canada. It'd just take a bit longer.

Besides, Northern US has plenty of iron deposits. And the Mississippi River Valley civilization flourished prior to the epidemics.

[GePap]

The Maya, Mexica (the area of central Macio, dominated by the aztecs but home to many other states) and the Inca all had civilizations as complex as any of the Ancient word in Eurasia. The rue measure of sophistication is not what your sword is made off, but how you organize the state and the castes. The Inca were top notch engineers, and had a complex logistics system. They also forced vast migrationas, much like the Sovies, to get a handle on the subjugated populations.

All NA tribes were farmers prior to the Spanish landing. the enitre Buffalo culture, and the Horse culture of the great lains developed independent of any europeans in the great plains from 1520 on- because the plain indiands were able to get horses, and realized that Buffalo hunting had various advantages that the tpe of agriculture they had did not.
It must eb noted that MsAmerican agriculture was far more porductive per acre than European agrcultur, which is why the Mesoamerican cities reached population densities much greater than europe, along with a significant lack of disease prior to contact with europe.

Had disease not striken close to 90% of Ameridian populations after 1492, i find it almost inconciable to think, unless one prescribes to racial theories of development, why native american empires would not have been able to integrate European technology over a few hundread years, as well as European foods and ideas, while keeping European powers at bay.

The intensity of warfare among Mesoamerican peoples may be due to the vast pressure of such large numbers of people in such small areas. It is important to note that much of Aztec warfare was ceremonial- capturing prisoners as an individual, to boost ones status in incresing the nuber of sacrifices to the Gods,was the primary aim of all Mexica warriors. Andean peoples lacked this- their armies were more professional, their tactics were based more on units, like uropean warfare.

[monolith94]

The more I hear about the conquistadors being sickened by Aztec rituals the more keptical I become of the places Paikty has been gathering his knowledge from.

To be frank, the conquistadors was an apt name. They were there to conquer, and to gain glory and wealth for the 'honor' of Spain. Anything to further their legitimacy could have been and most likely was used. Europeans have always been very ignorant of "savage" tribes. Right now I'm reading a book called "She" by H. Rider Haggard and it contains tons of stuff about canabilism, even though there were no recorded African tribes engaging in the practice… and this in the late 1800s!
If this bias and ignorance persisted until the 1800s, I have no doubts that the problem was even worse in Conquistador days, when they sent back reports to home about how they were winning glorious victories, converting the people to Christianity, and changing their savage ways.

"1. Acquirement and inheritance of private property."
Native Americans DID have personal property. They just couldn't understand how someone could own a peice of the Earth (and rightfully so, the concept is just horrid).

"2. Cities plus agriculture and industry."
In Central America and the Incan empire cities grew to quite large sizes. Agriculture was developed.

"3. Helpful domestic animals."
Llamas? Dogs?

"4. Practical family organization. These red men clung to the mother-family and nephew inheritance."
"Red men"? Excuse me???

"5. Definite territory."
Ridiculous.

"6. A strong executive head."
A laughable statement, considering how many strong leaders there were in Native American history.

"7. Enslavement of captives--they either adopted or massacred them."
In the North Continent this was more common, iirc. To say that all native americans ONLY adopted or massacred is ridiculous.

"8. Decisive conquests."
And how many European Conquests have truly been decisive? France dominated the continent at one time, as has Germany, and the Hapsburgs were once really powerful… Rome fell; their conquests all for naught. Alexander's Empire shattered soon after he did. So what, after all, is the point of this?

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Ramo
That doesn't mean civilization wouldn't eventually spring up in Canada. It'd just take a bit longer.

I never said otherwise. However it would have been a LONG time for Canada from what I can see. There was no civilization there. As in cities. Cultures yes, civilizations no. Without cities as trade and cultural centers it would hard for technology to improve beyond the stone age.

Besides, Northern US has plenty of iron deposits. And the Mississippi River Valley civilization flourished prior to the epidemics.

Iron is extremely complex to make. Bronze is much easier to deal with and it came from early copper technology. Iron came much later and even then it was used only where bronze was much the inferior material.

[Ethelred]

The rue measure of sophistication is not what your sword is made off, but how you organize the state and the castes.

Well its one measure anyway. What your sword is made of is not at all what I was talking about. What your TOOLS are made of, including weapons, is what I was talking about. Untill the Amerinds developed metals technology for something other than ornamentation they were limited to stone, wood, and similar materials.

Egypt had a highly sophisticated state. It was conquered repeatedly by peoples with superior technology. A sophisticated state means little when you simply can't fight as effectively as your opponents. Nor does it help when the other cultures are advancing economicly with the help of superior technology.

In no way am I saying the Amerinds couldn't develop those things. I was only stating that I think materials are more important than domesticated animals. Indeed that improves the odds that the Amerinds might have matched Europe in the future as the resources were there for technological improvement even without the domesticated animals of Europe.

[GePap]

The peoples invading egypt had complex military organizations, they were not just mobs of men with better weapons. Also, in the end, Egypt was there, those tribes not.

The Europeans won in America not because their weapons or tools were so much better: Obsidian swords were just as deadly as steel ones. Had native American populations not been utterly decimated, and thus their social systems discredited and brought to collapse, there is no way the Europeans would have been able to bring enough people on those ricketty ships to conquer the continents. We know know that populations in central mexico did not stop declining until about the mid 17th century, well over 100 years after contact, an it took well into the 19th for populations to fully recover to pre-conquest levels. No society can survive such a massive dmeographic collapse.

[St Leo]

This is sort of canibalism is unprecedented in history both in volume and in practice and only depicts the greusome monstrocity of an almost "satanic" societal scheme.

Look, they had to do it. If those human sacrifices weren't performed, the universe would have come to an end at the end of the next 70-year cycle! The lives of a few thousand are worth the salvation of the entire world.

[Ned]

Actually, an interesting question here would be whether the Spanish would have destroyed the native empires had they instantly converted to Catholism. This would have set off an internal struggle in Spain between those who would have wanted to conquer the natives regardless for their gold, and the Church which would have sought to protect their fellow Christian brethern.

[SlowwHand]

Had no one ever come to North America and taken over the land, Native American Indians would still be scraping buffalo hides with rocks.

[Ethelred]

Ge Pap, the question isn't about the Europeans and the conquest of the New World. The question is about what would happen without that. You are discussing something else entirely.

For the New World civilizations to match the European nations they would have to manage some comparable achievments. Like find the other side of the world and establish permanent trade. That takes technology as well as a civilization.

I think it likely that eventually some Amerind civilization would eventually manage to get out of the stone age. Maybe even the Incasbut they would have had to develop writing. The Central Americans had a better chance since they had writing. I do think it would have taken thousands of years to reach level that Spain was at when Cortez destroyed the Aztecs. It took a long time for Europe to go from the Copper age to the Age of Exploration and they had the advantage of contact with many other areas whereas things were more limited in the New World.

[Boris Godunov]

Ethelred, I disagree vis-a-vis tools and domesticated animals. I think there is a very strong case that domesticated animals is a far more important factor towards developing a complex social structure (civilization) than the availability of natural resources.

And frankly, given the first-hand accounts of Spanish conquistadors, I don't think they would have cared one way or the other if the natives had instantly converted or not. They were out to conquer, and they did so with the kind of bloodthirstiness that made them apt opponents of the Aztecs.

Oh, and Sloww, don't be such a goddamned racist.