Native American Empire

[Ned]

Ethelred, the level of civilization of the Aztecs was the level the rest of the world was at just prior to discovering writing - i.e., at aroung 3300 BC. So I agree with you, if the Aztecs were on a different planet without Eurasia, it probably would have taken them 5000 years to reach the level of civilization the Europeans had at the time of initial contact.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by 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.

I haven't been talking about natural resources. Just the technology of metals. I don't see domesicated animals as being that much of factor since the Aztecs DID have a complex social structure as Ge Pap pointed out. Irrigation appears to me to be more important than animals. Domesiticated animals may lead to villiages an smalls towns. Irrigation leads to bueracracies, surveying, engineering, calender and reliable agricultural products.

Maybe I am missing something with the domesiticated animals but when I look at that I see villages not cities. Look at the various cultures that depended on cattle like Germany, Ireland and the Horn of Africa. You get villages. Look at China and Japan. Both used mostly human labor just as the Aztecs did.

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.

I concur. Converting saved few if any. Of course small pox didn't care if you converted either.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ned
. . . . and the Church which would have sought to protect their fellow Christian brethern.

I can give you one name that I definitely recall, of a man who dared to think differently from most people in his time:

Bartalome


The Aztecs actually did kick some serious Spanish butt the first time the Spanish tried to conquer their capital city.

But after the Spanish retreated, they left behind a little something -- small pox and/or measles.
So when the Spanish returned, they had their bloody work cut out for them.

[molly bloom]

" Big domestic mammals ...revolutionized human society by becoming our main means of land transport until the development of railroads in the 19th century. Before animal domestication, the sole means of transporting goods and people by land was on the backs of humans. Large mammals changed that: for the first time in human history, it became possible to move heavy goods in large quantities, as well as people, rapidly overland for long distances...The most direct contribution of animal domestication to wars of conquest was from Eurasia's horses, whose military role made them the Jeeps and Sherman tanks of ancient warfare on that continent."

(Jared Diamond, Guns, Germs and Steel, p.91)

The geographical limits of the Incan Empire coincide almost exactly with the range of the llama; the Mongol Conquest at its furthest extent, was partly governed by the availability of grazing for the horses. It's notable that one of their relatively few military defeats was by the Mamelukes, at the edge of desert/fertile crescent territory, at Ain Jalut:

http://www.strategypage.com/articles/default.asp?target=mongol.htm

[chequita guevara]

Maybe the West Coast tribes would have developed if there had been more extensive contact with the Chinese.

[Imran Siddiqui]

"Red men"? Excuse me???

He means as opposed to the 'white men', or are whites the only people that can be refered to by color?

--

I have no doubt that, left alone, the Aztecs, Incas, and perhaps the Iriqous would have developed civilizations as wonderous as the (real) Indians and Chinese, over time.

However, they probably never would have industrialized. It's peculiar to Europeans. Europeans are the only culture in the world which thought they were above nature. Everyone else wanted to live with nature and thus industrialization doesn't work in that mindset.

[chequita guevara]

Red Man is generally considered an insult or at least disrespectful. Not always, it's an iffy word.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


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.

The Caribs practiced widespread cannibalism, IIRC...

[Ned]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

"Red men"? Excuse me???

He means as opposed to the 'white men', or are whites the only people that can be refered to by color?

--

I have no doubt that, left alone, the Aztecs, Incas, and perhaps the Iriqous would have developed civilizations as wonderous as the (real) Indians and Chinese, over time.

However, they probably never would have industrialized. It's peculiar to Europeans. Europeans are the only culture in the world which thought they were above nature. Everyone else wanted to live with nature and thus industrialization doesn't work in that mindset.

I find this statement about industrialization simply amazing.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I find this statement about industrialization simply amazing.

It's true.

After all, why did the Chinese and Indians just stop before industrialization? The idea was that they respected nature and wished to live within nature.

The west was a totally different creature. Under their view of Christianity, they believed God gave the earth to humanity to do with it as humanity would. This lead to a disregard for living with nature. European scientists, like Decartes, dissected animals to see what made them tick. That would abhorant to the Chinese or Indians. They'd see it as cruel.

[KrazyHorse]

What an odd position to take, Imran...

[Boris Godunov]

IIRC, the Indians and Chinese both practiced animal sacrifices, didn't they?

I don't see your logic here. The Europeans were first to the industrial revolution, yes--but I don't see it as being something that wouldn't have happened eventually to the other peoples of the world. The pressures of densely-populated urban life, continuing social complexity due to economic growth and the impetus of warfare would have spurred industrialization in other cultures.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It may be odd, but it is also the truth.

It ain't just my position though. It's the position of the professor I had the most respect for at University. Oh, and btw, he's a biiiig leftist (in case you were wondering).

Industrialization requires a somewhat callousness to the environment. Not many civilizations in history have thought themselves so outside of nature as to rape it for progress (not that raping nature in some cases isn't warrented).

[KrazyHorse]

Exactly...

Europe's strength lay in its disunity, and the scientific/industrial revolution was in major part caused by the backlash against a thousand years of stagnation caused by scholasticism and dogmatism.

Men like Bacon had the benefit of being able to look back and see how much casting off these shackles had helped...and they then went the rest of the way.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
It ain't just my position though. It's the position of the professor I had the most respect for at University. Oh, and btw, he's a biiiig leftist (in case you were wondering)

Duh. And that's the type of namby-pamby leftism I can't stand. There are very few examples of societies that treated nature with any more respect than they had to, and China, the Muslim world and the Aztec Empire are certainly not examples of these.