Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
bilal_ali_2000
Baron
Joined: 03-Jul-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 409
|
Quote Reply
Topic: One of the two big ifs of American Histor Posted: 21-Sep-2007 at 12:05 |
For me one of the two big ifs of American history (i will post the second one later) is that what if the Native Americans hadn't hunted down the horse to extinction before the rise of civilization among them. Imagine that if they had domesticated the horse what a revolution it would have caused in their society and technology and lets not discount the fact that with much better means of communication Americans would have been far more united to fight the European onslaught. What do you think, i am especially interested to know your opinion Pinguin.
|
|
Richard XIII
Colonel
Joined: 06-Jun-2005
Location: Romania
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 651
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Sep-2007 at 12:08 |
Native American was mostly killed by diseases. With or without horse they couldn't live.
|
"I want to know God's thoughts...
...the rest are details."
Albert Einstein
|
|
Byzantine Emperor
Arch Duke
Kastrophylax kai Tzaousios
Joined: 24-May-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1800
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Sep-2007 at 12:14 |
This is a "what-if" scenario and belongs in Historical Amusement. I am moving it there.
|
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Sep-2007 at 12:32 |
Originally posted by Richard XIII
Native American was mostly killed by diseases. With or without horse they couldn't live. |
That's not true. In fact, what is well know is that some writers for political reasons (P.C., communism, etc.) tend to exagerate the impact of contagious diseases in the Americas, including in the U.S. While there are not clear numbers of how many people lived at contact in the Americas (estimations vary from 12 millions to 200 millions, which is not serious stuff at all ), and about how many assimilate by intermarriage to the mainstream (more than people usually things), we shouldn't repeat the myth of a massive extinction at all.
Pinguin
|
|
Lmprs
Arch Duke
Joined: 30-Dec-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1869
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Sep-2007 at 13:36 |
Originally posted by pinguin
...we shouldn't repeat the myth of a massive extinction at all. |
Yep, natives of America just evaporated.
Originally posted by pinguin
(estimations vary from 12 millions to 200 millions, which is not seriousstuff at all |
Right, how could those savages support a population larger than a few thousands?
|
|
Akolouthos
Sultan
Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2091
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Sep-2007 at 13:39 |
Originally posted by Feanor
Yep, natives of America just evaporated.
|
Surely they didn't just evaporate. They were hugged to death by well-meaning, considerate, humanitarian European colonists as part of a philanthropic project.
-Akolouthos
Edited by Akolouthos - 21-Sep-2007 at 13:41
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Sep-2007 at 13:45 |
Originally posted by Feanor
Originally posted by pinguin
...we shouldn't repeat the myth of a massive extinction at all. | Yep, natives of America just evaporated.
|
Nope, they are still there... People just don't see them, at least they go for theirs DNA tests.
Originally posted by Feanor
Originally posted by pinguin
(estimations vary from 12 millions to 200 millions, which is not serious stuff at all | Right, how could those savages support a population larger than a few thousands?
|
Savages? That's bigotry, fellow.
I see that you ignore everything about Native Americans. In fact, you speak like all of them had the same level of culture and technology.
Well, ignorancy has a remedy: study.
Yes. It is better you quit seeing Lone Rider and study the topic, before we discuss nonsense.
|
|
Akolouthos
Sultan
Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2091
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Sep-2007 at 13:51 |
I think, what we are seeing here, is a misunderstanding grounded in an overuse of sarcasm--to which I may have, regrettably, contributed. I believe Feanor was criticizing what he feels is the prevailing historical narrative, as were you, pinguin, albeit from a different perspective. At least that was how I interpreted it.
-Akolouthos
Edited by Akolouthos - 21-Sep-2007 at 13:52
|
|
Ikki
Chieftain
Guanarteme
Joined: 31-Dec-2004
Location: Spain
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1378
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Sep-2007 at 14:26 |
Originally posted by Richard XIII
Native American was mostly killed by diseases. With or without horse they couldn't live. |
Talking about this, Jared Diamond defend the hypothesis wich say that the combination of dense population and livestock became the reason of the more lethal characteristics of the old world disesase. I think that this is a correct point of view (plus an echological factor for tropical lands), in this sense if the americans could have horses, or could tamed buffalos etc they surelly could have a superior resistence to disease.
All in all, the tame of horse by the indians after some years of live with europeans put severe problems on the european colonizations, two examples related with the spanish empire: the araucans in the south, who after crushed defeats adopted the horse (and other things) and stopped the spanish expansion, and the more clear example (because the enviroment) of the comanches wich was a nightmare for the spanish settlers of northamerican plains and their allies, stopping too the advance to the north in the present state of Texas.
Edited by Ikki - 21-Sep-2007 at 14:28
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Sep-2007 at 17:48 |
Originally posted by bilal_ali_2000
For me one of the two big ifs of American history (i will post the second one later) is that what if the Native Americans hadn't hunted down the horse to extinction before the rise of civilization among them. Imagine that if they had domesticated the horse what a revolution it would have caused in their society and technology and lets not discount the fact that with much better means of communication Americans would have been far more united to fight the European onslaught. What do you think, i am especially interested to know your opinion Pinguin. |
I don't think the horse would have made a big difference. After all the horse that survived in the Americas, at the time of the arrival of the first immigrants through Bering, it was not the modern horse we know but a related species of the size of a dog.
However, I believe I can answer your curiosity that can be resumed in this:
Why the Americas was invaded by foreign peoples while Asia, Africa, India and the Middle East weren't?
There are several reasons for it, let's analize them:
(1) East Asia couldn't be invaded at all, particularly China, because the simple reason they were more technologically advanced than Europeans at the end of the 15th century! Actually, the dissaster of Spain in Japan shows it. (2) East Asian countries that were invaded finally, where never repopulated. Why? Simple answer: distance and huge local population. It has been calculated than in phillipines, for instance, only 2% of the people has some Spanish ancestry, comparing with most of the people in Latin America that have at least some drops. Phillipines it was too far away for immigrants to come. (3) The Middle east couldn't be invaded in mass; actually, Turkey it was invading Europe at the time. (4) Africa couldn't be invaded either. North Africa is a hard place to invade and not quite inviting for settling. Subsaharan Africa, on the other hand, it was a place plenty of diseasses. The average survival rate of Europeans on equatorial Africa before the 20th century it was quite low. That's why the continent remained mainly unexplorer up to the Victorian age. Only Southern Africa was mild and healthy enough for Europeans to come and they did.
So, the only places remaining are the Artic, Polynesia, Australia and the Americas.
(1) The Artic was never settled by Europeans, really, with the exception of Norses. Even today, most people that live in the Artic are Inuits, because no other people can stand such extreme cold temperatures for long. (2) Polynesia, although was invaded, it is a set of tinny islands, not very suitable for massive settling.
What remains? Australia and the Americas.
Both had something in common in the past: low density populations in most of theirs territories.Between both, they represent between both almost half the surface of the planet, and in practical term it was empty. How many people were there at contact? We know that Mexico at the beginning of the 19th century has only 8 million people, and Chile 800.000 people. And that after centuries of importing immigrants to those regions, besides the known fact that mixed European-Amerindian hybrids were usually very fertile, so it is not wild to adventure the population at those times was larger than at contact times.
So, how many people lived in the Americas then? Perhaps 12 millions like some estimations say. Only in two regions you could find population densities over the million: Mexico and Peru.
Now, if all that is correct, the Americas just lacked the manpower enough to resist by force the invasion of Europeans and others that arrived in wave after waves. Only high tech could stop that, but seeing the tortilla wall between U.S. and Mexico today, it is easy to see that when people want to invade, just do it. Europe at those times was the most fertile continent in the world, and exported large excedent of populations all over the globe.
That explain it, isn't?
Pinguin
Edited by pinguin - 21-Sep-2007 at 17:51
|
|
Paul
General
AE Immoderator
Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 952
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Sep-2007 at 18:13 |
Originally posted by pinguin
And that after centuries of importing immigrants to those regions, besides the known fact that mixed European-Amerindian hybrids were usually very fertile, |
You're in a little world of your own, aren't you? ......
|
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Sep-2007 at 18:42 |
Originally posted by Paul
Originally posted by pinguin
And that after centuries of importing immigrants to those regions, besides the known fact that mixed European-Amerindian hybrids were usually very fertile, |
You're in a little world of your own, aren't you? ......
|
What do you mean? I can show you evidence of what I say, anyways
|
|
bilal_ali_2000
Baron
Joined: 03-Jul-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 409
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Sep-2007 at 08:18 |
Originally posted by Byzantine Emperor
This is a "what-if" scenario and belongs in Historical Amusement. I am moving it there. |
I think that there needs to be some distinction between these what if threads. My thread on the sphynx was similarly labeled a what if thread. To me a thread belongs to the historical amusement forum if it introduces a completely foreign element to a scenario and see what happens while both these threads were created to discuss a very much likely possibility the Sphynx thread was created in light of a statement by a muslim cleric while this one was created because domesticating the horse was very much a possibility.
|
|
Ulrich Wolff
Samurai
Joined: 21-Sep-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 121
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 03-Oct-2007 at 17:03 |
Originally posted by pinguin
...we shouldn't repeat the myth of a massive extinction at all.
Yep, natives of America just evaporated.
Originally posted by pinguin
(estimations vary from 12 millions to 200 millions, which is not serious stuff at all |
Right, how could those savages support a population larger than a few thousands?
|
Some of the Native American cultures could very easily have supported thousands. The Anasawze (not quite sure how to spell their name) had a huge town built into the cleft of a cliff, that could support thousands of people, and it was very defensible. By the way please do not use the term savage improperly it makes you look like a fool. I believe you were attempting to insult the Native Americans, all you did was say they lived in the woods in French.
Horses would have greatly advanced the Native American. They no longer would have to move they're portable villages because they could travel greater distances to retrieve food, and water. Their agriculture would have increased dramatically with the ability to plow more fields making them even less likely to move their villages, because they could weather the winter with surpluses of food. As for changes in the military, they would also have a great advantage. The Comanche's are an example of this as some one stated before. The horse perfectly supplements the Native Americans forces, because of the bow which can be fired rapidly compared to the early gun powder, or even cartridge weapons, and they have shorter range. With greater speed, they could easily over come Europeans. Not to mention how they could use the horses as shields by riding on the horses side-ways, and firing around the animals neck. The Comanche developed this technique.
The Native Americans very much exist today. The ones who were not forced onto reservations, assimilated with the Europeans, and were for the most part bred into the hoge-poge that is "American blood". My current girl friend is a quarter Native American, and you can see it in her.
Edited by Ulrich Wolff - 03-Oct-2007 at 18:07
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 04-Oct-2007 at 02:05 |
Originally posted by Ulrich Wolff
Originally posted by pinguin
...we shouldn't repeat the myth of a massive extinction at all. Yep, natives of America just evaporated.
Originally posted by pinguin
(estimations vary from 12 millions to 200 millions, which is not serious stuff at all | Right, how could those savages support a population larger than a few thousands? |
Some of the Native American cultures could very easily have supported thousands. The Anasawze (not quite sure how to spell their name) had a huge town built into the cleft of a cliff, that could support thousands of people, and it was very defensible. By the way please do not use the term savage improperly it makes you look like a fool. I believe you were attempting to insult the Native Americans, all you did was say they lived in the woods in French.
Horses would have greatly advanced the Native American. They no longer would have to move they're portable villages because they could travel greater distances to retrieve food, and water. Their agriculture would have increased dramatically with the ability to plow more fields making them even less likely to move their villages, because they could weather the winter with surpluses of food. As for changes in the military, they would also have a great advantage. The Comanche's are an example of this as some one stated before. The horse perfectly supplements the Native Americans forces, because of the bow which can be fired rapidly compared to the early gun powder, or even cartridge weapons, and they have shorter range. With greater speed, they could easily over come Europeans. Not to mention how they could use the horses as shields by riding on the horses side-ways, and firing around the animals neck. The Comanche developed this technique.
The Native Americans very much exist today. The ones who were not forced onto reservations, assimilated with the Europeans, and were for the most part bred into the hoge-poge that is "American blood". My current girl friend is a quarter Native American, and you can see it in her.
|
Hi Ulrich. First to clarify that I didn't write the phrase "those savages" at all, and that was mixed up when quoting. If you know me you should realize I am always in theirs side.
Yes. Anazasi culture, like the cultures of Mexico and Peru had large number of people, not just a few hundreds. The estimations of 12 millions up to 200 hundred vary because people don't consider certain things that are important. It is true that Mexico and the Andes had populations of some millions each. Perhaps 5 millions between both. But that number doesn't add up to the 50 or 100 millions needed to complete the figure of 200 millions some scholars suggest.
The Americas of ancient times had large regions where the density of population was very small. The Amazons, Patagonia and the great plains had really few people per squared mile, even before they meet the invaders.
And I absolutely agree with your comments about the Comanches. Our own Amerindians, the Mapuches, not only addapted the horse but also the ox, sheeps and cows, that made them a more complex society.
And it is also true that Native Americans survived in large number. That's is true in the Americas as a whole but particularly in Hispanic America, where most people has at least a little (an many a lot) of the blood of our Amerindian ancestors.
|
|
The Canadian Guy
General
The Native Canuck
Joined: 24-Feb-2005
Location: IDK Im lost!
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 891
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 16-Oct-2007 at 18:50 |
Originally posted by pinguin
Originally posted by Feanor
Originally posted by pinguin
...we shouldn't repeat the myth of a massive extinction at all. | Yep, natives of America just evaporated.
|
Nope, they are still there... People just don't see them, at least they go for theirs DNA tests.
Originally posted by Feanor
Originally posted by pinguin
(estimations vary from 12 millions to 200 millions, which is not serious stuff at all | Right, how could those savages support a population larger than a few thousands?
|
Savages? That's bigotry, fellow.
I see that you ignore everything about Native Americans. In fact, you speak like all of them had the same level of culture and technology.
Well, ignorancy has a remedy: study.
Yes. It is better you quit seeing Lone Rider and study the topic, before we discuss nonsense. |
Savages!?! What in nine hells you calling my people Savages!?! Europeans can be very savage, they slaughterd people in the name of god. Who in fact is to be "peaceful". Man u need to study other cultures before you judge them. Oh BTW the Mexicas had better arcitecture than any European city. Even Hernan Cortes was impressed btw Aztec cities.
Edited by The Canadian Guy - 16-Oct-2007 at 18:50
|
Hate and anger is the fuel of war, while religion and politics is the foundation of it.
|
|
gcle2003
King
Suspended
Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Oct-2007 at 09:56 |
The Amerindians couldn't have domesticated the 'horse' because there weren't any 'horses' in the modern sense there to domesticate. A better what-if' might be 'what if they had domesticated the bison?'
Even if the bison could be domesticated, south of the plains, there weren't any large domesticatable animals around except the llama, which isn't terrbily much use at carrying burdens, pulling carts and ploughs and so on.
As Ikki pointed out, Diamond's analysis of this is the most convincing around.
|
|
The Canadian Guy
General
The Native Canuck
Joined: 24-Feb-2005
Location: IDK Im lost!
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 891
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Oct-2007 at 13:24 |
We ate the horses for our dinner...yuuum!
|
Hate and anger is the fuel of war, while religion and politics is the foundation of it.
|
|