• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Alt-History Question - American Indians

RobRoy

Not A Mormon
Joined
Nov 15, 2007
Messages
15,117
Location
In the sandbox
Understanding that no society develops in a vacuum, I was wondering what the alt-history of the American Plains Indians would have been if left undisturbed (i.e. unencrouched/unconquered) by Europeans after they obtained horses?

Anyone?
 
Just a guess, but...

1492 - Columbus does not 'discover' the New World, and the natives live happily ever after.
 
Last edited:
149x - New World "discovered" by <insert Eurpoean country here>. Same thing happens.
 
The hypothetical in the OP presumes, since he mentions them obtaining horses, contact with Europeans.

Yeppers. Europeans, at least the Portuguese and the Spanish have to interact. Otherwise no horses and no rise of the Plains Indian people who used horses to support their nomadic hunter lifestyle.

Anyone want to put forth a serious effort on this question?
 
Yeppers. Europeans, at least the Portuguese and the Spanish have to interact. Otherwise no horses and no rise of the Plains Indian people who used horses to support their nomadic hunter lifestyle.

Anyone want to put forth a serious effort on this question?

Have you read Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel? It's an interesting book in its own right, and probably not a bad place to start in trying to answer a question like yours.

Part of the problem is that you'd have to spell out the rules of your hypothetical in more detail. So the Europeans just drop off some horses, then take off and nobody ever visits North America again? Are the Plains Indians exposed to smallpox and other European diseases? Do they receive crops, other domesticated animals, and other technologies, either directly or by being inspired by what they've seen? (For example, it's my understanding that writing has only been developed completely independently a couple of times in human history; most writing systems were either copied directly or at least inspired by an existing one.)

One of Diamond's points is that it's extremely difficult for a hunter-gatherer society to develop much technology. For the most part, hunter-gatherers need to be nomadic, and pretty much everyone is involved in food production. It's agricultural societies that are able to produce excess food that in turn supports specialists (scientists, craftspeople, political leaders, soldiers, etc.).

I'm not sure why horses specifically would affect the situation much. Apparently the Plains Indians did grow some crops in some areas, and maybe horses could have been used as plow animals to increase crop yields, but I'm not sure the Plains Indians had access to good enough crop species to make that realistic.

Anyway, hopefully someone with some real knowledge in the area will stop by and give some thoughts; I'm just a guy who read one book on the subject.
 
Have you read Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel? It's an interesting book in its own right, and probably not a bad place to start in trying to answer a question like yours.

Nopers. Thanks for the suggestion. I checked out the book and it does seem quite interesting. I hadn't heard of the theory regarding directional axes before.

Part of the problem is that you'd have to spell out the rules of your hypothetical in more detail.

You're right. I was leaving it reasonably vague to allow latitude for discussion, and not temper it toward my own thoughts.

So the Europeans just drop off some horses, then take off and nobody ever visits North America again?

How's this:

Instead of conquering the Aztec Empire, Cortes dies on campaign. I can provide some alt-timeline specifics if necessary, but essentially, the two sets of allies are equally decimated, which leaves both sides unable to continue to pursue the war. The Spanish decide to leave the area, with the hopes of returning and completing their action, but they never do.

Both the Aztec and the Tlaxcala are left in a very weakened state, by both the battles and small pox, and succumb to the lesser states, frustrated over being led to non-victories. These other states band together in a loose confederation with enough strength to throw back any incursion by the Spanish, but nothing compared to the previous levels enjoyed.

The influence of the Central and South American states now becomes one less bent on conquest and more bent on maintenance of their current areas. Not entirely peaceful, but certainly unable to progress up to North America as they might have unchecked.

Trade and influence is allowed to flow up into North America, but the Spanish are removed from the equation. Perhaps firearms become wider spread, more quickly. This is where I run out of steam to figure out what the Plains Indians might have become under non-European intervention.
 
Writing an alternate history novel, are you?

Well, if you're going to allow some flow of technology, then I don't see any reason why the Plains Indians wouldn't adopt it. I'd certainly be skeptical of any hypothesis that claimed that the Plains Indians would have ignored or refused to adopt useful technology; that smacks of the "noble savage" myth that I think has been generally discarded these days. Horses are, in fact, a good example: they were an unfamiliar technology that was rapidly adopted. I think you can find similar examples around the world (Diamond mentions several), such as the Maoris adopting muskets.

Other than that, I think there's so many variables that you could support a lot of different outcomes. Would they unite into one (or a small number) of empires or kingdoms, or remain mostly independent tribes? Even if they develop technologically in a European fashion, what differences would their cultural traditions and history have on the exact look and attitude of the society?

And of course, at some point the constraints you've set will have to give. Even if the Aztecs can't or won't expand, and the Spanish can't or won't return, what about the English, French, Portugese, etc.?
 
Writing an alternate history novel, are you?

I wasn't originally, just curious. But your questions prompted me to dig a little deeper. After that, I could see an interesting story-line going in that direction. I did something similar on this forum using the development of a French compound bow as a counter to the English longbow during the Hundred Years War. :D

Well, if you're going to allow some flow of technology, then I don't see any reason why the Plains Indians wouldn't adopt it.

Agreed. The Aztec/Mexica influence (and someone correct me if I'm wrong) had started to reach into North America at the time the Spanish arrived. With the fall of the Aztec Empire, that reach was almost immediately cut off.

If that influence wasn't cut off, but moderated, there's no reason to believe the Plains Indians wouldn't have done what they did when they encountered European innovations of muskets, bridles, etc.

Other than that, I think there's so many variables that you could support a lot of different outcomes. Would they unite into one (or a small number) of empires or kingdoms, or remain mostly independent tribes? Even if they develop technologically in a European fashion, what differences would their cultural traditions and history have on the exact look and attitude of the society?

What would your theory be?

And of course, at some point the constraints you've set will have to give. Even if the Aztecs can't or won't expand, and the Spanish can't or won't return, what about the English, French, Portugese, etc.?

Considering that the Spanish weren't returning with vast sums of gold, slaves and other new trade goods, is it likely that the other European powers would be prompted to explore the "New World"? I would think there would be something of a delay, and with a semi-united South/Central America would be less of a potential conquest and more of a trade-partner.
 
Do they receive crops, other domesticated animals, and other technologies, either directly or by being inspired by what they've seen? (For example, it's my understanding that writing has only been developed completely independently a couple of times in human history; most writing systems were either copied directly or at least inspired by an existing one.)
While a lack of beasts of burden would have certainly been a problem (llamas just don't cut it) Central American Indians had developed writing and math. Of course, horses did evolve in North America so I suppose you could hypothesize that they didn't go extinct here while you're at it.

One of Diamond's points is that it's extremely difficult for a hunter-gatherer society to develop much technology. For the most part, hunter-gatherers need to be nomadic, and pretty much everyone is involved in food production. It's agricultural societies that are able to produce excess food that in turn supports specialists (scientists, craftspeople, political leaders, soldiers, etc.).
Most Indians were agricultural societies - they had maize, tomatoes, peppers, and sweet potatoes for starters. For some reason everyone thinks the plains Indians were typical, when in fact the norm was agricultural societies in permanent villages and even cities. The Aztec capitol, for example, was many times larger than anything in Spain at the time of the Spanish conquest. There were also large cities in North America in the east and midwest (such as Cahokia in southern Illinois).

I'm not sure why horses specifically would affect the situation much. Apparently the Plains Indians did grow some crops in some areas, and maybe horses could have been used as plow animals to increase crop yields, but I'm not sure the Plains Indians had access to good enough crop species to make that realistic.
Main problem there was lack of water.
 
Last edited:
Most Indians were agricultural societies - they had maize, tomatoes, peppers, and sweet potatoes for starters. For some reason everyone thinks the plains Indians were typical, when in fact the norm was agricultural societies in permanent villages and even cities. The Aztec capitol, for example, was many times larger than anything in Spain at the time of the Spanish conquest. There were also large cities in North America in the east and midwest (such as Cahokia in southern Illinois).

Exactly. It was a very unique culture that developed mostly because of the arrival of horses.

So without European involvement (except for the horses, of course), what kind of culture do you think would have developed?
 
One of Diamond's points is that it's extremely difficult for a hunter-gatherer society to develop much technology. For the most part, hunter-gatherers need to be nomadic, and pretty much everyone is involved in food production. It's agricultural societies that are able to produce excess food that in turn supports specialists (scientists, craftspeople, political leaders, soldiers, etc.).
On that basis, then the North American continent slowly gets taken over by the Iroquois nation, and the Southwestern agricultural nations, as population pressure allows for them to incrementally expand their domains over the centuries.

Then Hitler shows up and kills them all since they are Untermensch, his rise having been enabled by a lack of an America to shore up the allies in WW II. :p

How do I love thee Godwin, let me count the ways.

DR
 
Then Hitler shows up and kills them all since they are Untermensch, his rise having been enabled by a lack of an America to shore up the allies in WW II.

Not at all- without the Americans in WWI, the allies still win, but don't completely trounce the Germans, thus leading to a much less punitive treaty than that of Versailles, and thus WWII is completely avoided.
 
Considering that the Spanish weren't returning with vast sums of gold, slaves and other new trade goods, is it likely that the other European powers would be prompted to explore the "New World"?
It is almost certain, if for no other reason than fear that somebody else would do it first.
 
There were horses in America before Columbus. They died off 11 or 12 thousand years ago. You could imagine a world where American horses survived. Maybe some explorers from a Great Plains tribe could discover the Island Where There Are Still Horses and learn to ride them.

We know that the Norsemen tried to colonize Greenland in the late 900's (A.D.) and the colony failed. The last few Scandinavians starved to death in the late 1400's, which is about the time Columbus showed up in the new world. It's not too hard to imagine a similar colony failing in Newfoundland or Maine. The horses run off to avoid being eaten by starving vikings, and get adopted by the natives.
 
It is almost certain, if for no other reason than fear that somebody else would do it first.

I hadn't realized fear was among the motivators for exploration and conquest.

Scott Haley said:
There were horses in America before Columbus. [snip]

True, but then I run into all kinds of problems coming up with a reasonable timeline with cultures having access to horses almost either their entire history or five hundred years prior. I'd really rather keep it along the lines of how the Plains Indians developed, and then extrapolate without European involvement for the most part as Dunstan and I have pulled together so far.
 
True, but then I run into all kinds of problems coming up with a reasonable timeline with cultures having access to horses almost either their entire history or five hundred years prior. I'd really rather keep it along the lines of how the Plains Indians developed, and then extrapolate without European involvement for the most part as Dunstan and I have pulled together so far.

I was thinking that the horses could have survived in some isolated spot where people rarely went until around 1500 A.D. when some genius said "Hey! We could ride these things!"
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom