Alt-History Question - American Indians

[RobRoy]

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!"

Yes, but then the Aztec likely expands into North America and the influence on the Plains Indians is one of a conquered people absorbed into the empire.

 

[shadron]

Yes, but then the Aztec likely expands into North America and the influence on the Plains Indians is one of a conquered people absorbed into the empire.

You missed DRs mention of the Iriquois nation. They were probably the most politically evolved, diverse Indian group in America. They picked up European technology extremely fast, and came quite near to making central Canada andNew York/Michigan a native Indian nation.

The 5 nations in the southeastern US proved to be amenable to white man's civilization, down to the point of buying slaves, until Andy Jackson shuttled them all off to Oklahoma. I don't think they were that far behind feudal Europe.

 

[drkitten]

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.

My understanding is almost exactly the opposite; the Aztec/Mexica influence in North America (meaning the present-day US) was actually on the wane at the time of Cortez' arrival, and in fact the Aztecs themselves were on the decline.

The reasons were weather-related. Basically, there had been a long period of long-term, widespread droughts across northern Mexico and the southwestern US, and many of the cities had been abandoned in the hundred or so years before Cortez' arrival because they could no longer support their populations. So while it's possible that better weather might arrive and support a revitalized and expanded Aztec empire, it's also possible that it might simply have collapsed "all the way to the ground" and leave a power vacuum for the nascent Navajo empire or something to fill.

 

[Dragoonster]

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?

As you say, they were nomadic hunters. They had no pressure, from other competing humans or natural limitations, to settle in one spot for long. No reason to engineer cities, no need to even explore that possibility (aside from a couple examples, which weren't self-sustaining). I'd theorize that they were privy to a buffet up north, while south amerinds found subsistence far more difficult, leading to a greater tech/social lifestyle.

If the plains tribes had continued as is until 2008, I wouldn't expect them to be much different than they were in 1308, as long as rivers still flowed, population remained fairly small relative to need, and large game animals such as the buffalo still flourished.

Nothern American indians were very primative, and I don't see why they would've advanced much beyond what they were. The largest variable would be their own population.


As for aztec/mexica influence, it would've taken hundreds of years at the pace they were expanding. They had plenty to keep them occupied in now-Mexico and the Yucatan. If they developed a highly imperialist mentality (and dispensed with resource-wasting garland wars and the like) they may have conquered the North American indians, but that's like, conjecture within conjecture.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

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

Well, now you know.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Rob, Dunstan's suggestion of GG&S is excellent if you want to persue a gedankenubung about how history might have been different if base societial factors had been changed. It's also one of the best non-fiction books I've ever read up there with Cosmos and The Ancestors tale. Truly we live in the golden age of popular scientific non-fiction.

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!"

If we're going to go alt-hist, we might as well go all out and put other species that went extinct in the late-Pleistocene into play. There were camel species in North America and they would have been very useful in the southwest had they survived. Getting back to Diamond's accounting of large domesticable herbivores they may have made a difference.

That said, I think, in real history, given what we know about European conquests of Africa, the Middle East, India and parts of Asia that ultimately it was not the presence or lack of certain livestock species that resulted in post-Columbian American colonization patterns, but the other technological advents that accompanied European livestock technology.

My only caveat to that conclusion comes from a National Geographic article by Diamond himself where he postulates a domesticated rhino serving as the cavalry vehicle for Bantu societies marching on Rome, but only because Bantu's had mastered metal weapons unlike the Native Americans which had not.

Rob, you've presented to me, someone who is not a big fan of alt-hist, some interesting conjecture.

 

[RobRoy]

My understanding is almost exactly the opposite; the Aztec/Mexica influence in North America (meaning the present-day US) was actually on the wane at the time of Cortez' arrival, and in fact the Aztecs themselves were on the decline.

I sit corrected and appreciate the information.

You missed DRs mention of the Iriquois nation. They were probably the most politically evolved, diverse Indian group in America. They picked up European technology extremely fast, and came quite near to making central Canada andNew York/Michigan a native Indian nation.

Actually, I didn't.

I was allowing others to comment before throwing my hat into that ring where I have less background information than I do with the Aztec (and my Aztec history is limited at best). DR's end assertion leaps too far ahead to be "realistic" in my opinion, even in an alt-history case. The loss of the America's, especially their wealth, resources, and drive for expansion would have had vast repercussions on all the major players. So much so that I can't even begin to conceive of an alt-history timeline that could take in that scale and scope. Granted, I'm only a poor, pale, wannabe, armchair alt-historian, but it seems far from likely that events would not have continued along anything that would have given rise to Hitler and Nazi Germany.

Not that a similar genocidal maniac couldn't have ravaged Europe, but I don't see Hitler coming into the same power struggle. Even if we can get to a similar outcome as that of World War I, as Madalch asserts, without the Americas the end result, and thus the next stage, are much different.

To continue though, removing European influence as I have proposed would mean removing the unity and technological advantage that the semi-peaceful Iroquois (Haudenosaunee) had over the neighboring tribes. It was their unity that made them powerful allies to the Europeans, who then armed them. They certainly didn't have the population that the Aztec/Mexica had. At the height of their power in the mid 1600s, under European influence, they only had 12,000 to 18,000 members compared to the 20 million the Aztec's boasted some 200 years prior.

I'm also not convinced that the Iroquois (Haudenosaunee, People of the Longhouse) would have expanded as quickly or as thoroughly as DR suggested. They were not nearly as militaristic or expantionistic as the Aztec Empire, and their culture was not conquest-based, especially with the establishment of the Gayanashagowa (Great Law of Peace for you folk at home). If we accept Dragoonster's assertion (and I see no reason not to) of a couple hundred years for Aztec/Mexica influence (assuming the Aztec Empire survived its waning period, as provided by drkitten) to creep up into North America and have any impact on the Plains Indians, it would likely have taken much longer for the Iroquois influence to reach nearly that far. The Aztecs would have been firmly entrenched and would have presented a real threat to the Iroquois.

The Aztecs were just that much further along than the Iroquois at the same time period, with a greater drive for conquest and militaristic base.

As you say, they were nomadic hunters. [snip]

So they would have been almost exactly the same. Thanks, that actually helps quite a bit.

Rob, Dunstan's suggestion of GG&S is excellent if you want to persue a gedankenubung . . .

Forgive my ignorance, but what does "gedankenubung" mean? I tried to hunt it down, but only got a couple of German language sites.

My only caveat to that conclusion comes from a National Geographic article by Diamond himself where he postulates a domesticated rhino serving as the cavalry vehicle for Bantu societies marching on Rome, but only because Bantu's had mastered metal weapons unlike the Native Americans which had not.

Do you happen to have a link to this article, or a citation so I can pull it down?

Rob, you've presented to me, someone who is not a big fan of alt-hist, some interesting conjecture.

Thanks, it's been my pleasure to research and discuss this concept, and have so many people provide so many differing opinions.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

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.

Of course, the American Indians may have still showed up and scalped the kaiser.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

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.

Going back even further, what if that first nosey guy hadn't wandered across the Bering land bridge?

 

[Madalch]

Even if we can get to a similar outcome as that of World War I, as Madalch asserts, without the Americas the end result, and thus the next stage, are much different.

Assert? I wasn't asserting anything, I was making a silly joke.

Without North and South America being colonized by France, Spain, England, et. al., the history of Europe from at least 1700 on would be completely different. There's no sense in discussing how WWI would have turned out, when there's no reason to suspect that the French Revolution, the Dutch Revolution, the Act of Union of Great Britain, etc. would have happened in anything resembling the way they actually did.

Personally, I've spent a great deal of time amusing myself with wondering how things might have turned out if either the Salish or the Micmacs had developed better boats, and managed some peaceful contact with the Japanese or the Europeans (respectively) well before 1500. Perhaps then the Europeans would have found the land much more solidly occupied, and would have had to treat these continents as they did India, Japan, and China rather than simply shoving aside the First Nations.

 

[Giz]

My only caveat to that conclusion comes from a National Geographic article by Diamond himself where he postulates a domesticated rhino serving as the cavalry vehicle for Bantu societies marching on Rome, but only because Bantu's had mastered metal weapons unlike the Native Americans which had not.

The Romans would've dealt with 'em, just as they dealt with War Elephants?

 

[RobRoy]

Assert? I wasn't asserting anything, I was making a silly joke.

I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth, so my apologies.

However, I think you'll find we're in agreement by referencing the section where I start out saying: "DR's end assertion leaps too far ahead to be "realistic" in my opinion, even in an alt-history case."

Without North and South America being colonized by France, Spain, England, et. al., the history of Europe from at least 1700 on would be completely different. There's no sense in discussing how WWI would have turned out, when there's no reason to suspect that the French Revolution, the Dutch Revolution, the Act of Union of Great Britain, etc. would have happened in anything resembling the way they actually did.

We're in violent agreement here as well.

 

[RobRoy]

The Romans would've dealt with 'em, just as they dealt with War Elephants?

Is this a question? Initially, the Romans didn't deal with war elephants well at all. Hannibal crushed the Romans at Trebia, Ticinus, Trasimene and Cannae.

 

[Kaylee]

Sometimes I wonder what would have been the impact on history if there had been a few New World diseases to infect the Spaniards as a counterweight to the Old World diseases that infected and decimated the Aztecs. If there had been, perhaps the Spanish military advances would have been slowed down, perhaps even halted. Yet the meeting of two vastly different cultures may have jump-started the Aztec culture and halted their decline, and provide a likely scenario where the Aztecs would be the ones to expand and eventually meet the North American Plain Indians.

Jared Diamond explained in his book Guns, Germs and Steel that diseases equivalent to small pox didn’t occur in North America because the Indians didn’t live in densely populated areas where these type of diseases could develop like in Europe. But I don’t understand why it didn’t happen in the territories controlled by the Aztecs, which were densely populated. Luck of the draw I guess.

 

[Madalch]

But I don’t understand why it didn’t happen in the territories controlled by the Aztecs, which were densely populated. Luck of the draw I guess.

Lack of domesticated animals, mostly. They had various fowl, and dogs, but they didn't have pigs, sheep, goats, cows, or horses.

 

[Kaylee]

Lack of domesticated animals, mostly. They had various fowl, and dogs, but they didn't have pigs, sheep, goats, cows, or horses.

Makes sense that would affect the odds of a virus developing that could cross-over to another species. Thanks.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Forgive my ignorance, but what does "gedankenubung" mean? I tried to hunt it down, but only got a couple of German language sites.

It means (literally) thought exercise. Einstein used to do them when he couldn't work out something in the lab.

Do you happen to have a link to this article, or a citation so I can pull it down?

It's on line at this link.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0509/resources_geo2.html?fs=seabed.nationalgeographic.com

 

[Giz]

Is this a question? Initially, the Romans didn't deal with war elephants well at all. Hannibal crushed the Romans at Trebia, Ticinus, Trasimene and Cannae.

Hannibals victories weren't due to war elephants though. Pyrhus's costly victories (and perhaps the battle of the Badragas Plains in the first Punic War) were the closest the Romans came to having problems with elephants... which is to say, they were not a war winner. I was just wondering why War Rhino would be any more potent (appart from the cool factor).

 

[RobRoy]

Hannibals victories weren't due to war elephants though. Pyrhus's costly victories (and perhaps the battle of the Badragas Plains in the first Punic War) were the closest the Romans came to having problems with elephants... which is to say, they were not a war winner.

That's not what I said. I said that the Romans initially didn't deal well with the elephants as a factor in Hannibal's battles. Both psychologically and tactically, the Romans failed to counter Hannibal's elephant charges, which Hannibal liked to use to disrupt the troops arrayed against him, and then flank or surround and destroy. Tricky to stop 10,000 pounds of mass moving at 20 mph and outfitted for battle. Also tricky to turn. Most elephant charges are in fairly straight lines. Scipio figured this out, and rearranged his troops so that they could move to one side and let Hannibal's elephants through, which kept his center lines whole and effective, but removed the elephants as an effective threat.

I was just wondering why War Rhino would be any more potent (appart from the cool factor).

Smaller, faster and more maneuverable (i.e. turnable), but still with an impressive weight (between 6,000 and 8,000 pounds, depending on the species), as well as used to charging other animals, including each other.

Elephants aren't nearly as naturally aggressive as rhinos, especially the black and the white. Much to their dismay, some armies found that certain breeds of elephants are pretty easily frightened, even if trained for battle. I believe pigs drenched with oil and set afire proved an effective, if disgusting, deterrent in one battle.

That's not to say that rhinos solve for all these problems, but no single unit type solves for all battle tactic problems. It's a matter or proper use and flexibility to the changing factors. If cultivated and trained, I can see a charge of rhinos being rather devastating.

Sometimes I wonder what would have been the impact on history if there had been a few New World diseases to infect the Spaniards as a counterweight to the Old World diseases that infected and decimated the Aztecs. If there had been, perhaps the Spanish military advances would have been slowed down, perhaps even halted.

Initially, I thought the same thing. But remember that Cortes landed with only 600 men. He anticipated and effectively used small conquests and then negotiations with local states to increase his numbers. He made treaties and alliances with other states, who saw the defeat of the Aztecs as a good thing. It was a snowball effect, and by the time he laid siege to Tenochtitlan, he had some 75,000 to 80,000 native forces at his command.

Even if half his Europeans were decimated by native diseases, the bulk of his forces were indigenous, and wouldn't have been effected.

Yet the meeting of two vastly different cultures may have jump-started the Aztec culture and halted their decline, and provide a likely scenario where the Aztecs would be the ones to expand and eventually meet the North American Plain Indians.

I do like that idea though. I was assuming that Cortes and some other leader's survive. Cortes was the linchpin, but Alvarado, Olid, and Sandoval were capable and once set in motion could have made the same achievements. Without someone pushing the buttons, the Aztec Empire might have been able to stave off their own destruction. If disease took Cortes and one or two others, say Alvardo and Sandoval. Olid might have been unable to press the advantages, and the Aztec Empire, in a reduced form, would be able to hold out against its enemies. This would slow the Aztec conquests to a halt while they try to maintain their borders, and keep any of the other states from being able to topple them, effectively blocking much influence from flowing northward.

 

[Dragoonster]

I do like that idea though. I was assuming that Cortes and some other leader's survive. Cortes was the linchpin, but Alvarado, Olid, and Sandoval were capable and once set in motion could have made the same achievements. Without someone pushing the buttons, the Aztec Empire might have been able to stave off their own destruction. If disease took Cortes and one or two others, say Alvardo and Sandoval. Olid might have been unable to press the advantages, and the Aztec Empire, in a reduced form, would be able to hold out against its enemies. This would slow the Aztec conquests to a halt while they try to maintain their borders, and keep any of the other states from being able to topple them, effectively blocking much influence from flowing northward.

The biggest variable seems to be how seriously the Aztecs would have taken protection after these strange would-be conquerors were defeated. From what I've read it seemed most New World nations were fairly content to control their territory, defend it if necessary, but not expand as a prophylactic measure.

Extending this to Plains indians, if they'd gotten horses and had 500 years free of Europeans to develop them, why would they have changed their practices? Not possessing any beasts of burden, they could have used the horses to more develop a permanent agricultural base and develop societes from that which were highly centralized, thus had more motivation to protect.

I don't think they would have fully harnessed the war power of horses in that time though. There was plenty of free land for other tribes to migrate to in the face of even nominal opposition. If horse-bearing tribes were to wipe out non-horse tribes it would again seem dependent on population, with the horse tribes needing more territory to continue growing.

They would use the horses for warfare, and did so well in real timeline clashes with European Americans. They'd already developed the bow independently and would integrate that same as they did. But I don't see a superculture arising from the Plains, or woodlands or elsewhere just due to a superior tool of combat. They didn't seem much combat-focused in general.

I'd be really curious what the North American population was 10,000 years ago compared to the Old World population. Even 500 years ago I'd suspect the human/square mile ratio was far, far less in the New World, and that would always delay their necessity to wage war, no matter if they had horses or gatling guns. I could be very wrong though.