A Little Counterfactual Speculation

OT: anything goes!

Moderator: Edi

User avatar
Frank Hipper
Overfiend of the Superego
Posts: 12882
Joined: 2002-10-17 08:48am
Location: Hamilton, Ohio?

Post by Frank Hipper »

North America may be a different story, but turkeys and dogs were definetly domesticated in Mexico.
Image
Life is all the eternity you get, use it wisely.
User avatar
Lilith
Youngling
Posts: 124
Joined: 2003-08-27 07:52pm
Location: Why do you want to know...?

Post by Lilith »

Johonebesus wrote:Well now, most North American Indians did not domesticate animals that were available. The turkeys you see in the stores are domesticated, and buffalo can be domesticated.

Can we really be certain that they would have learned to domesticate horses if they never even domesticated turkeys? Really, think to yourself, what in the world possessed the first person to climb onto the back of a wild horse?

Of course, that very stress might have encouraged innovation and development. However, I don't think we can say that the reason there was no great empire in North America with iron and complex technology is because they lacked horses.
Domesticated animals included not only dogs and turkeys in Mexico but also the Guinea Pig, the Alpaca and the Llama in the Andes. I may be mistaken but aren't buffalos less than practical for domestication as their body structure make them impractical for plowing? Certainly hunting the buffalo provided food but domestication of such large animals that do not provide labor is impractical. Further, the lack of hard utility metal in the Americas in general meant that the development of agricultural implements such as the plow did not occur.

Many nomadic to sedentary Indians did domesticate the wild horses that escaped from Europeans. However, many sedentary Indians--formerly of the Aztec and Inca Empire did not adapt the horse widely due to the fact that the terrain made it impractical. Further, horses and cows need grazing land--land that could be used for producing food.

I agree that the lack of horses or other draft animals are not reasons for the lack of empires in some areas. However, the North American continent (it does extend to Central America) did have extensive empires. The Aztecs had only been around for around 100 years but encompassed a population of 15 to 18 million. Further Tenochtitlan in 1521 had 250,000 people. In comparison, Paris and London had 100,000 each and Toledo and Seville had 15,000 to 18,000. In addition, you have to consider the Maya with their mathmatical and engineering achievements as well as numerous others civilization that were sophisticated and complex that existed in the areas of what is now Mexico and Central America for millenias.

I am curious as to how one defines an "advanced" society. Europe in 1492 was not the Europe of the 1700s or the 1800s. Incas and the Aztecs of 1492 were empires of millions and had developed complex and techologically sophisticated societies with a large military and an infrastructure that easily rivaled if not surpassed many of the cities in Europe.

The rapid collapse of both empires can be attributed to a significant part to the diseases introduced. Again, if animals had survived and domestication had occurred, conquest would have been a different story for both sides. Rather than only syphilis introduced to Europe, it could have also included new varieties of small pox, flu, typhoid fever, etc. that would have wracked havoc in the Old World similar to the devastation that occurred in the Americas as a result of diseases introduced.
Johonebesus
Jedi Master
Posts: 1487
Joined: 2002-07-06 11:26pm

Post by Johonebesus »

Lilith wrote: Domesticated animals included not only dogs and turkeys in Mexico but also the Guinea Pig, the Alpaca and the Llama in the Andes. I may be mistaken but aren't buffalos less than practical for domestication as their body structure make them impractical for plowing? Certainly hunting the buffalo provided food but domestication of such large animals that do not provide labor is impractical.


Which is why I said "most North American Indians," not "all Indians on both continents." I wasn't really thinking about using the buffalo as a draft animal. I believe cattle were domesticated first as a food source, then later used to draw ploughs when they were invented. I don't think the buffalo would be any less practical to domesticate than the ancient wild ox, except of course that 15,000 years ago the buffalo was quite a bit larger than it is today.
Further, the lack of hard utility metal in the Americas in general meant that the development of agricultural implements such as the plow did not occur.
That's really the key. No Indians had iron, and their use of bronze was limited. I am not aware that anyone in N. America used metal at all, except for what might have been imported from the south. It was technology that gave the Europeans their great edge over the Indians, and I don't see that possessing horses or cattle would make a tremendous difference there.
Many nomadic to sedentary Indians did domesticate the wild horses that escaped from Europeans.
They learned to ride horses from the Europeans. If they had never seen Europeans on horseback, would they have ever thought to try to ride the beasts? Maybe, but I am not sure.
I agree that the lack of horses or other draft animals are not reasons for the lack of empires in some areas. However, the North American continent (it does extend to Central America) did have extensive empires.
For convenience sake, some people divide the Americas into three regions, North, Central, and South, since most of Central America forms a fairly contained cultural region, quite distinct from the rest of North America. Of course, even in the North, there were many territorial kingdoms. The semi-nomadic state observed in colonial times was largely due to the great upheavals caused by contact with Europe. I don't think this is a question about subjective cultural superiority, but rather a question of objective ability to withstand the European invasions.

There is no question that there were great civilizations in Central and South America. The real question is why did they collapse. You are right that disease was a critical factor in the European conquest of the Americas, and so too was technology. Domestication of herd animals might have created American disease, as you point out, but I don't see that horses or cattle would necessarily cause great technological development.

I also think that the survival of giant herbivores and all the great predators would have a negative impact.
"Can you eat quarks? Can you spread them on your bed when the cold weather comes?" -Bernard Levin

"Sir: Mr. Bernard Levin asks 'Can you eat quarks?' I estimate that he eats 500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,001 quarks a day...Yours faithfully..." -Sir Alan Cottrell


Elohim's loving mercy: "Hey, you, don't turn around. WTF! I said DON'T tur- you know what, you're a pillar of salt now. Bitch." - an anonymous commenter
User avatar
Lilith
Youngling
Posts: 124
Joined: 2003-08-27 07:52pm
Location: Why do you want to know...?

Post by Lilith »

There is no question that there were great civilizations in Central and South America. The real question is why did they collapse. You are right that disease was a critical factor in the European conquest of the Americas, and so too was technology. Domestication of herd animals might have created American disease, as you point out, but I don't see that horses or cattle would necessarily cause great technological development.


The collapse of both the Inca and the Aztec empires can be attributed to a few factors: Indian allies, horses, steel weapons, and disease. However, IMO technology of the Spanish are given too much credit for the defeat of the empires. The Spanish numbered only in the few hundreds. They initially had a major advantage on the battle field as the Aztecs fought in formation and attempted to capture rather than kill the opponent. They also fought in open fields. The Spanish with the horses, steel swords and cannons wreaked havoc and won several key battles. Their eventual success cannot in a significant way be attributed to this initial advantage. Both Spanish and Aztec accounts note that Aztec soldiers had increasingly and effectively changed their battle tactics.

The Aztec adaptation of new style of warfare could do little to change the outcome since by the time of Cortes' seige on Tenochtitlan, small pox had begun to spread. Many royalty, commoners, slaves, and soldiers fell victim to the disease. The collapse of the imperial structure opened the way for Spanish rule over the empire who largely maintained the preexisting power structure and labor/ tribute obligations of the citizens of the former Aztec empire.

The rapid collapse of the sedentary empires was not repeated in every case. Even with advanced and superior technology, the Spanish could not subdue a whole series of Indigenous groups, including the Arauconians, Yaquis, "Chichimecas," or the Maya until the nineteenth century. The introduction of the Remington repeating rifle and the barbed wire played significant role in the final phase of the conquest but this was around ~400 years after the arrival of the Spanish.

My knowledge of what happened in the United States is limited but in Spanish America the case was a combination of factors with disease proving to be a major factor. I'm not dismissing techology. It was important. But the rapid collapse of the empires was due to disease that caused a demographic catastrophe that destroyed the imperial structure and made organized opposition tenuous at best. Several non-sedentary Indians fought with less-advanced technology but they did prove to be a thorn on the side of the Spanish and later Argentina and Mexico into the 19th and part of the 20th century.
User avatar
Lilith
Youngling
Posts: 124
Joined: 2003-08-27 07:52pm
Location: Why do you want to know...?

Post by Lilith »

Oops, sorry Johonebesus. The first paragraph above should be in quotes. Still trying to get a handle on getting the quotes to look right.
Johonebesus
Jedi Master
Posts: 1487
Joined: 2002-07-06 11:26pm

Post by Johonebesus »

No doubt, disease did more than half the work for the Spaniards, but that was in the short term. The long term success relied largely on technology, such as the guns and barbed wire you mention. Of course, unstable social systems were another problem. If the Aztecs had ruled a unified nation, they would have had a better chance. As it was, the Spanish were joined by many cities rising against Aztec rule. Without disease, revolts, and an irresolute ruler, Cortez would have been crushed. If I recall correctly (though it looks like you have more detailed knowledge on this subject than I), the Incas also were faced with natives siding with the Spanish. But if the Spanish or someone else decided that conquest was a necessity, if they had been determined to take the Americas even at exorbitant cost, I think they would have succeeded. In fact, I don't think it's absurd to suggest that the army of the First Crusade could have destroyed the Aztec Empire, given the conditions Cortez found.

As for the length of time it took to subdue the groups in the wild, I wonder just how hard the Spanish tried. I believe that it was often a matter of deciding whether the resources won through pacification of the jungle were greater than the resources which would be spent in the campaign.

I don't really know enough about diseases to decide just how domestication would have affected the outcome. Americans would have had their own diseases, but unless they were similar to European diseases I don't think they would have conferred much protection. But then the Europeans would have had more than syphilis to worry about. If European explorers and conquistadors suffered the same fate the Indians did, they might have decided not to bother conquering the Americas. In fact, the impact on the Old World of a wave of epidemics of American versions of smallpox might be the more interesting aspect of this consideration.
"Can you eat quarks? Can you spread them on your bed when the cold weather comes?" -Bernard Levin

"Sir: Mr. Bernard Levin asks 'Can you eat quarks?' I estimate that he eats 500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,001 quarks a day...Yours faithfully..." -Sir Alan Cottrell


Elohim's loving mercy: "Hey, you, don't turn around. WTF! I said DON'T tur- you know what, you're a pillar of salt now. Bitch." - an anonymous commenter
Post Reply