I do not seriously disagree with this.
My own question was rhetorical, addressed to the member who seemed to think
that if the American Indians had been more numerous then they, like the Asians,
could not have been subjugated. That analysis is unsound because so many Asians
were subjugated.
Yes, but money was a driving factor in the Asian conquests, and with the much higher expenses of shipping trans-atlantic, I’m not sure it would have made economic sense to to persue large scale colonization. One of the reasons that they colonies succeeded was moving into places, often with already cleared fields, and well established footpaths, but no people.
Would Jamestown have been a success if, instead of moving into the wiped out village site, there was a thriving town of a couple hundred Natives that forced them to move on to a less ideal spot?
Money was the driving factor in all the conquests. Most people today are probably unaware of the fact that it was tobacco which finally made the Virginia colony porfitable. It and North Carolina also produced naval stores (cordage, turpentine, tar). I do not know what the other colonies contributed.
You mean shipping expenses to Asia.
The issue we have been discussing is whether the greater population availble to an epidemic-free Indian America would have allowed them to maintain any measure of independence. Relative proximity to Europe would put the American Indian ata disadvantage compred to the Asians. Recall, however, Spain’s several-century rule over the Philippines, an even further voyage than India and the Indies.
Estimates of the pre-Discovery population of the Americas vary by a factor of ten. My impression is that what is now the US Eastern Seaboard was continuously but sparsely populated, and much less densely than India.
There were enough Indians in both Virginia and New England to kill several 100 colonists in the early to mid 1600s. I am not sure if anyone knows to what extent European diseases had taken a toll by then. Even if none had died from disease it is questionable whether thay could have stemmed the continuous tide of new arrivals.
The natives killed about 25% of the Jamestown colonists in one early war. There were I think less than 1000 colonists in all at the time, though.