Could the native Americans have stopped the settling of America??

I think that if the Native Americans had the requisite social organization, they could have weathered the plagues of diseases, gradually adopted European-level technology (Natives took awfully quickly to horses, guns and iron), and repulsed European colonization.

The problem is with the premise: being a collection of tribes and chiefdomships with different cultures, different languages and with proto-states like Cahokia already fallen before European arrival, the premise would require the Natives to be of a level of social organization far more advanced than what they actually possessed.

If they were murdered on site without exception eventually an army would have shown up instead of settlers.

This even goes onto a bigger problem: leaing out the question of whether it was possible for all Amerindians, everywhere, to declare Death to Whitey (it wasn’t), there’s a bigger question of why they’d even want to. Amerindians were assimilated in large numbers, just not as discrete tribes or keeping their identities intact, and many of them were already being wiped out by disease long before they made contact with European explorers settlers. Frequently, marrying settlers and joining colonies was a way of rejoining some form of civilization (as there might literally be a small, huddled group of a dozen survivors from a huge village). However, it was never a lot of them at once so that while they ultimately added an immense amount to the knowledge and culture, ey didn’t fundamentally change it.

*Much more changes in some areas of South American than in most of the North America. I know I’m generalizing here, but explaining all the local and regional differences to colonization would be a huge pain.

Suppose they had managed to kill off Columbus and all of his crew. How long before any one would have even known that there was an America?

About a year, two at the most. Columbus didn’t “discover” America because he was some sort of genius. He discovered it because the political and technological situations were ripe for some European to make a permanent beach-head in the Americas during the time he happened to live. The Italian-working-for-Bristol-England Cabot(o), and many others, were doing the same sort of thing at the same time.

He discovered it by accident because he was a lucky dumbass. Everyone knew that the world was round and that Asia was thataway. Most everyone also knew, correctly, that it was impossible to provision a ship such that you would be able to make it all the way over there. Columbus thought that the circumference of the Earth was smaller than the conventional wisdom and that a ship really could make it all the was to Asia going West from Europe. Would anyone else really have tried if Columbus never returned?

To borrow a phrase, the lack of Guns, Germs & Steel means the Native Americans would have lost the conflict inevitably. There’s a book idea in there somewhere.

For those who think the disease factor would have been insufficient – are you aware of the full scope of the impact of European diseases? Estimates of the death rates of native populations are contentious, but I have seen them run from 90% to 99%.

That’s 90% of the population killed off best case and before accounting for warfare and persecution. Once the contagion spread inland, entire cultures just vanished, like the Mississippi mound builders, without even meeting Europeans.

And consider for a moment that the new world probably was not nearly as populous to begin with, so it’s the smaller, technologically weaker side losing 90-99% of its strength before the contest begins.

To put that into military context, once conflict began, the Native Americans were already at a much worse population disparity than Nazi Germany was against its enemies at the height of World War II – and an almost indescribably weaker technological position. And Nazi Germany was utterly crushed and dismembered – well before taking 90% casualties, too. Heck, with technological parity they would have been swiftly exterminated once disease made the population differential that extreme. The underdog rarely wins in war, and this conflict took “underdog” to a whole new level.

But, as they say in the infomercials, that’s not all! That’s right, it was even worse for the natives for two additional reasons.

Firstly, cultural disruption. In many cases elders and leaders and knowledgeable community members were wiped out in the first run of European diseases, and ordinary adult community members soon followed. In cultures without writing, critical knowledge and organization are lost if too many individuals die suddenly, before the chance to train their successors. Many of the natives who struggled against the Europeans were all but cultural orphans, having lost both a certain amount of technology and their own history. Furthermore, after conflict began, many settled agricultural tribes were driven off their land and forced to become nomadic hunter-gatherers, which further depressed their populations and also made, well, anything but the daily struggle to keep eating all but impossible.

Secondly, written communication conferred more than just technological and organizational advantages on its European possessors. Jared Diamond makes this point cogently in Guns, Germs & Steel when discussing the Battle of Cajamarca. (Note: the Wikipedia article is execrably bad, and included only for a general outline of the circumstances. For instance, note the article says “At the signal to attack, the Spaniards unleashed gunfire at the vulnerable mass of Incas…” but note that the Spanish only had twelve single-shot muzzle-loading matchlock guns and there were 80,000 Incas present [7,000 warriors in immediate contact and the rest nearby.] Nobody “unleashes gunfire” from twelve single-shot weapons on 80,000 men.)

Diamond, noting that the Incan emperor Atahualpa had attained the throne after smallpox had killed the previous emperor, explains that the negotiations between Pizarro and Atahualpa came down to a matter of how much trust to extend and what experiences shaped the worldviews of the contenders. In this regard, Pizarro inherited thousands of years of written literature detailing betrayal, murder, greed, strategy, and warfare. Atahualpa had only his own life experiences, and had lost many potential advisers and mentors to disease. He was, unavoidably, a naif, essentially a completely raw yokel, going up against a vast, sophisticated history of conquest cynically aware of every human weakness. Because, essentially, Atahualpa had no history. Writing conveys much, much more than the formula for gunpowder.
.

It would be tempting to trade with the newcomers, to get weapons to use against your historical enemies. Or even hire some of the new guys with their super-weapons to go against your local enemies (the Tlaxcala tried this one).

90% of your town has been wiped out by smallpox. You don’t have the option of continuing to live where you have as you always have, simply because there aren’t enough people left to keep up the infrastructure. What do you do? You find a group of people who are willing to take you in.

Smallpox viruses might travel to the new village in the stuff the survivors bring with them, and that’s going to make it really hard to convince other Native Americans to take these people in. Most people don’t want people who might be carrying a communicable and deadly disease to move into their homes with them, even if they’re close blood relatives. Historical enemies who don’t share a culture, language, or religion, and who might have family members who killed friends or family members of yours in a battle years ago- not a chance. That’s like asking relatives of 9/11 victims to take some Taliban fighters from Afghanistan who have TB into their homes.

1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus.

First of all, there was a LOT more civilization in both north and south America before the arrival of Europeans than most of us know about. A LOT.

Also, the European diseases spread far and wide starting from very limited contact and were intensely deadly for native Americans. In some cases 95% of the affected population died. Even at far lower fatality rates, the societies were so disrupted as to be non-functional. The Indian Tisquantum (“Sqanto” to the Pilgrims) was kidnapped to Europe, sold into slavery, and several years later returned to his home. Nobody was left. Not one. Similar situations occurred all over both continents. Early explorers saw lands filled with people; a few decades later the same areas were essentially empty except for a few surviving stragglers.

It’s worth noting for comparison that the Black Death killed roughly a third of Europe in its first year (and perhaps half of Europe after several successive following waves), resulting in profound and widespread social change.

The diseases that hit the Native Americans did far more damage, and there was no offsetting written record to transmit information and culture to the survivors.

Man has an insatiable appetite for discovery. I’d say if 5 years went by with no returning Columbus, someone else would have tried a similar venture. They might have been better equipped for adversity – more ships, more guns, more sailors – prepped for disaster and loaded for bear.

And the OP’s premise that everyone landing in the New World could be killed off is probably not a sure thing. It would only take one escapee or survivor to spread the word of what was happening, then all of Spain, Portugal and England would be rushing to savor new conquests.

Eventually, it would have had to happen. That said, everyone would have probably assumed that Columbus got about halfway to Asia, ran out of provisions and everyone died of thirst.

It would take way the hell more than one survivor to make his way back. One guy couldn’t do it alone.

One ship, out of three. And with a small crew, because those Caravels didn’t need a big one. It would be almost impossible to kill off a whole crew of even one ship, much less his three. And then you had the Portuguese and the Brits moving in…

As has been pointed out, the disease bit is sort of a red herring. Europeans colonized Africa and India, and significantly subjected China and the Middle East, despite those populations being pre-exposed to most European diseases and having some nasty counterattack diseases of their own. They were also, in most cases, more technologically advanced than Amerind tribes - iron weaponry, for example. Even in cases where Europeans were up against well organized states, like the Zulu or the various Indian states, they still won.

And they still couldn’t stop the Europeans. It was just Europe’s time.

The other thing to bear in mind is that the death rate among early European settlers was extraordinarily high. I don’t have the exact numbers on hand but IIRC, English colonists in the earliest stages of the colonization of the eastern seaboard had something like a 4 in 5 chance of being dead in three years. They may as well have saved the time and effort and just shot themselves on the dock in England. So a native policy of unrelenting aggression would, to be honest, not have made that much of a difference early on anyway. Its hard to overstate the systemic determination of European society to expand.

Cabral discovered Brazil by *accident *in 1500, just 8 years after Columbus’ historic voyage. He wasn’t even trying to find the New World. He just swung a little too far to the west to catch the winds for a fast run around Africa on his way to India. If Columbus hadn’t made it back alive, the New World would still have been discovered within a decade.

This is exactly what I was looking for. Thanks.

The other problem is the ahistorical notion of a common indian identity, contrasted with a european identity. There was no such common indian identity. Or to put it another way, if there are two neighbor tribes nearby, and one has white skin and the other has dark skin, what reason would you have to consider the white skinned enemy tribe as your implacable enemy, and the dark skinned tribe as your friend?

That the white skinned tribe migrated to your area from a different continent is irrelevant. Why would you care about that?

Well it is a “What If”, so maybe their shamans read the future portents and knew if they did not drive out the white skinned tribe they would be largely wiped out and subjugated.

However as everyone has said, it still would not have mattered.

But I could write several plausible scenarios where one escapee from a massacre could serve to warn others. Say one guy hung out on a ship just off shore (the Indians weren’t too big on big ships and couldn’t pursue much in canoes) or a few stayed behind and watched thru telescopes, and warned others as they came behind them. Then the word could spread from there…

It seems highly unlikely that a 100% extermination could continue for long without someone getting suspicious and mounting an all-out, well-provisioned assault.

Well, the OP asks us to assume they cooperate. That’s part of the assumption.

The problem I see is that Europeans would have found out about the strategy sooner or later and sent fleets of warships to take over. And, as others have mentioned, disease would still have spread. So, there might have been some delay, but the end would have been brutal beyond imagination if they continued to fight to the death.