Giving the Aztecs time to prepare, and to get over being overawed by these mysterious bearded and armored gods.
…and giving them more chance to die from epidemics.
Unfortunately ( or not, depending on your view of conquistadors vs. Aztecs ), the Aztecs did get over being overawed by the Europeans, ejecting them quite handily from Tenochtiitlan. However after Cortes regrouped and subsequently sieged the city, a smallpox outbreak devastated the Aztecs, undoubtedly contributing heavily to the endgame.
Disease always wins and the Europeans did not have to be present to wage germ warfare. Smallpox spreading across the isthmus of Panama ahead of them is generally held responsible for the premature death of the legitimate Inca and his immediate heir, sparking the civil war between Atahualpa and Huascar that was still raging when Pizarro landed. It was disease that broke up Manco Cupac’s attempted rebellion against Pizarro et al. and it was disease that weakened and eventually helped bring down the Neo-Inca state at Vilcabamba that he founded after his retreat from Cuzco.
I’m not usually a fan of strict historical determinism ( there is no reason to suppose a Mongol empire was inevitable for example ), but in this case it is more warranted than most. Barring an unlikely scenario like Malthus’ Viking expansion, the more densely populated, urbanized Amerindian states were probably always doomed to fall to the Pale Horse.
:dubious:
That’s some major revisionism.
[ol]
[li]The Vikings could have taught [del]metal-working[/del] iron-working to Native Americans[/li][li]Interbreeding between Natives & Colonists could have been encouraged by law. Family ties reduce trouble. (This was proposed at least once, but not acted upon.[/li][li]Andrew Jackson could have been killed in a duel, before becoming President (see: Trail Of Tears).[/li][li]The Aztecs Empire could have spread further North, into the Mississippi River Basin.[/li][/ol]
The Maori did pretty well in the New Zealand Wars. In terms of new world native populations resisting old world colonisers, that’s as close as any ever came to winning.
Since you guys seem to be unaware that this planet has a southern half, I’d expect this is news to you.
<BLINK-BLINK>
There’s a world out side of the United States?
How odd.
What’s it like?
does it have wood, & gravity & things, like here?
Is it black & white, like an old movie?
You seem to want to assume I’m all about being Eurocentric, or something. I’m not sure why.
As far as who invented what, or improved upon what, it is what it is for whichever weapon we’re talking about. My point about technological improvements was being made to stand in contrast to the idea that something was passively “discovered” versus created. You see this language all the time, as in…“X gained an advantage after they ‘discovered’ farming/metal technology…whatever.”
I don’t understand what point you are making about germs. The point I was making is that areas which failed to produce much of anything on the world stage–particularly tropical regions–often have “germs” advanced as a reason. The general idea, I think, is that the peoples were so busy crumping from bad germs they couldn’t invent anything or progress much. So my point about Yersinia is that Europeans had to battle germs as well.
A couple of interesting books on the subject of the pre- and post-Columbian Americas: 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus and 1493: Uncovering the New World Columbus Created by Charles Mann.
What “discovered” language were you reacting to, Chief Pedant? I don’t see any. The quote you were responding to merely stated that “the guns and steel ultimately tipped the balance.” You quoted no “discovery” language.
The context was following your post:
I did indeed conclude that you were trying to crow over some European cleverness superiority that they were able to create better technology. As opposed to the “slow” aboriginals. It reads like that. You did not mean it that way? Okay. But why I read it that way is because it was written that way.
As to the germs bit, I think you are completely misunderstanding the point that has been made about germs in this thread. Germs have not been put forth as an explanation for the relative lack of technological progress in the Americas; they have been put forth as the major cause of the huge death toll that followed contact and a major factor in the inevitability of European conquest of the region, even (as Tamerlane points out) in the near immediate term of the conflict. While the Europeans may had been intent on undertaking a racial cleansing and enslavement of the native populations they found relatively few there as they arrived in greater numbers: the diseases they introduced had killed off most of them and destroyed what societies they had before they got there. No one is positing that germs have played a role in any lack of technological progress, not in this thread anyway, and I’ve personally never heard that concept expressed anywhere else either.
In terms of both the same explanation is being advanced: long term constant contact with many other cultures versus relative isolation.
Again, and despite the dubiousness of Bozuit, the Europeans invented little in the way of weaponry (the major period of creation seems to have been the Greeks, the Romans mostly refined military tactics, and after that?); mostly what they had was the contact with a wide variety of other cultures and the ability to absorb and develop those ideas. At the surface level trade and conquest was about gold and spices, but at a more significant level it was about ideas coming into a culture and what those ideas spawn. In America there was relatively little contact with the rest of the world’s ideas. Obviously there is a reason that technology and culture have historically flourished wherever the world’s crossroads are, be they physical locations or within cultural groups that are exposed to a variety of cultures.
Constant exposure to many other of the world’s germs also created a European population with pretty good chances for being able to respond well to the few new exposures extant at that particular time in a new land. The aboriginal Americas population was, by most accounts, relatively pretty healthy. Famine and warfare were likely the big deals. Were there epidemics in their past? No doubt. Infectious diseases? Sure. But the big infectious disease epidemics, the ones that spread quickly and fatally through large populations, smallpox, measles, influenza, the plague, cholera … those were things that the Europeans had already all suffered through (and in forms that usually failed to give a competitive advantage to one group over another) … and that the aboriginal Americas populations were seeing several of at the same time for the first time.
An interesting aside, there is another factor that both led to less technological progress and less of those big epidemic diseases in pre-Columbian America: the lack of many good candidates to develop into draught animals. For lack of the oxen and horse, perhaps the wheel is not fully developed (as more than a child’s toy) and larger scale agriculture and all the ideas the wheel led too were late to develop, less well developed, and in some cases not developed. Both of those of course supported larger population densities and and the development of technology but also they supported large populations of domesticated animals (cows, pigs, chickens, etc) living in close and unsanitary proximity to larger populations of humans. Those species have generally been the origin of those epidemic organisms.
Back to the main point however. The technological superiority of the Europeans was a certainly a major factor in the outcomes of contact but probably not one that would have been inevitably decisive over a longer term by itself. More critical were the tolls that diseases played and the extant intertribal conflicts that not only prevented a unified response but that were able to be exploited.
Not with the social situation Castille had at the time.
BrainGlutton: this isn’t your first reminder, but when you are excerpting a copyrighted work, keep your quote reasonably short. A couple of paragraphs will do the trick, especially if you’ve already posted a link. You quoted almost an entire 1300-word Straight Dope column in that last post, and that’s too much.
The only way to prevent that is to have some earlier contact create the wave of disease significantly earlier than the full-bore European colonial invasion.
What made the situation so devistating for the natives was the one-two punch of invasion and epidemics, all occurring at roughly the same time.
If the natives were as it were habituated to diseases a few hundred years in advance, they would have had a better chance, at least of avoiding displacement.
This isn’t totally impossible - there is no reason people absolutely could not cross the Atlantic in boats from the ancient world.
If they only had Blas de Lezo fighting for their side history might have been different. He is certainly up there in the Pantheon of Military Gods. 
:::::cough cough:::: Bullshit! It wasn’t ‘marginally,’ but a whole set of new weapons and amour that would have defeated anything that came before it. Sure, a blade is a blade is a blade…but an F-18 fighting a single engine Cessna also (technically) constitutes an air-fight.
Armor and Weapons of the Spanish Conquistadors
More at source.
Precisely, I don’t think the native cultures were eradicated as they were in the USA. Indigenous languages are still widely spoken in Latin America. Religion is quite syncretist, and people are as likely to pray to the Virgin Mary as to make an offering to the Pacha Mama. And yes, skin complexion is different, meaning that people are descending in large part from indigenous people. And completely indigenous communities are common and large.
So, I think the outcome is substantially different.
When I compare the European invasion of Mexico vs the European invasion of what is now the USA, the Mexican invasion was justified to spread the “word”, i,e Christianity. The USA invasion was for a different reason. Despite different motives, the result was the same. The indigenous population dwindled to near extinction.
Not sure, Red Fury, what any of what you quoted, or at the source, has to do with the point you are disputing.
No question: Spanish weaponry and the possision of horses were far superior to any weaponry the aboriginal Americans possessed. And no disputing that what they had was an improvement on past armor. But nothing you quoted supports it was a brand new creation or orders of magnititude above that which preceded it. Armor, including plate armor, was used in China more than a thousand years earlier. The improvements in armor since then were a result of ideas flowing across cultures from the Celts to the Arab World to Asia etc. … what exactly in the field of weaponry do you believe the Spanairds invented?
First off, you are definitely moving the bar whenever it suits you. Europeans made numerous and significant advancements in the fields of arms and armor, military tactics, and military support and organization. This didn’t make them invincible, but at this time European militaries were already capable of defeating and even dominating many cultures of the world, and would soon be able to do so at great distances. Indeed, the only non-European military who really possessed a comparable ability at this time were the Turks - and it’s instructive that even they needed the help of European engineers to defeat the meager rump Byzantine state.
Yes, of course Cecil’s columns are copyrighted, but surely that doesn’t apply here! It applies to newspaper articles, etc., but not to the Straight Dope itself! That column is written for us the Teeming Millions!
Not sure why you think I am moving the bar or what bar you believe I have set.
The claim I responded to (which perhaps was not intended to be made) was that the invading force took over the region because they were more “clever” and were the “populations who created better metal technology and invented guns.” My response is that no, they did not create better metal technology or invent guns. They improved upon inventions to be sure but there was no great cleverness or creativity or inventiveness involved. The big difference frankly was the more modern plate metal production techniques made full plate metal armor affordable for a greater number of soldiers. There was instead the advantage of having benefited from exposure to ideas created in a variety of the world’s cultures. A further point, which I am far from the only one making in this thread, is that superior military technology alone was not responsible for the rapid take-over; introduced disease cleared out populations ahead of advances resulting in conflict against a population one tenth the size and in societal disarray
Not sure how an all out head to head between the Spanish, English, or French and the Ming Dynasty military of the 14th to 15th centuries would have turned out, but the Chinese did have a head start on gunpowder weapons and the earlish conflicts there were, the Battle of Tamao in 1522 against the Portugese, and a 1662 clash with the Dutch East India Company, both went the way of the Chinese.