One of the causes of the American Revolution was the Proclamation Line of 1763. The colonists wanted to be free to steal native land, and the British wanted to keep such to a minimum.
If the British had won the American revolutionary war, I think it would have played out less badly. Someone may say that the it would have been the same in the long run – Proclamation Line thoroughly violated – but people live in the short and medium run. Several generations of natives would have had better lives. Also, I think it played out better in Canada than the US. A US more like Canada is one more sensitive to First Nations issues.
The Chinese have a great history of invention and technological advancement. The conquered peoples of the americas and africa don’t. If you want to hold to a position that it’s not cleverness or inventiveness that helped Europeans conquer the world, have at it. It’s a highly popular view that Europeans borrowed everyone else’s good ideas and then got lucky. There just isn’t any evidence to support it. The list of technology the Europeans improved upon, invented outright, or brought together into a coherent package enabling them to conquer the world is extraordinary. Petty little bickering over who originally invented what rapidly deteriorates into these stupid little conversations that miss the main point, in my opinion. “Nah; the Portuguese didn’t invent the caravel…all they did was expand on Og the caveman’s dugout canoe innovation.”
There’s no question disease was a factor in croaking off local populations, but any extension of that notion to an implication that without disease in the picture, local populations would have been on par with Europeans is without merit. It would have still been a two-hit fight; just more indigenous people needing to hit the ground from physical weaponry instead of disease.
Specifically, you mentioned “order of magnitude”. Europeans developed entire military concepts; the Spanish alone were considered among the most capable and advanced military states in all of Europe in that era, and were capable of projecting force into Italy and North Africa with stunning success, beating other military powers both solo and in coalitions.
You can perhaps argue guns on a technicality, but note that the original firearms introduced to Europe were rather pitiful things, and the Spanish were equal or above any other nation in steel production and quality.
…Wow…
I’m not quite certain how to describe your complete ignorance of military history. European militaries were going through two or more revolutions per century in this period, with tactics being endlessly introduced, developed, revised, and abandoned. In beginning of this period we see late medieval tactics and strategies, such as the complex use of combined arms operations including cavalry, infantry, and cannon; by the end of the settlement of America we see melee weapons almost completely abandoned. Along we the way we see everything from Rodeleros to Pike & Shot armies.
The Spanish did not generally use “Full Plate”, and the conquistadors absolutely did not, preferring a simply cuirass and helmet. Any more was too heavy for mobility on and off the battlefield, and many Conquistadors adopted native armor (essentially, padded hide armor) which was reasonable against native weapons. Further, that was largely irrelevant anyway, as conquistadors characteristically moved in (relative to their targets) small, mobile bands utilizing vastly superior firepower to break native resistance.
Not totally impossible, no. But I’m going to stick to my guns and say it was kinda unlikely. Sure they could cross. But earlier seafaring technology just wasn’t that great and logistics well developed enough to easily sustain continuous contact, even light contact. You’d need a powerful motivator for a stable power to do so.
Wait, wait…are we talking 1520’s? If so, I’d argue the only military advantage Europeans had over the ME/NA/Asia generally at that point was arguably a pretty moderate one in deep water technology. In all other respects I wouldn’t give them any particular advantage ( or to be fair in the other direction no massive disadvantage ) in terms of military organization/technology. 1720’s, yes - 1520’s, no.
Asked and answered. The Spanish Tercios of the 16th and 17th Century were no were no real novelty on the battlefield and weapons – the reason they ruled for close to two Centuries has much more to do with their tactics. And yes refined weaponry…and fear.
The Steel Of Toledo remains a legend to this day – be it for swords or amour, there was none better. Nor a lack of courage by Spanish soldiers, misguided or not.
Different thread methinks, but they were rabid in that time. Personally, not proud of our Empire or any other, but I always say for pure cojones, few like ours.
Hold on: while I agree that there is a difference between the US and parts of Latin America in this regard, my cousins who live on the “rez”, and dance at powwows every summer, would beg to differ with you that their culture has been “eradicated”. Millions of Native Americans live in the US today, possibly even as many as were here in 1491.
As far as I can tell, wheellocks, flintlocks and rifled barrels seem to have been conceived of and developed in Europe. What I can find on matchlocks also suggests they’re a European invention.
Regardless of this, weapons were being refined all the time in Europe, and even if all these things were originally invented elsewhere, understanding the potential of an idea, improving on it and putting it to effective use are important parts of the invention process. If you come up with an idea, but fail to make proper use of it, you’ve only done half the work. And if your culture is more able to understand the applications of a new technology and more willing to adopt it themselves, you have a “clever” culture. You can say it’s all luck if you want - I don’t think anyone is claiming any kind of genetic superiority.
Okay CP you are not Eurocentric, you just believe that aboriginal peoples were slower and less clever than the Europeans. Fine. And pertiment to the op you believe that superior weapons technology alone would have allowed complete take over even against a population ten times the size and not in societal disarray from epidemics.
smiling bandit, okay the bar I set was not much more than marginally. I did indeed later use the hyperbolic phrase “order of magnitude.” No true order of magitude is required. I’ll stand by that nothing you mention stands up as more than marginal incremental improvements on ideas that had already exisited. Steel was around already. Sure they made it better than European steel had been made before but better quality than the much older Japanese Samuri swords? Guns “on a technicality”???
Certainly I am no military historian but even I know that your post claiming that such revisions of military tactics were something new is not supported by history. All cultures had been modifying tactics in similar ways throughout.
As to your claim that the “conquistadors absolutely did not” use much armor, “preferring a simply cuirass and helmet. Any more was too heavy for mobility on and off the battlefield …” Well Red Fury’s previous post and cite directly contradicts you. Fight that and the implications of each out amongst yourselves.
Back to the op - I’ll stand by that the inevitablity had more to do with disease than with technology and that an alt-history that did not have those epidemics and had inspired leaderships on the natives side would have given a different result. “Shock and awe” took the Spanish far in those initial conflicts. Modified tactics by the natives OTOH could have made the costs of attempted occupation too much to bear profitably.
Bozuit, I do not dismiss that ideas were improved upon. The thesis is that exposure toa multiplicity of those ideas is the key feature; that the big advantage was not cleverness but contact. Luck? I don’t know what luck is or if it exists. The native Americian cultures had been isolated from the ideas of the rest of world as well as their germs and were suddenly exposed and overwhelmed by both.
As someone who doesn’t know a huge amount about weapons of the times, I can’t debate the subject in too much detail. But I do think you underestimate the importance of improvements to inventions, and the other inventions required to make those improvements. Making a better gun or better steel can be just as significant as inventing the first gun or forging with the first steel. And I certainly think using the word “marginally” was inappropriate.
Also, if you are right and “European” technology was largely gained through contact with other cultures with only “marginal” improvements made in Europe, does that make Europeans of the time “slower and less clever” than those other cultures?
I’m not certain this is entirely true. OR perhaps it’s incomplete. The styles of armor used by the Spanish almost certainly changed as time went on, but full suits of mail and plate armor were CERTAINLY used. Well made armor of the time would not have been overly encumbering, and it’s not like you’re going to be wearing it 24/7. you put it on before you go into battle. Vs the native weapons specially it would have made you the equivalent of a modern tank.
It appears nobility and the wealthy tended to use metal armor whenever they could, the lowly soldier using it whenever they managed get their hands on it, but relying on gambeson and brigadine armor most of the time, simply because metal armor was not readily available and expensive. But when they could get it - mail and plate armor was also used.
I don’t think the image of the conquistador with the funny helmet breast plate and the balloon pants is very accurate.
OK, let me explain everything which is wrong with these two sentences.
First, steel as such can in theory be found dating far back in history. The reliable production of steel in bulk is actually rather new, and Spain alone was at the forefront of steel technology and industry. Europe as a whole was well in advance of most of the world in this era, probably due to the relative abundance of iron and forestry resources in many areas.
Europeans invented guns. They were merely introduced to hand cannons, which are rather a different thing and vastly inferior. The hand cannon never supplanted any arm of weaponry; the firearm did. Further, Europeans developed true cannon, weapons capable of tactical and strategic dominance. This in and of itself completely altered the face of warfare.
Third, you clearly have no knowledge of the Samurai. First off, the Samurai were themselves not particularly ancient - as a class, they were perhaps five hundred years old at this point. Second, their steel freqintly sucked, which is one reason highly skilled swordmakers were so much in demand. Third, their swords were tertiary arms at best and considered a distinctly secondary weapon on the battlefield, well behind the bow and the spear. The sword you are probably referring to (the katana) was only recently introduced at the time Europeans were already exploring and conquering the new World.
What are you talking about? In terms of ranged weaponry alone, Europeans introduced mass crossbow use and then discarded it in favor of massed gunfire in this period, going through at least
From the same page:
“Later in the conquest, as conquistadors realized that full suits of armor were overkill in the New World, some of them switched to lighter chainmail, which was just as effective. Some even abandoned metal armor entirely, wearing escuapil, a sort of padded leather or cloth armor adapted from the armor worn by Aztec warriors.”
Shockingly, I am generalizing and not trying to cover too many specific cases.
…
Let me point out a few things:
(1) You seem to have no know ledge of European military history.
(2) You seem to have no knowledge of military history in general
(3) You are apparently not reading our citations.
(4) You are definitely not understanding them.
Agreed. I was thinking more of accidents and the occasional eccentric explorer, not sustained or continuous contact - more like one-way voyages.
The notion here is that some Cartheginian crew bearing old world diseases and tech, perhaps blown out into the wild Atlantic by a storm while trying to prospect a trade route down the coast of Africa, and surviving by a fluke, landed in (say) what is now Brazil, and managed to start epidemics and maybe metalworking, before being absorbed into the local population (or killed). Repeat every few centuries.
I realize that it may be a stretch to have diffusion of technology resulting from such slight contacts, but diffusion of disease could easily happen - it doesn’t take much, just a single carrier. Once in the new world, disease is likely to spread all over.
The contacts, being so slight (and mostly I would assume one-way) would go unnoticed in the old world, which would unfold as it did, until European explorers visited the place - to find native societies already well seeded with old world diseases (and perhaps using iron tools and weapons).
Next week: Columbus’ shocking lack of tolerance for LGBT folk, and his refusal to make reasonable accommodations for trans crewmembers. His record on environmental issues was also spotty at best.
Yes. The two Georges, George III and George Washington.
In 1763, King George enacted the Royal Proclamation, which stated that no-one could settle on Indian land, nor could private individuals buy land from Indians, west of the existing colonial boundaries. Settlement could only occur in those lands once the British government had reached treaties with Indians in those areas.
Washington and other American large land-holders / developers saw that provision as an unfair restriction on western settlement. Once the revolution was accomplished, the Royal Proclamation was set aside in the US.
The Royal Proclamation continued in force in British North America, establishing a general policy of treaties before settlement, a practice that the Canadian government followed a century later in the settlement of the Canadian Prairies. In fact, the Royal Proclamation has constitutional status under the Constitution of Canada.
The lack of protection for aboriginal title in the US was a major contributing factor to the Indian wars, as settlers moved west and occupied Indian lands.
By contrast, there were no Indian wars in Canada. The protection for aboriginal title, by the governments and the courts, and the treaties, led to a much more peaceful settlement. The only equivalent was the North-West Rebellion, which was triggered in part because of a dispute over whether the federal government had fulfilled its treaty obligations.
Which is not to say that everything in Canada is sweetness and light; but it does illustrate that there were considerable differences in the laws and government practices for dealing with the aboriginal peoples and westward expansion.
Cite, please? Your summary is contradicted directly by the Papal Bull, Sublimus Dei of 1537:
[QUOTE=Pope Paul III]
We, who, though unworthy, exercise on earth the power of our Lord and seek with all our might to bring those sheep of His flock who are outside into the fold committed to our charge, consider, however, that the Indians are truly men and that they are not only capable of understanding the Catholic Faith but, according to our information, they desire exceedingly to receive it. Desiring to provide ample remedy for these evils, We define and declare by these Our letters, or by any translation thereof signed by any notary public and sealed with the seal of any ecclesiastical dignitary, to which the same credit shall be given as to the originals, that, notwithstanding whatever may have been or may be said to the contrary, the said Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians, are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property, even though they be outside the faith of Jesus Christ; and that they may and should, freely and legitimately, enjoy their liberty and the possession of their property; nor should they be in any way enslaved; should the contrary happen, it shall be null and have no effect.
[/QUOTE]
I’ve read that they were scared of the Portuguese, though. Everyone was scared of the Portuguese. (But my only cite for that is Michener’s The Covenant.)
Here in Peru, the Spanish almost never used full armor, particularly in the Andes, using the breasplate and helmet and in many cases using padded armor similar to what the Indians were using.
The weapons and the disposal of the Incas were:
a) Stone-headed mace - could do damage.
b) Various copper tipped lances - no real damage
c) wooded and copper-tipped arrows - no a real threat
d) slingstones - could be useful
Pizarro came from the coast of Piura to Cajamarca on difficult narrow roads he didn’t know where, even if instead of Spanish conquistadors they’d been SEALs, SAS, and Gurkhas, they could’ve been killed by boulders or trapping them in gorges.
Atahualpa was curious and wanted to see them. They arrived to an empty Cajamarca with the Inca and his army (about 10000) outside. Pizarro had fewer than 200 men. Even though the horses and guns made an impression, there were two key factors:
a) Inca soldier were fixated on carrying the Inca to safety, making no effort to defend themsleves.
b) Seeing the Inca captures, they stopped fighting and left him.
But still, it was the devastation of diseases (even prior to Pizarro’s arrival) that would’ve ended any native resistance.
There was no way the results would’ve been different, especially with the gigantic ammout of support the Spanish had by large sectors of the native population.