The earliest European expeditions to the New World would’ve been no match for native tribes and civilizations had the latter decided kill them the moment they reached land. What if, following Columbus’s “discovery”, the Aztecs, Incas and various North American tribes had decided to do just that? How long could they have held off European conquerors/settlers before enough of a foothold was established to allow sufficient numbers of them to arrive and take over? How long would European monarchs have continued to finance expeditions if none returned?
Depends. If the natives had managed to figure out cannons, firearms, and horses by themselves, or from captured Europeans, then perhaps indefinitely.
Communication was a serious problem. How do you co-ordinate 50 tribes into a single defending or attacking force with 1500’s communication technology?
Not long, even with better parity in technology. Those nasty European diseases did a pretty good job. It would have been difficult, if not impossible, to keep Europeans out for long after suffering several video game-like outbreaks.
I assume that “outbreaks” refers to the diseases that Europeans brought with them. Single-shot muskets were an improvement over bows and arrows, true, but the difference would not make a smaller group unstoppable. Smallpox, though, could spread, decimating villages long before actual Europeans reached them.
Let’s just assume that all natives, for whatever reason, decided independently to stop the invaders.
You mean a far-out, fantasy, fairy story? Why not include the dragon horde, goblins and the Wargs of Moria from the North? And Quetzalcoatl coming from the South?
Diseases alone would have reduced the native population significantly. " A specific example was Cortes’ invasion of Mexico. Before his arrival, the Mexican population is estimated to have been around 25 to 30 million. Fifty years later, the Mexican population was reduced to 3 million, mainly by infectious disease." (This was from the Great Disease Migration.) According to another source, the population dropped from 50 million to 5 million. In either case, you’re looking at 90% of the population dying out. There wouldn’t have been enough natives left to fight, they would be too busy rebuilding their civilization.
A lot of European technology was nearly unbeatable at the start. For instance, when Cortez faced the Aztecs, one of his best technological advantages was … the steel helmet. The Aztecs had lots of flat bludgeoning weapons (I’ve heard they literally had flat gold clubs) which are less effective against someone wearing a helmet. The natives wore quilted armor, whereas Cortez’s forces wore steel breastplates.
In melee combat, a cavalry charge was devastating. There are battles in European history where footmen defeated knights (eg The Battle of Silver Spurs) but these victories were rare early on. Eventually technologies and tactics such as the pike and longbow were used to great effect against cavalry, but when you’ve got a club and quilted armor and your opponent is riding a huge fast-moving animal while “standing up” in the saddle due the use of stirrups and using a metal-tipped spear to simply ram several feet of wood through said quilted armor and through the person underneath said armor, it becomes rather difficult to win, or even stand and fight.
The battles were not always so one-sided. In the Braddock Expedition (prior to the American Revolution, led by British General Braddock and an American, George Washington), the English were defeated by a French and native army. Braddock was so old school he refused to let his soldiers do sensible things such as turning their bright red coats inside out and daubing the new outsides with mud (camouflage), or taking cover in trees and firing muskets, which was called “fighting like Indians” instead demanding they fight like clockwork soldiers. The side that “fought like Indians” won a lopsided victory, and Braddock did not survive the expedition. So many American soldiers were lost that it became a factor leading to the Revolution.
The other problem that really hasn’t been brought up is that somebody will return. It’s not like the explorers all got off their boats and risked themselves.
The first time a landing party is wiped out, the rest either exact revenge or go back home and tell the homeland about a potentially lucrative new land filled only by natives with primitive weapons.
Between that and disease, the course of European domination of the Americas isn’t much changed by a bit more resistance at the beginning.
This is the principle behind the Zerg Rush. 100 guys with bows and arrows are going to shred half a dozen guys with muskets no matter how skilled they are.
Montezuma requires more vespene gas!
I doubt very long I mean when you look at the Spanish conquistadors tactics and advanced weaponry it was just too overwhelming. Sure it was a surprise attack but Pizarro vastly outnumbered with 168 men managed to kill 2000 or more Incas thanks to armor, better weapons, and horses.
This right here. The biggest factor in death was not genocide, it was disease brought on by centuries of more densely populated bacterial/viral colonies of cities across Europe, these cauldrons produced more virulent killers to the unexposed.
Their only hope to stave that off was to develop enough to the point where they understood the germ theory of disease and could fight things off with antibiotics and vaccines… so no hope.
I do wish European conquest was a bit delayed though, I want to know what would have happened when the Aztec and Incan civilizations eventually collided and clashed. The Incas had a higher population if I remember my history correctly, and killed far less people in human sacrifices. It would have been nice to see the Incas crush and obliterate the Aztecs.
Emphasis added - more like “they had weapons” :). At Cajamarca Atahualpa had essentially disarmed his huge escort as a sign of good faith. Several thousand guys milling around in ceremonial robes equipped with ceremonial side-arms weren’t much of a match for an ambush by pre-positioned, heavily armed Spaniards. It was functionally a turkey shoot. An example of what could happen when the tables turned can be seen at La Noche Triste.
Not that I think native forces could have lasted too long against the Pale Horseman as noted above. Just that they weren’t quite as helpless in battle against firearms, horses and steel as has sometimes been assumed.
Well only one nitpick, disease caused more loses than just decimating (curiously that word did not originate with the idea of killing every tenth soldier) the natives as Cecil noted.
The Sentinelese have been pretty effective right up to modern day, via sheer nastiness.
If, for whatever reason, the whole population of the two continents was somehow able to decide to be as violent as possible, right to the very last man, woman, and child, it’s possible that they could have kept most of the land. Though, given that most of the death which occurred to the Native Americans was down to disease, it’s possible that the societal collapse would have made things too chaotic for them to fend off the foreigners no matter what. But, it’s also possible that if they kept the Europeans away for long enough, the population might grow back again.
But, once the Europeans had some idea of the size and shape of the continents, I think they’d at least take over Panama and maybe all the islands in the Gulf of Mexico. From there they could spread out and target specific locales, if they thought that it would produce gold or new culinary items.
The big shift would probably come in the start of the 20th century, once guns were invented that could wipe out whole armies. It doesn’t matter if the Natives were able to steal and re-use the arms that the Europeans have because they wouldn’t have the factories and supply chain to produce ammunition for them. At this point, if Europe wanted to take over the Americas, they could do so, regardless of native animosity. And, you have to imagine that some country would decide to go for the land grab. Maybe the Russians would stream in from the North, the Japanese from the West, and the Germans from the East?
This time, the Natives would go out in an active genocide, rather than from disease and encroaching sociopaths.
That may all be true, but the ships which crossed the ocean weren’t that big, couldn’t hold that many people, and a hefty chunk of the people died on the way over. I don’t know how feasible it was, at that time, to move a viable army over from Europe to the Americas. It’s my understanding that the Spanish accomplished most of their victories by turning tribes/nations to their side or by putting up groups against one another.
If the Natives had promptly killed Columbus on his first voyage, along with all of his crew, then the Europeans back at home would have presumed that they had fallen off the edge of the Earth, and the Age of Exploration would have come to an abrupt end. The Natives would have been left in peace thereafter, even unto this very day.
Since I was not familiar with the term “Zerg Rush”, I googled it. Very trippy experience! :eek:
Highly recommended!
No, the Sentinelese have been pretty effective because everyone else has been treating them the same way they would an endangered species. 500 people with spears only get their way “through sheer nastiness” against a nation with 3,000 main battle tanks because the nation with the tanks is handling them with kid gloves.
Have you looked at where it is on a map? We’re not talking about an island in the middle of the Pacific. It’s right off the coast of India and Myanmar.
And, I’m pretty sure, the British Empire wasn’t all that concerned with the preservation of endangered human tribes back in the 1600 and 1700’s. Nor was the French Colonial Empire, the Dutch Empire, nor any of the other colonial powers who were trying to slurp up any available bit of Asia.