If the native Americans had been victorious after the initial contact with Spain..

[sas]

We're having this discussion at Historic-Battles

"If the native Americans had been victorious after the initial contact with the Spaniards (Hernando Cortez), and had realised the European intentions. Do you think the American history would be any different that it is today?"

Thoughts?

 

[tonberry]

Could be yes. If the Aztecs and the Natives Americans would have repel the europeans their civilization would still stand now. I think the europeans would have been able to settle still but today there would have been only some small area very populated like Québec, Montreal, New York and some others cities. The whole world would be very different now.

 

[Alcibiaties of Athenae]

Not very different, nor was there any real chance for them, as the native Americans were using weapons of Stone, bone and wood vs Steel and Iron.

Spain would simply have sent more forces, it had plenty after the reconquista.

 

[Flatlander Fox]

Agree with AoA...


To take it a step further, it would probably be an entirely Spanish speaking America though, only because Spain could have sent more conquering forces here than the other nations at that time...

 

[Toasty]

I think that the barren wastes of Canada (wha't all this snow aboot anyways, eh?) would have been colonized by the subsequent powers of the French, English, and Dutch, in the continued search by these nations for the "Northwest passage"--to my knowledge, Spain never made any such attempts to find that elusive trade opener...

 

[Heffalump]

Africa is a rough comparison. Europeans were unable to settle there in large numbers and the continent (ultimately) remained in the hands of its natives.

Actually it's interesting to compare the two continents because it becomes obvious there are larger forces at work than a single battle or even a series of battles.

The Europeans conquested Africa militarily and ruled it for some time, just as they did the Americas. But today Africa is back in the hands of its natives ... with only a few traces of the old colonists. While America is regarded as having been .... colonized. Yet in each place the European force of arms was dominant.

So force of arms isn't the deciding factor.

The Europeans greatest strength was the germs they brought with them. In two hundred years several millions of natives died and the American continents were vastly de-populated. So de-populated that the colonists shipped in slaves from Africa for labor because the locals had become too scarce.

So even if the Europeans had lost some battles it wouldn't matter. Eventually the indians would have still died and the resulting vacuum would have drawn more colonists.

Africa however was just the opposite. The majority of it had a climate that was hostile to European settlers. And not only were the Africans largely immune to the settler's germs, but the settlers were vulnerable to the African germs, malaria especially. Only on the south tip of Africa could a settler survive.

So the Europeans could fight and win all the battles they wanted in Africa (or Asia for that matter). Those lands were ultimately inhospitable. On the Americas (and Australia) however they only had to seek out the natives to kill them. The process would have been slower had the Europeans lost some battles, but the results were inevitable.

 

[jdd2007]

they couldnt have been. end of story.

 

[Richard III]

Originally posted by Alcibiaties of Athenae
Not very different, nor was there any real chance for them, as the native Americans were using weapons of Stone, bone and wood vs Steel and Iron.

Spain would simply have sent more forces, it had plenty after the reconquista.

I recently read - and highly recommend - Bernal Diaz's account of the Mexican campaign, called "The Conquest of New Spain." Diaz was a soldier on the expedition, and he wrote "The Conquest" a few decades after the campaign as a rebuttal to second-hand accounts that he says got the facts wrong. The book is considered to be one of the best and most honest of its kind by many historians.

As Diaz's account makes clear through battle after battle, the Aztec ability to muster numbers and their willingness to take heavy casualties made these technology advantages irrelevant. The real advantages the Spaniards had were horses, boldness and skilful diplomacy. Cortez would be a dead man before he'd ever seen Tenochtitlan if it wasn't for his ability to build alliances and turn the natives against each other.

I encourage everyone to read that amazing account. Since historians now tell the tale in a paragraph or two as though it was inevitable, Diaz's story actually has a suspenseful feel to it as well. Until I went to Mexico and grew interested in its pre-contact and contact history, I always assumed it was simply a tale that went like this: "using superior technology, Cortez scared the Aztecs into submission to his God-like form." Not that simple at all!

Once you do read more closely, I think you'll give those Spaniards more credit: they were gutsy bastards, accomplishing far more than could reasonably be expected under difficult circumstances.

Yes, America would have fallen eventually, but without Cortez's skill, Pizarro's shameless boldness and a lot of luck, it would have taken much longer.

R.III

 

[Alcibiaties of Athenae]

I wasn't getting into detail, Richard, but I would have mentioned that the Aztecs thought Horse and rider were one super being!
(I have read it, BTW)

He is correct, the Spanish managed to get as many 10,000 indian allied troops on their side, but it wasn't through skillful talk, the Indians were overawed by the Spanish weapons and armor, thus my intial post.

 

[Octavian X]

I may have to disagree. It could be possible that accounts of the native's savagery from survivors of a sucessful native campaign against the Spainards could have scared the Spanish. They could decide not to risk another potentially failed expedition. The probabilty of that happening is increased if reports of Aztec wealth didn't reach the monarchy's ears.

Basically, the Aztecs and Inca had a chance, albeit it a small one.

 

[ViceRoy]

Originally posted by Heffalump
The Europeans greatest strength was the germs they brought with them. In two hundred years several millions of natives died and the American continents were vastly de-populated. So de-populated that the colonists shipped in slaves from Africa for labor because the locals had become too scarce.

That is correct.
The whole number of natives before the discovery of New world is around 50-100 million (maybe about 70 million).
In three hundred years most natives where killed by the diseases brought by Europeans or African slaves.

The inability of natives to handle the diseases and their inability to understand what was killing them made natives fear. Just think if some strange disease would start killing people now and it's victim having only small chance of survival. Not only those that are weak like children and old people but those are on their best shape of life...young people...Wouldn't you be afraid? And without modern knowledge of how people are infected wouldn't you certainly think that the conquerors who didn't get sick would be some kind of Supreme creatures compared to you?

Certainly boldness or we could say simple insolence was Spanish best merit. Example Pizarro basically walked to Peru...the last of great Inca leader had died a while ago into disease and the kingdom was now in almost complete anarchy.

It was truly a simple story...different diseases striking and killing the natives...slowly destroying the whole infastructure.

 

[onejayhawk]

Cortez was brilliant. Most of the rest of the Conquistadres were not. In the end it matters little. The force that humbled The Aztecs was a quick one, but a slower one lurked: small pox. It is interesting that disease went mostly one way. Europeans, and Africans since it came up, had developed wide immunities. Native populations were reduced by half on contact with small pox and no civilization can stand that strain.

Another difference between that colonization of Africa and the Americas is the land. Africa has very little land that is arrible in the 17th century European sense, and large, hostile, cultures in place. In contrast the entire Atlantic coastal plain is ideal for European style farming, and the natives were scattered and mutally hostile. But the real drive in colonization came from religious forces, which makes it a timing thing. The post Reformation fall out left all of Europe at odds with itself. Interestingly it was the zealots that wanted to immigrate. They saw the new lands as a chance to do things "Right", to set up a perfect little example of God's kingdom on Earth. These were the well established seed colonies that provided a base for the huddled masses that came later, again without precedent in Africa.

J

 

[G-Man]

If they'd beat the Spanish and capture some of their people and weapons, they could've learnt much more about weapons and metals and would've been a stronger opposition to europeans. The question is how muhc time they'll have to learn and use these new techs. If they'd win, a decade later they'd probably have a large enough modern army to strenghen themselves over other native American tribes and to resist any european expedition. Ofcource a large european settlment in north America could've been a good opponent, but it's very possbile europeans would've prefered to trade with the Indians rather than to fight them as they'll face a rich in gold nation that has an army capable of fighting european armies.

 

[alephz]

Ofcource a large european settlment in north America could've been a good opponent,

why in north America?

 

[G-Man]

Spain was interested mostly in south America, so if they were to be beatened it would be by the south Americans, and they were the ones to learn their technologies, not the north Americans.

 

[Richard III]

Given that Pizarro was outnumbered by several million to one, and Cortez - counting the allies he made through diplomacy (sorry AOA, but I can't agree that it was simply force or fear) was outnumber by hundreds to one, I am at a loss as to how the fall can simply be blamed on disease. Disease hurt, but there were plenty of healthy natives left alive when the Spanish arrived on the scene.

R.III

 

[alephz]

I have heard that the Indians lost, partly, because they believed that the Spanish were gods because his traditions were speaking about white and bearded gods who would come from east(Viracocha). And, really, it seems that there were incredible coincidences, seemingly supernatural (for example in the stars) that seemed to confirm that the predictions about Viracocha were fulfilled.

 

[ViceRoy]

Originally posted by Richard III
I am at a loss as to how the fall can simply be blamed on disease. Disease hurt, but there were plenty of healthy natives left alive when the Spanish arrived on the scene.

R.III

I think you understand that the problem was there wasn't really not any "real front" against the europeans by natives because the diseases had made their mark into the communities and the overall confusion both by suddenly emerged white people and diseases that were killing without remorse. Remember that diseases had already spread by other expeditions than just Cortez and Pizarro.

Over ninety percent of native population died in few hundred years and the diseases came like waves across the Atlantic again and again killing the natives and making the whole resistance of natives against europeans impossible. Many are lost in history about diseases as they aren't really any superb popular subject...
It's much cooler to say that Conquistadors were astonishing in way taking over the old empires by just handfull of soldiers and horses.

However I'm not really talking here one particular part of "conquest of the New Word" and I'm not expert of Pizarro's "conquests" but you should understand the vital role of diseases. Think a moment how natives saw their way of living destructed and now ways of fighting against the europeans when the people that should be in the best shape of their life are dying with no reason at all.
I do know that Pizarro was no fool and with cleverly tricked natives but would have this have happened without the diseases and that the whole empire was in civil war?

There are however also some evidence that example tuberculosis was already killer in ranks of natives and the heavy lifestyle of natives had already made their mark when faced with europeans. So it's possible that the cultures of New World were already going down and Europeans just made it more quicker process.

Diseases played a vital role in "conquest of the New World".

 

[Heffalump]

Originally posted by RIII

Given that Pizarro was outnumbered by several million to one, and Cortez - counting the allies he made through diplomacy (sorry AOA, but I can't agree that it was simply force or fear) was outnumber by hundreds to one, I am at a loss as to how the fall can simply be blamed on disease. Disease hurt, but there were plenty of healthy natives left alive when the Spanish arrived on the scene.

I don't disagree that some of the early Conquistadores displayed great heroism. The exploits of Cortez amazed me when I first read about them. Only bravery, fighting prowness, and a bit of luck saved his skin. (And of course horses, gunpowder and steel weapons )

But what happened in the Americas long-term had less to do those early battles with the Aztec, and much more to do with disease and the resulting demographic shift.

(edited for typo)

 

[Richard III]

Originally posted by Heffalump
But what happened in the Americas long-term had less to do those early battles with the Aztec, and much more to do with disease and the resulting demographic shift.

(edited for typo)

Ok, agreed.

Look, I was only arguing that the Conquistadores sped up the process by a good century or more. Yes, in the long term, the disease mattered, particularly in North America.

R.III