If tribal societies in Afro-Eurasia were able to adapt gunpowder to push back European imperialism, why couldn't the natives of the New World do it as well?
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
Whites didnt come in a small elite to exploit but came in force to conquer and settle
1. Because they died of disease and there weren't enough of them
2. They hated each other and used the guns to kill each other off first.
3. In some cases they did try to do this but due to above two factors it wasn't effective.
>t. American education
Explain France. Unlike England and to a lesser extent Spain, there weren't that many French people that came to settle. Mainly just traders and a small elite class. Natives couldn't really fight against them, either.
Natives never fought much against France because they were primarily traders not settlers. The French were also weirdly integrationist about the injuns.
>not settlers
>literally had and still have one of the largest claims ethnically on NA
the French we're just more shrewd. Quebec exists for a reason
Are you dumb? Injuns did use muskets against the white man. The reason why europeans prevailed is because, like the rest of all colonial history, they took advantage of the internecine wars between tribes and smaller nations.
This. If the Indians realized the scale of the threat and combined at the start, history would have gone differently. The exact same process occurred with Caesar in Gaul: divide and conquer.
>Afro-Eurasia
Don't lump Africa into Europe or Asia. Africa was, is, and always will be a shithole. The only part they played, was the part where they rounded up their own people, so sell in the slave trade. As they were already doing to themselves.
Also, Indians got fricking wrecked by all the diseases that we have immunities to. They were reliant on European trade for gunpowder. Europeans are smarter than them, so when they feared the Indian revolt, they just killed all their food supplies. Combine that with the fact that Indians weren't the noble savage myth, and they'd use their limited access to guns, to kill other Indians too.
Then once America was independent, they didn't have to follow the established trade rules that the British made with the Indians. So the Americans just shot them.
But mostly shit like small pox, killing off their food supplies, and not letting them gain enough power through guns/gunpowder.
There's also the fact that the Indians believed that they didn't own the land, and they just used it in harmony. So the British were like "lol, morons. if you don't own it, then we own the parts we're using" and then kept expanding. Virginia developed the "Indian Title", which the Indians agreed to. Which was about the Indian's right to occupy and use the land, but not own the land. Allowing them to do things like hunt and farm, but not much else. The British adopted that concept into their trade contracts.
>If the Indians realized the scale of the threat and combined at the start
Then France, Portugal, and Spain would have gave way more of a shit, and slaughtered the Indians mercilessly. It's also not possible to "unite" them all. They weren't the noble savage, so there's no way that they could organize that way.
It's simple: they did, you dumb c**t
Not enough manpower. Native societies had high mortality rates and low birth rates compared to Europeans. They were all in decline by the time colonists started building towns and settling North and South America
I think that people often forget just how few Injuns there were in what would become the US and Canada. There were more Englishmen than there were Injuns, period.
The Gauls did actually try to unify a number of times, they just lost on the military front and didn't achieve lasting political unification. The Injuns never tried to.
>Northwestern Confederacy
>Tecumseh's confederacy
The Spanish could have NEVER slaughtered the Indians mercilessly, the only reason they were victorious was because they allied with other Native American factions.
>The Spanish could have NEVER slaughtered the Indians mercilessly
In this theoretical, the original anon managed to convince all the various tribes of North and South America to unite for a common cause. Getting Spain, France, and Portugal to unite against them, would be far less of a challenge.
First off, the idea that both Americas would have the capability to unite is pure poppywiener, not a good thought experiment. I'm confident anon just meant North America.
Secondly, European powers were competing for the new land and its resources, there would be no alliances UNLESS they were on the brink of physically being removed from the continent by the Red man, again almost nil chance of that happening,.
>First off, the idea that both Americas would have the capability to unite is pure poppywiener
I said that in my post.
>Secondly, European powers were competing for the new land and its resources, there would be no alliances UNLESS they were on the brink of physically being removed from the continent
So more likely than being able to unite all of North and South American Indians? Glad we agree.
Yes, the Inca had the potential to forcibly unite South America under its rule.
If Atahualpa's arrogance did not make him meet the Spaniards without his army, getting himself captured, the Tawantinsuyu's army would have brutalized the Iberians taking the survivors to be interrogated about the steel and gunpowder.
You'd see elite Inca units wielding steel armor and weapons alongside the horses, as well as Chinchaysuyu archers being equipped with crossbows reverse engineered from the Spanish ones.
There I imagine they would focus their efforts in finding iron ores and developing methods to smelt them as well as finding more European traders to get more horses/mares.
I don't disagree with anything you said, but that still can't defeat the small pox blanket. They were an underused tactic, that struck a critical blow to the overwhelming majority. And it was *mostly* done by mistake.
If the Europeans actually started doing wide-scale biological warfare on purpose, they wouldn't need to fight in many actual battles.
I hope I don't come off as opinionated or something, the topic really is one of my passions so I must share with you that the brunt of the main force of smallpox was already over by the time Atahualpa usurped the throne.
Smallpox indirectly caused the power struggle because the Emperor died from it leading to his sons starting a civil war.
In other words, once Atahualpa consolidated power, the Empire was again "working like clockwork".
You don't come across as opinionated, I'm far less educated in South American history, so I assumed that Atahualpa was during the early portion of the European arrival. So that was mostly my mistake.
If small pox was basically a minor issue by then, then Atahualpa was 300 years after Europe knew about North and South America. I assumed we were talking about Indians uniting before 100 years had passed. Though I guess that was also my mistake, because you said they rode horses, and Europeans brought horses, so that should have been a clue for me.
I guess we were mostly talking passed each other. Interesting stuff you taught me though.
Andean history is fascinating, thank you for your replies..
I would disagree with that. I don't know very much about the Inca themselves (I would be very grateful if you cleared up any misconceptions I might have, and if you wanted to talk about them in more detail I would be happy to hear you) but I don't think their general model of empire building would actually prosper outside the Andes. Especially considering that the more they veered off the andes, the less advanced the people they encountered would be and thus it would be harder to integrate them.
>survivors to be interrogated about the steel and gunpowder.
Also, this is a nitpick but you are being wishful. Tanwantinsuyu barely had the technology to smelt bronze, even assuming one of the survivors of the Pizarro expedition knew how to make steel (VERY unlikely, even a normal smith is unlikely), the likelyhood that the Inca could actually develop steelworking without at least a century of trial and error is very low. The same applies for gunpowder. The only western "technologies" the natives could easily replicate are biological ones. They're called the horse and the attack dog. And of those two the horse is basically useless in South America outside of Argentina and parts of Venezuela.
There would be several wave sof epidemics before they stopped.
>In other words, once Atahualpa consolidated power, the Empire was again "working like clockwork".
Can I ask you few questions regarding the empire?
I've heard the Inca readily practiced ethnic relocation (along with basically using ethnicities like in a fricked up RTS), was this detrimental or beneficial for the empire in the long run?
Did the Inca enforce segregation amongst their subjects?
Was Inca religion like a universal cult or was everyone allowed to believe whatever?
Did they have any empire wide institutions aside from the military, mit'a, and the Tambo/Road system?
What books do you reccomend for an overview of the Inca.
Post theme: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eRyZbfWtgo
(1/2)
>the more they veered off the Andes, the less advanced the people they encountered
>There would be several waves of epidemics before they stopped
>the likelyhood that the Inca could actually develop steelworking without at least a century of trial and error is very low. The same applies for gunpowder.
These true and I agree.
>I don't think their general model of empire building would actually prosper outside the Andes
In what sense, if you could be more specific.
Apart from the Andes, they dominated the coast and had a foothold in the Amazon with the conquest of the Chachapoyas, however they were indeed overextending as Atahualpa's father spent most of his reign putting down rebellions rather than adding to the Empire's territory.
Much of the Northern Empire (modern Ecuador) was conquered by Atahualpa's grandfather, Tupac Yupanqui, who constructed Cusco-tier cities were once primitive villages stood.
>Ethnic relocation
The policy was called Mitma and it was applied to Nations who resisted the Inca to the bitter end such as the Huancas or Cañari.
These Nations were "untamable" so their leadership was dismantled and went through complete disarmament, where Inca forces overtook the judicial and security roles.
Then their Ayllus (clans) were broken up forming new groups some of which were then sent to consolidated parts of the Tawantinsuyu such as Cusco. Ayllus from loyal territories were then brought in to replace the transferred populations.
In contrast with the Chimu who surrendered and thus were allowed to be ruled by one of their Princes who of course answered only to Cusco. They were permitted to keep a security force.as well.
(2/2)
>Ethnic relocation
This was beneficial to the Empire in the long run as the rebellious nature of these defeated Nations were eventually "bred out" with the new generations. However this policy backfired during the Spanish invasion as these resentful populations naturally joined the Iberians as a means to free themselves.
>Did the Inca enforce segregation amongst their subjects?
Yes, the extinct language Puquina exclusively belonged to the Inca nobility and its high priests. To be a noble, not to mention the Sapa Inca, you had to have royal blood. To be a high-ranking military officer you had to be a noble. This is why sibling incest was popular in the ruling class. Atahualpa's mother was a commoner, therefore he was considered unpure by Cusco's eyes in contrast with his brother Huascar.
>Inca religion
It was pantheistic, if a conquered nation's religion was regarded as respectable it was allowed to coexist albeit with modifications where the Incan Solar theology became supreme such as in the case of the Chimu who were forced to relegate their Lunar theology.
If the Incas encountered a religion deemed outstanding they would incorporate it into their own theology such as the case of Pachacamac.
>Institutions
You've got the main ones save for the Acllahuasi (women higher education) and an honorable mention the Llactacamayu, health inspectors who would visit citizen's homes to make sure they had good hygiene and were living in a clean and tidy manner.
>Recommendations
Top of my head, these are great overview videos, from here you can branch off with specific texts that are referenced.
Thank you for your reply
Indians had various petty rivalries that made any resistance unfocused. You can read accounts of some war with Indians written by early English settlers like John Underhill and it's always the case of the colonists managing to raise a handful of men among their ranks, a hundred or two of native allies and with Europeans serving as elite shock troops overpower any opposition. Without the fact that injuns just weren't the most united of people they wouldn't have the "sponge" of allies to prevent encirclement or attritional warfare. In many ways conquistadors experienced the same thing earlier on.
They did and it worked for centuries. Anglos were just 2good at divide and conquer.
They were dropping dead from diseases brought by the Europeans.