Why were native Americans so ineffective at pushing back the invading colonizers?
Like, if you look up their history there's at least a hundred massacres against natives by the United States alone, and even all these massacres had fewer troops than native but had miniscule losses
Technology. Read about Jack Hays and the Colt six-shooters first being used on the plains. That's an example of settlers going from injun chum to defeating 100 warriors with two dozen men.
They were already losing very badly well before repeating rifles and revolvers were introduced, and Indians still had a fair number of them too, but I don't think they were ever as ubiquitous as muzzle-loaders were in many Indian hosts. At best, this technological development sped up the mop-up phase in the Far West.
This is far more important, Indians simply could not replace losses and very rarely attempted a large-scale battle with whites. It was the scale and efficiency of Western social organization that crushed the Indians more than anything else. Most of them never really understood why launching some raids on a handful of homesteads would result in thousands of men pouring in from several states all hundreds of miles apart. Even if they beat one small formation, there would always be plenty more.
Doesn't help that most tribes have less people than a single infantry bridage
*brigade
>Indians simply could not replace losses and very rarely attempted a large-scale battle with
pretty much, even when they tried to unite into a big confederation to push the whitey out, the biggest army they could muster numbered 1000-2000 warriors, all from a hundred different tribes and speaking different languages
they were fricked any way you look at it, the north american natives were disunified, lacked the numbers to do anything useful and the only ones that managed to adapt (the five civilized tribes) were still betrayed by the US and fricked over
Why am i hard?
>technological differences
>native population wasn't necessarily as populous as you would think
>various tribes were warring with each other at the time
>differences in strategic warfare
Because you are a man of culture.
Microbes and diseases that they had never encountered drastically reduced their numbers (by like 80%) and weakened their tribes just before being invaded by people with better technology and weapons.
They would've been conauered anyway had they not mostlt died of the sniffles. Still would've been kino. Imagine an 8 centuries long colonial period prolonged by growing numbers of colonial rebels/ fighting age Indians.
>conauerd
I would read this alternate history novel.
>Microbes and diseases that they had never encountered drastically reduced their numbers
Why didn't the same happen to Europeans encountering native microbes for the first time?
Syphilis is conjectured to be an example of this.
Also dense population centers conducive to the spread and mutation of disease weren't as prevalent in the America's. Europe was the polar opposite. European settlers were basically walking bioweapons. Native Americans simply didn't develop as much into a type of society where the spread of certain diseases would be as widespread and didn't have the immune systems to match.
Animal husbandry and numbers. Most pandemics start from animal transmission to humans. Combine that with the fact European immune systems were subject to diseases coming all the way from India and China.
The proclamation of 1763 was a reaction both to the French & Indian War and to Pontiac's War. In the first, practically all Native American nations sided with the French against the British due to the endless settler encroachments onto their land. In the second, a Native American coalition with no European help fought the British to a stalemate.
This alarmed the British, who didn't care about settlement at all. They weren't in North America to help white people get new farms, they were there to make money for the homeland. The realization that practically every Indian nation was totally against them, and that settlers were sparking wars with them which they had no desire to fight, led to the Proclamation and a policy of stopping further settlement. The Proclamation Line was actually patrolled by British troops - not to keep Indians out, but to keep settlers out. In contrast, the US government never once deployed troops to guarantee native treaty rights, because they only stood to gain from settlers violating them. The British however stood to lose greatly if they did, because they wanted to avoid more costly wars with Indians which they were not guaranteed to win. This was no matter of morality, they were forced into it by Indians themselves and had little material interest in conquering an absolutely massive frontier militarily - which was not even assured, as Pontiac's War showed - when the only guaranteed reward would be land for further white settlement, which they didn't care about as British colonialism was a venture purely for profit. This was a major factor in the Declaration of Independence, as the American colonists were extremely land-hungry and willing to suck up the losses if it meant that each white family could set up their own home on American land. So Native warfare against the Brits was powerful enough to make the British government oppose further expansion to an extent that the American colonists thought violated their freedom and waged war over.
>the only answer worth a damn in this entire thread
>not one reply
NuIQfy everyone. Everybody here is a just a /misc/ immigrant
somebody clicked ctrl-v ctrl-c and you're just blown away like a fat 8-year old at a magic show lol go post somewhere else
Now THIS is the kind of answer I like in a history board. Not all those fricking religion homosexuals, and not /misc/posters.
The proclamation line of 1763 was damn near impossible to enforce settlers regularly ignored it, the US military couldn't have possibly enforced something like that for every single native reservation and for what benefit piss off your own citizens to virtue single to a bunch of homosexuals more then a century later?
damn
>wars
hordes of peasants from the slums of europe were given a gun to steal their land
They had no civilizations on the Eastern seaboard to hold the whiteys at bay.
whitey ppl before the colonization had an enourmous war history against eachother so since the natives didnt had that much bellic experience and high IQ they could not stand a chance against anglos, hot pic btw
The majority of natives are crackers pretending to not be crackers. It would be great if they wanted to develop their own culture that would rise above the current cultural landscape of america but its not really noteworthy as is.
>hard as a rock from this pics
Frick you Op
Mixes with whites, becomes Chad. Simple as.
White people are more intelligent than Indians.
Oh yeah then why is injun cum so thick?
What the frick does that have to do with any of what he said
and yet whites destroy themselves... curious
stop believing in pol memes
Racial inferiority
The 80 IQ savages could not come up with sophisticated strategies.
They would just rely on their superior numbers to overwhelm their enemy like at the Custer's last stand.
Glad you're subscribed to this theory. You must then agree with the racial inferiority of disgusting subhuman Nordoids from their Mediterranean betters, who were buck broken for centuries and had to dilute the empires strength by throwing numbers at them like Black folk until they took over and stole their superior Mediterranean culture.
they let the problem (whites) get too far advanced before they started resisting them. if every colony and outpost went like Roanoke then America would be native American today.
by the time of established cities and even states the natives were omega fricked. idk if anyone can find population statistics but it would be interesting to see. its like Israel/Palestine today if you were to exclude foreign interreference from the Arab states. they had hope in the 40's when it was more even Stevens but as the years crept by the Palestinian position got fundamentally weaker and weaker. to the point where now they are be suffocated out of existence
another factor was simply the lifestyle they led as cool as it was, didn't produce enough. the only serious threats were the plain Indians, but once they btfo those buffalo the whole house fell down from that simple kick to the door.
also ive never examined the literature but i get the feeling the grandstrategy was different between the whites and the natives. the whites gave no fricks about murdering women and children to secure their position whilst the injuns seemed to not do this, or in the cases they did it was petty raids no different then a criminal band
Nomads, especially nomads with literally zero experience fighting modern states, are horrible at resisting imperialism because they lack permanent settlements that they could imagine "defending" from an invader.
Natives weren't able to rationalize that hey maybe having their land stolen was a bad thing until very late, and at that point Europe was well established on the continent and could not be repulsed.
Guns beat bows and arrows.
Hot pics op
>tfw no native bf
The most important part of it was that because they lived a healthy lifestyle and had a concept of hygiene (which included regular bathing, a practice unheard of amongst Europeans at the time), their immune systems were unused to the kind of horrible diseases which European bodies had become used to after centuries of living packed together in filth. These diseases killed off most while the rest were outnumbered against a technologically superior foe.
Most of the people died of local disease, some 20 million in Mesoamerica died from a mutated strain of hyper-salmonella from rats attracted to their domestic animals such as Turkeys.
guns, germs and steal, anon. guns germs and steal......
Hot
Somehow this thread is less gay than almost all the WW2 threads
Whites are a more barbaric, violent race.
>posting something that is literally the opposite of true
Bizarre how people can be so brainwashed they can literally ignore the reality they see before them.
Wait till you find out how many massacres against natives the natives committed. The United States were the first group to offer them an alternative to genocide.