Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Evidence for European presence in the Americas in AD 1021

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 408 posts

Re: Evidence for European presence in the Americas in AD 1021

#81

Post by LudwigNagasena »

Swizec wrote: post #55
wbsss4412 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Source? Guns of the period weren’t very effective in that period. Most accounts I’ve seen attribute the conquistadors success to disease and political instability.

If I'm remembering Guns, Germs, and Steel correctly, a popular/pluasible theory is that even without the disease conquistador swords and armor were so much better than the natives, they'd eventually win regardless. Something about more advanced metallurgy. Having horses may also have helped. There were no beasts of burden (iirc) in North America until the Spanish arrived.

Well, there were around 3000 Spanish conquistadors. Could they really conquer the whole Aztec empire (5 mln people) without alliances with local tribes?

Re: Evidence for European presence in the Americas in AD 1021

#82

Post by BurningFrog »

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #28

An interesting counter-factual that comes to mind - if the Norse Greenlanders had brought smallpox or other diseases with them, then Native Americans would have had 500 years to recover (and keep immunity?) - The conquistadors would have faced millions of not-dying-natives. A much different world would have resulted.

That's really interesting!

Of course, if the native population died off around them, the Vikings would probably have expanded their settlements and perhaps ruled North America instead.

Re: Evidence for European presence in the Americas in AD 1021

#83

Post by kibwen »

jnwatson wrote: post #64
queuebert wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Parallel evolution of two strains of smallpox might have meant still no immunity to the Spanish version several centuries later. And the diseases were only a small factor in the outcome of the colonization. Guns being a much larger factor, for example.

Between “discovery” and permanent settlement of the continental US, an estimated 55 million Native Americans died of disease. [1] The colonization of North America would have gone quite differently with that many folks to contend with. 1. https://www.businessinsider.com/climate-changed-after-europe...

In particular we can imagine it might look more similar to how China, India, Africa, etc. turned out, with subjugated local populations serving under foreign imperial governors. The eventual collapse of the empire might then result in most of the Americas being populated by ethnically Native American states.

Re: Evidence for European presence in the Americas in AD 1021

#84

Post by headcanon »

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #28

An interesting counter-factual that comes to mind - if the Norse Greenlanders had brought smallpox or other diseases with them, then Native Americans would have had 500 years to recover (and keep immunity?) - The conquistadors would have faced millions of not-dying-natives. A much different world would have resulted.

I do think about that idea as well, but population density (on both sides) is an important factor though. Both the Vikings and the native populations had far lower population densities than, say, 15-century Spain and Italy, which is likely why the diseases didn't spread in the first place.

Mesoamerica a few centuries later did end up having the density required for disease transfer as history shows, but it was also helped along by the Spanish's active invasion. If the Spanish hadn't ever set foot on shore and the Mesoamerican society was allowed to develop, they would likely have developed their own diseases and the subsequent immune response, which may have helped fight Smallpox. But the Spanish got there before they had that opportunity.

If the Spanish invasion had been replaced by a smaller troupe of Viking traders, I would be interested to see what would happen, and you might be right if you only change that one variable. But who knows?

Re: Evidence for European presence in the Americas in AD 1021

#85

Post by bakuninsbart »

dragontamer wrote: post #66
throwaway894345 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And the diseases were only a small factor in the outcome of the colonization. Guns being a much larger factor, for example. I don't know how you get there. I'm pretty sure diseases went ahead of the colonists in many cases and wiped out entire civilizations before the colonists ever made contact. Even if it didn't wipe out literally everyone, it would have significantly destabilized or collapsed all significant pol…

In the context of military technology, ships and wagons are the big thing. Ships and wagons to carry food to troops and establish supply lines. Logistics wins wars. With exception of WW1 and WW2, soldiers didn't really die in large numbers to the enemy. Soldiers died to the cold, to disease, and deserted due to lack of food / supplies / morale. There are occasional exceptions where large numbers of soldiers died in b…

Was this generally the case for the native populations of the Americas? I'd actually be very interested in some works on native american supply line( problem)s.

Re: Evidence for European presence in the Americas in AD 1021

#87

Post by [deleted] »

kristopolous wrote: post #54
irrational wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that true? I've read that 90+% of the population died from diseases, the vast majority without ever knowing about the European conquerors (that is, they never saw a gun). Imagine if 90% of the people in your nearest city died. How difficult would it be for a new group, immune to whatever killed almost everyone in the city, to move in and take over?

I've always wondered why this wasn't a two-way street. Wouldn't native people also have diseases to share? I know the imperialists weaponized their diseases and intentionally tried to spread it and that may be the difference. Usually the smallpox theory is presented in a way that removes agency and culpability from the conquerers. It's always struck me as remarkably convenient and quite unbelievable; they were an idy…

[deleted]

Re: Evidence for European presence in the Americas in AD 1021

#88

Post by dragontamer »

bakuninsbart wrote: post #85
dragontamer wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the context of military technology, ships and wagons are the big thing. Ships and wagons to carry food to troops and establish supply lines. Logistics wins wars. With exception of WW1 and WW2, soldiers didn't really die in large numbers to the enemy. Soldiers died to the cold, to disease, and deserted due to lack of food / supplies / morale. There are occasional exceptions where large numbers of soldiers died in b…

Was this generally the case for the native populations of the Americas? I'd actually be very interested in some works on native american supply line( problem)s.

I don't know much about Native American war theory.

But I know that Medieval English Longbowmen were only given something like 6 arrows per battle. And even that was enough to stretch the capacities of Medieval Britain's supply chain. 10,000 Longbowmen x 6 arrows is 60,000 arrows per battle.

IIRC, it was said that during wars, there wasn't any gooses or ducks to be found in all of Britain. They've all been killed, and their feathers plucked for the war arrows.

Re: Evidence for European presence in the Americas in AD 1021

#89

Post by LudwigNagasena »

ilamont wrote: post #4

The Icelandic sagas suggest that the Norse engaged in cultural exchanges with the Indigenous groups of North America34. If these encounters indeed occurred, they may have had inadvertent outcomes, such as pathogen transmission7, the introduction of foreign flora and fauna species, or even the exchange of human genetic information. Recent data from the Norse Greenlandic population, however, show no evidence of the las…

> the exchange of human genetic information

This sounds like a parody of scientific jargon. Why do people write like this?..

Re: Evidence for European presence in the Americas in AD 1021

#90

Post by polartx »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #59
queuebert wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Parallel evolution of two strains of smallpox might have meant still no immunity to the Spanish version several centuries later. And the diseases were only a small factor in the outcome of the colonization. Guns being a much larger factor, for example.

> And the diseases were only a small factor in the outcome of the colonization. Guns being a much larger factor, for example. I don't know how you get there. I'm pretty sure diseases went ahead of the colonists in many cases and wiped out entire civilizations before the colonists ever made contact. Even if it didn't wipe out literally everyone, it would have significantly destabilized or collapsed all significant pol…

>I'm pretty sure diseases went ahead of the colonists in many cases and wiped out entire civilizations before the colonists ever made contact. Even if it didn't wipe out literally everyone, it would have significantly destabilized or collapsed all significant political or economic systems.

This is absolutely what happened to the Incan empire predatory to its subjugation to a few hundred conquistadors led by Francisco Pizarro. For those interested check out Last Days of the Incas.

Post reply on HN