3 ms·

>>were probably a big reason why Spain so quickly supplanted the Aztecs. Maybe, maybe not. It didn't hurt that the Spaniards had powerful biological weapons on

>>were probably a big reason why Spain so quickly supplanted the Aztecs. Maybe, maybe not. It didn't hurt that the Spaniards had powerful biological weapons on their side that decimated [1] the Aztec population. Same as what happened here in the United States with the native population. Had it been the natives spreading new infectious diseases to the arriving europeans, history would probably have been quite different. Imagine going to a new land and upon contact with the natives a sizable portion of your people always dies off while the natives stay healthy and at full fighting strength. And even the ones that do not die off still get so sick that it completely incapacitates them for some time and hence unable to fight. They'd be very vulnerable to native attacks. The news would spread like wild fire in Europe that everybody that travels to the new world dies because of sorcery or what not. Yep, history could have turned out very differently indeed. [1]http://blogs.plos.org/publichealth/2013/07/30/guest-post-what-killed-the-aztecs/ http://blogs.plos.org/publichealth/2013/07/30/guest-post-wha... This is the relevant part: >>When Hernando Cortes and his army conquered Mexico starting in 1519, there were roughly about 25 million people living in what is now Mexico. A hundred years later, after a series of epidemics decimated the local population, perhaps as few as 1.2 million natives survived. Records confirm there was a smallpox epidemic in 1519 and 1520, immediately after the Europeans arrived, killing between 5 and 8 million people<<

graeme 8y ago
Even more than that. If news was able to make it back, the viruses also surely would have made it back to the European mainland at sime point, bringing Europe to its knees. Native societies all across the americas were struck by plague even before Europeans got there, as the disease moved faster than colonists into the interior.
natecavanaugh 8y ago
History could have turned out differently, but wouldn't it require other factors to also change? For instance, isn't European colonialism responsible for both the larger number of diseases the explorers had been carrying, but also the higher herd immunity? And that the native's relative isolation led them to be more exposed when confronted with foreign cultures? I guess what I'm asking is, isn't this a little bit of a chicken/egg situation? If the natives had been more aggressive in expansion, they may have had a higher exposure rate to other cultures and diseases and thereby a higher immunity to it as well as leading to more genetic diversity, and possibly having reached Europe first? I guess the way I read your comment was implying that history could have easily been different (which you may or may not actually be stating), but the number of factors (genetic/cultural temperament, geology, etc) all have to line up over such a long period so as to basically be a fundamentally different world history than what has transpired, both before and after the actual colonisation period. I overall agree with your point, that it was a large factor in the colonisation of the Americas, but even that aspect was far more determined or influenced by a huge range of factors that co-mingle into the history we know (and largely left to random natural processes and historical fiat). I'm probably being overly pedantic (it is Saturday night on HN after all ;)), but I guess your statement read similarly to other "history-could-be-different" thought experiments, but seem fundamentally different (I'm contrasting that to the most common experiments, situations like the TV show High Castle and what if Germany won the war, or what if JFK hadn't been assasinated, etc). Again, I'm not necessarily disagreeing, just following a mental thread of what would be needed in order for that change to be possible. Having written and read all that, at the very least, I was assuming something that's probably different than what you're actually saying. Your comment does make me wonder about some of the other accounts of European history where the Romans had a harder time invading (parts of Brittania, for example) where the cultures were written off as barbarian and completely deranged or had large myths associated with them, if disease played some part in the comparable success/failure of colonisation for those areas and the coloring of Western history in general.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  The best theory I’ve seen goes as follows. Humans the world over have domesticated like a dozen beasts of burden [1]. Ever. Most of those animals are in the Old World. (The New World just had llamas.) Domesticated beasts of burden mean (a) higher productivity, i.e. cities i.e. proximity between people and (b) proximity between people and animals. The latter provides a vector for novel diseases to form. The former provides a vector for them to spread. The boost to productivity, meanwhile, meant the Old World had the resources to venture out. It’s more challenging to bootstrap a complex technological society with just alpaca. [1] https://www.thoughtco.com/animal-domestication-table-dates-places-170675 https://www.thoughtco.com/animal-domestication-table-dates-p...
  - natecavanaugh 8y ago
    I can definitely see how those innate technological advantages can stack up, and it's definitely a good theory. I can't think of anything that couldn't be explained by it, though I still believe there were a number of other factors working in tandem with the domestication of animals (I am generally curious as to why horses became extinct in North America as well as the general lack of native domesticated mammals, if there is any known reason for it; the climate seems well suited for them to thrive, but perhaps the size of the continent and it's general isolation didn't contribute to the selective pressures that benefited Eurasia, I'm just speculating outloud).
    - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
      > I am generally curious as to why horses became extinct in North America “The causes of [North American horses’] extinction have been debated. Given the suddenness of the event and because these mammals had been flourishing for millions of years previously, something quite unusual must have happened. The first main hypothesis attributes extinction to climate change. For example, in Alaska, beginning approximately 12,500 years ago, the grasses characteristic of a steppe ecosystem gave way to shrub tundra, which was covered with unpalatable plants. However, it has been proposed that the steppe-tundra vegetation transition in Beringia may have been a consequence, rather than a cause, of the extinction of megafaunal grazers. The other hypothesis suggests extinction was linked to overexploitation of native prey by newly arrived humans. The extinctions were roughly simultaneous with the end of the most recent glacial advance and the appearance of the big game-hunting Clovis culture. Several studies have indicated humans probably arrived in Alaska at the same time or shortly before the local extinction of horses” [1]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horses_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horses_in_the_United_States
detritus 8y ago
> Imagine going to a new land and upon contact with the natives a sizable portion of your people always dies off while the natives stay healthy and at full fighting strength. One could argue that there was at least one example of South America's 'geographic genetics' fighting back against European encroachment and winning - The Darien Scheme, which ultimately broke Scotland, enabling rule by England back home. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darien_scheme https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darien_scheme
tomohawk 8y ago
It's estimated that about 1/3 of European population died due to Syphilis brought back from the new world.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

graeme 8y ago

Even more than that. If news was able to make it back, the viruses also surely would have made it back to the European mainland at sime point, bringing Europe to its knees. Native societies all across the americas were struck by plague even before Europeans got there, as the disease moved faster than colonists into the interior.

natecavanaugh 8y ago

History could have turned out differently, but wouldn't it require other factors to also change? For instance, isn't European colonialism responsible for both the larger number of diseases the explorers had been carrying, but also the higher herd immunity? And that the native's relative isolation led them to be more exposed when confronted with foreign cultures? I guess what I'm asking is, isn't this a little bit of a chicken/egg situation? If the natives had been more aggressive in expansion, they may have had a higher exposure rate to other cultures and diseases and thereby a higher immunity to it as well as leading to more genetic diversity, and possibly having reached Europe first? I guess the way I read your comment was implying that history could have easily been different (which you may or may not actually be stating), but the number of factors (genetic/cultural temperament, geology, etc) all have to line up over such a long period so as to basically be a fundamentally different world history than what has transpired, both before and after the actual colonisation period. I overall agree with your point, that it was a large factor in the colonisation of the Americas, but even that aspect was far more determined or influenced by a huge range of factors that co-mingle into the history we know (and largely left to random natural processes and historical fiat). I'm probably being overly pedantic (it is Saturday night on HN after all ;)), but I guess your statement read similarly to other "history-could-be-different" thought experiments, but seem fundamentally different (I'm contrasting that to the most common experiments, situations like the TV show High Castle and what if Germany won the war, or what if JFK hadn't been assasinated, etc). Again, I'm not necessarily disagreeing, just following a mental thread of what would be needed in order for that change to be possible. Having written and read all that, at the very least, I was assuming something that's probably different than what you're actually saying. Your comment does make me wonder about some of the other accounts of European history where the Romans had a harder time invading (parts of Brittania, for example) where the cultures were written off as barbarian and completely deranged or had large myths associated with them, if disease played some part in the comparable success/failure of colonisation for those areas and the coloring of Western history in general.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
The best theory I’ve seen goes as follows. Humans the world over have domesticated like a dozen beasts of burden [1]. Ever. Most of those animals are in the Old World. (The New World just had llamas.) Domesticated beasts of burden mean (a) higher productivity, i.e. cities i.e. proximity between people and (b) proximity between people and animals. The latter provides a vector for novel diseases to form. The former provides a vector for them to spread. The boost to productivity, meanwhile, meant the Old World had the resources to venture out. It’s more challenging to bootstrap a complex technological society with just alpaca. [1] https://www.thoughtco.com/animal-domestication-table-dates-places-170675 https://www.thoughtco.com/animal-domestication-table-dates-p...
- natecavanaugh 8y ago
  I can definitely see how those innate technological advantages can stack up, and it's definitely a good theory. I can't think of anything that couldn't be explained by it, though I still believe there were a number of other factors working in tandem with the domestication of animals (I am generally curious as to why horses became extinct in North America as well as the general lack of native domesticated mammals, if there is any known reason for it; the climate seems well suited for them to thrive, but perhaps the size of the continent and it's general isolation didn't contribute to the selective pressures that benefited Eurasia, I'm just speculating outloud).
  - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
    > I am generally curious as to why horses became extinct in North America “The causes of [North American horses’] extinction have been debated. Given the suddenness of the event and because these mammals had been flourishing for millions of years previously, something quite unusual must have happened. The first main hypothesis attributes extinction to climate change. For example, in Alaska, beginning approximately 12,500 years ago, the grasses characteristic of a steppe ecosystem gave way to shrub tundra, which was covered with unpalatable plants. However, it has been proposed that the steppe-tundra vegetation transition in Beringia may have been a consequence, rather than a cause, of the extinction of megafaunal grazers. The other hypothesis suggests extinction was linked to overexploitation of native prey by newly arrived humans. The extinctions were roughly simultaneous with the end of the most recent glacial advance and the appearance of the big game-hunting Clovis culture. Several studies have indicated humans probably arrived in Alaska at the same time or shortly before the local extinction of horses” [1]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horses_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horses_in_the_United_States

detritus 8y ago

> Imagine going to a new land and upon contact with the natives a sizable portion of your people always dies off while the natives stay healthy and at full fighting strength. One could argue that there was at least one example of South America's 'geographic genetics' fighting back against European encroachment and winning - The Darien Scheme, which ultimately broke Scotland, enabling rule by England back home. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darien_scheme https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darien_scheme

tomohawk 8y ago

It's estimated that about 1/3 of European population died due to Syphilis brought back from the new world.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]