5 ms·

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 lo

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 If the Spanish invasion had been replaced by a smaller troupe of Viking traders, I would be interested to see what would happen, and you might be right if you only change that one variable.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

hyperpallium2 5y ago
They were "living in the future", but that doesn't always work out so well.
fennecfoxen 5y ago
> 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 Not really. Old World societies had access to many more domesticated animals, a key reason that they also had major diseases.
bhickey 5y ago
> 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. The most charitable reading of this is "if cowpox, monkeypox or some other zoonotic pox virus had an opportunity to spread through Mesoamerican society, they might've fared better with smallpox." A less charitable reading is "they might've faired better with smallpox if they had some other disease exposure prior to invasion." Either of these cases seems implausible. I don't know of any pox virus from the Americas that provides immunity to smallpox. In Europe we know that cowpox provided immunity among milkmaids. We also know that it didn't spread between people. There's no reason to believe that the only missing element was time for some other pox to emerge. As for the less charitable reading, prior infection with a pathogen is unlikely to provide any benefit against an unrelated pathogen. In the decades after smallpox swept through Aztec society the Cocoliztli epidemics killed twice again as many people. Fundamentally the problem was the introduction of a virus with a high mortality rate to an immunologically naive population. There's a major difference between a disease killing 50% of your under 12 population and 50% of everyone. The former is a disaster, the latter will collapse society, particularly one already fighting against an invasion.
shele 5y ago
I remember that this is not the whole story, the Spanish invasion and then European invasion was on the larger scale moving slower than the diseases.
AlotOfReading 5y ago
Mesoamerica had high population densities long before Spain was even a thing. Indigenous Americans didn't carry over many of the serious diseases from the old world and the animals that were there mostly didn't contribute serious new ones. There are a few cases where we can see things like tuberculosis (from seals), but they're limited and evidence of them largely hasn't survived in extant populations. Likewise, Icelandic populations were isolated and relatively healthy. Those that survived the long trip to Greenland and the Americas would have been even more so.
- jeltz 5y ago
  Roman Spain had high population densities much earlier.
  - tomjakubowski 5y ago
    Not true. Large Maya cities existed hundreds of years before Romans colonized Hispania. Nakbe was abandoned, hundreds of years after its peak, ca. 200-100 BCE. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakbe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakbe
- afarrell 5y ago
  > before Spain was even a thing note: Spain was unified in 1491.
  - anthk 5y ago
    Not all. Navarre was out, then it was conquered in 1512. And yet, it was not fully integrated into Spain. They had their own currency and customs. Also, they had no military service duties. That until mid 1800s.
- danjac 5y ago
  > the animals that were there mostly didn't contribute serious new ones Aren't syphilis and Lyme disease of New World origin?

hyperpallium2 5y ago

They were "living in the future", but that doesn't always work out so well.

fennecfoxen 5y ago

> 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 Not really. Old World societies had access to many more domesticated animals, a key reason that they also had major diseases.

bhickey 5y ago

> 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. The most charitable reading of this is "if cowpox, monkeypox or some other zoonotic pox virus had an opportunity to spread through Mesoamerican society, they might've fared better with smallpox." A less charitable reading is "they might've faired better with smallpox if they had some other disease exposure prior to invasion." Either of these cases seems implausible. I don't know of any pox virus from the Americas that provides immunity to smallpox. In Europe we know that cowpox provided immunity among milkmaids. We also know that it didn't spread between people. There's no reason to believe that the only missing element was time for some other pox to emerge. As for the less charitable reading, prior infection with a pathogen is unlikely to provide any benefit against an unrelated pathogen. In the decades after smallpox swept through Aztec society the Cocoliztli epidemics killed twice again as many people. Fundamentally the problem was the introduction of a virus with a high mortality rate to an immunologically naive population. There's a major difference between a disease killing 50% of your under 12 population and 50% of everyone. The former is a disaster, the latter will collapse society, particularly one already fighting against an invasion.

shele 5y ago

I remember that this is not the whole story, the Spanish invasion and then European invasion was on the larger scale moving slower than the diseases.

AlotOfReading 5y ago

Mesoamerica had high population densities long before Spain was even a thing. Indigenous Americans didn't carry over many of the serious diseases from the old world and the animals that were there mostly didn't contribute serious new ones. There are a few cases where we can see things like tuberculosis (from seals), but they're limited and evidence of them largely hasn't survived in extant populations. Likewise, Icelandic populations were isolated and relatively healthy. Those that survived the long trip to Greenland and the Americas would have been even more so.

jeltz 5y ago
Roman Spain had high population densities much earlier.
- tomjakubowski 5y ago
  Not true. Large Maya cities existed hundreds of years before Romans colonized Hispania. Nakbe was abandoned, hundreds of years after its peak, ca. 200-100 BCE. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakbe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakbe
afarrell 5y ago
> before Spain was even a thing note: Spain was unified in 1491.
- anthk 5y ago
  Not all. Navarre was out, then it was conquered in 1512. And yet, it was not fully integrated into Spain. They had their own currency and customs. Also, they had no military service duties. That until mid 1800s.
danjac 5y ago
> the animals that were there mostly didn't contribute serious new ones Aren't syphilis and Lyme disease of New World origin?