-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why did the Native Americans not colonise Europe?
- Thread starter Eddi
- Start date
Capacity to project power.
I don't think they had any kinds of ships that could survive the journey across the ocean. For the Western Europeans, the fall of the Byzantine Empire cut off the spice and silk trade from the East, so there was a bit of an incentive and impetus to try to find alternative trade routes. The Portuguese were trying to find the way around Africa, while the Spanish gambled on Columbus finding a way across the Ocean Sea. Instead, he found the American continent, which spurred more voyages of exploration and expeditions to America.
Another thing to consider is that the North Atlantic and the seas around northwestern Europe are very stormy and choppy, which forced the sea powers to build stronger and more durable ships.
Orbit
I'm a planet
They had no shipbuilding knowledge on the scale that would be needed. They also didn’t have steel or gunpowder for weapons.
But why did the Europeans develop that capacity and not the Native Americans?
Why wasn't it the other way round?
But why was this the case? Why didn't they have steel or gunpowder? There must be iron ore in the American continents
I think much of what drives society is necessity. As it is said, necessity is the mother of invention. The Native American societies continued to survive and remain viable under the conditions they were living. They didn't really need steel or gunpowder. The Europeans were in a different situation, particularly in the Middle Ages when they were facing invasions from the south and east. The Moors, the Ottomans, and the Mongols were all at Europe's doorstep, leaving the Ocean Sea as their only outlet to the world.
I would suggest it would have to do with a great technological asymmetry between the Americas and the Eurasian continent. The Americas were isolated from the advancements in metallurgy (and later gunpowder) that were shared and continually improved upon in the Eurasian theater. I would also suggest that higher population density in Eurasia enabled by more advanced agriculture increased competition or at least opportunity for conquest and this provided pressure for ever increasing improvement in warfighting capacity. The Americas were isolated from this crucible. Once long distance ocean travel was possible, the Americas were no longer isolated and were far behind technologically and could not compete with the Europeans.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Bingo. Life was good with plenty of game and minimal competition.
A lot of factors came into play: geography, the availability of domesticatable animal species, trade between populations, . . .
If your interested, here's a book that does a great job of explaining:
Guns, Germs, and Steel - Wikipedia
Better off consulting an expert in the topic - professors of Native American studies and professors of European history and their works. Not my area of expertise, but shouldn't be hard for you to contact someone at a university (library or professors) to do some basic research.
Interesting, thanks!A lot of factors came into play: geography, the availability of domesticatable animal species, trade between populations, . . .
If your interested, here's a book that does a great job of explaining:
Guns, Germs, and Steel - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
I was aware that Europeans gave the Native Americans various diseases they had zero immunity to that did not effect the Europeans at all
It did affect some Europeans, although by and large, they had a greater resistance to it. However, there were quite a few Europeans who died from smallpox and cholera, just not in the same devastating numbers that affected the Native American populations.
Just a guess, but I have the vague impression that many Native American communities were rather more conscious of their own population levels and the need for continuous, sustainable sustenance from the environment than Europeans in general. They were not very expansionist, which is one reason why they are so many and so varied.
And, as pointed out above by others, they were not prone to ocean-wide journeys, let alone with any significant military power.
They did not know Europe existed probably. People have lived for long, long ages without knowing much about the shapes of the lands. Day and night just seemed to come in cycles, and people had to guess about why and why everything seemed like a continuum: things died but came back as seeds or as smaller creatures. If it were me I would probably stop trying to wonder about where I came from or where anything came from. I would probably think it was foolish to wonder about such things and a waste of time.
These days are very different. We cannot stop people from telling us where everything comes from. There are so many answers! They even tell us how stars are made, and how creatures have come to be so wonderful and strange. They tell us that they have discovered the contents of the ground and how birds fly and all sorts of things. Even the deepest part of the ocean has been photographed partially. I can go on the internet and order rocks taken from any part of the world. I can fly anywhere on a plane. I have maps, even a talking map in my hand. Its absurd and funny.
Viker
Häxan
They had no motive or incentive. They also lacked the technology and opportunities. Western Europe had the advantage of growing near the hub of the expansion of the iron and great ship building ages. An awesome alternate reality would have been if the Aztec had developed similar to Western Europe and East Asia.
Augustus
…
They competed with Europeans for many centuries.
European empires competed against Native American empires, and often came out 2nd best.
Even when they came out on top, they relied heavily on Native allies.
We just look at the process backwards with the knowledge of the final outcome, then compress 300 years of dynamic and complex history into a single teleological process.
Secret Chief
nirvana is samsara
Good grief forgotten about that book. Yep, a great read.A lot of factors came into play: geography, the availability of domesticatable animal species, trade between populations, . . .
If your interested, here's a book that does a great job of explaining:
Guns, Germs, and Steel - Wikipedia
When, in your estimation, did the competition between those indigenous to the Americas and those from Europe begin? When, in your estimation, did the competition end, or at least could no longer be considered a competition? I'm trying to get a handle on what constitutes "many centuries" in you view here.
Interesting. Does often constitute over half the instances in which Native American Empire/Culture competed with European Empire/Culture? I apologize in advance for my ignorance, but where in the Americas today do we see the success and dominance of Indigenous American Empire/Culture over European Empire/Culture?
Is that not standard procedure of Empire to use local populations in the securing and expansion of Empire, one used for millennia?
What is history but to look back?
So 300 years is many centuries in your view? I would not characterize it as such.
It is only after the competition ends that we make our final judgement. Still, throughout what we are characterizing as a competition between Indigenous American Empire/Culture and European Empire/Culture, when I look back over the 300 years, I see only a steady progression and expansion of European Empire/Culture at the expense of the Indigenous Americans.
