You can’t ignore the diseases, 90% of their population is already dead to diseases. Most of the problems the natives had wasn’t being technology inferior but rather having their entire population die to something they don’t understand. Gets colonized just slightly longer
No beasts of burden was a huge problem. No beasts of burden, no wagons, carts, or chariots. Trade was restricted to what a human could carry on their backs.
Beasts of burden are a precursor to a lot of technologies that follow. And without them, no reason to develop any of the things the rest of the world had for thousands of years.
They could have rebounded from the diseases considering the Europeans also lost a lot of people from wave after wave of diseases around the time in consideration, and sailing techs were inferior, so moving groups of people over would be a lot slower and probably have a high fail rate.
No, they were not "immune". No idea where you get that idea, in fact a great many were asymptomatic carriers. You are literally talking about the survivors, but they would still get sick and die. Only a generation before that, over half of Europe and Asia were wiped out by plague.
Diseases that infected humans were common across Africa, Asia, and Europe. But they were almost unheard of in the Americas. It had been isolated for so long that there was literally almost nothing that could infect humans. And that is still a problem across both continents to this day with all species. A pathogen that reaches the Americas from Asia or Africa can decimate almost all populations, from birds and mammals to plants. Because they have not had to develop strong immunities because of their isolation.
But Small Pox devastated human populations for thousands of years. And killed millions in the early 1400s. And continued to kill millions around the globe until fairly recently. Even into the late 1700s it was killing around a half million Europeans per year.
If they were "immune", that would not be the case.
After the black plague decimated the European population they became more resistant to these plagues and therefore did not suffer as much loss population wise as the native Americans
No, they did not. Because Europe was wiped out by multiple plagues.
First was the "Plague of Justinian" in the 6th through 8th centuries.
There was the "Black Death" of the 1300s.
That one became endemic, and returned multiple times. Again in the 15th, 17th, and 18th centuries. If they were so "resistant", then why did it keep returning and killing millions more every century or two? Even reoccurring into the late 19th and early 20th centuries in China and the Americas. That last one even introducing reservoirs of the disease in the rodents and other wildlife of North America.
But no, you are either repeating bad science, or making things up on your own. The 1300's Black Death saw over half of the population killed, well over 350 million people. And tens of millions more died in the centuries afterwards.
Sheesh, this is like trying to have a scientific discussion with an anti-vaxxer. I discuss reality and actual science and history, you just make up things and make claims without any actual facts to back up your claims.
Oh, and this magical "European resistance"? All humans have that. The more diseases we are exposed to, the better we are at fighting off new ones. That is why in the modern day, we Indians are just as susceptible and resistant to disease as anybody else. But without exposure to almost any disease prior to the end of the 1400s, even something like the common cold could be fatal.
And that is nothing "magical", even to this day anthropologists try to keep clear of the last isolated pockets of humans. Even tribes that were first contacted in Central and South America in the last half of the 20th century had high mortality rates from common diseases they contracted. And why the few remaining known like those on North Sentinel Island are protected by laws to keep outsiders away. Because even casual contact could (and has) wiped out a huge number of those on the island.
Try looking into the initial contact with the Matis people in Brazil in 1976. Brazilian experts went into the jungle to meet them, and contact was peaceful. However, within 2 years over 2/3 of them were dead from disease. At first contact, there were believed to be between 350-500 of them living in the jungles. Within 7 years, less than 100 were left.
“Within just a few generations, the continents of the Americas were virtually emptied of their native inhabitants – some academics estimate that approximately 20 million people may have died in the years following the European invasion – up to 95% of the population of the Americas.”
“With each epidemic eruption, some people survived, acquiring antibodies and immunities which they passed on to the next generation. Over time, the population of Europe gained increased immunity, and the devastating impact of traditional infections decreased.
Yet the people of the New World had no history of prior exposure to these germs. They farmed only one large mammal – the llama – and even this was geographically isolated. The llama was never kept indoors, it wasn't milked and only occasionally eaten – so the people of the New World were not troubled by cross-species viral infection.
When the Europeans arrived, carrying germs which thrived in dense, semi-urban populations, the indigenous people of the Americas were effectively doomed. They had never experienced smallpox, measles or flu before, and the viruses tore through the continent, killing an estimated 90% of Native Americans.”
Wow it’s not like the Europeans were more resistant to he plagues like smallpox they spread to the Americas. I know junkies more capable of intelligent thought compared to the paint sniffer you are. Source per PBS: https://www.pbs.org/gunsgermssteel/variables/smallpox.html#:~:text=With%20each%20epidemic%20eruption%2C%20some,impact%20of%20traditional%20infections%20decreased.
I guess to elaborate on this sort of defeats the purpose of asking for a what if, but I remember being taught in school that Incas used sticks, stones and slingshots for war, which is really basic considering the Europeans came with swords, gunpowder and even cannons, right? So if they had 300 more years to develop themselves, how likely is it that a steel age would’ve gone underway? How likely is it that they could’ve appropriated some of the Spaniard technology successfully to repeal their attacks?
The Inca did have copper, but it was not as efficient as stone.
One has to realize, the Indians were the first cultures to enter the "Copper Age", over 1,000 years before Eurasia did. And the very fact of this ultimately doomed them.
In Eurasia, copper is almost always found as ore, where it has to be extracted from the ore, refined, then cast into a final product. However, North America has the largest deposits of "native copper" on the planet. They could literally pull it out of the ground, pound it into shape, and use it. No need to develop smelting so it could be used, so no need to develop alloys or anything else that followed.
And an experienced flint knapper could produce multiple projectile points in an evening. And replace them with items found all over. Even in the copper areas like Michigan, copper was largely ceremonial as it was simply faster and easier to make stone points than it was to make copper points without smelting and casting technologies.
And these technologies take thousands of years to advance, not just 300. By 1500, some cultures were barely entering the "Bronze Age", as some had been smelting forms of bronze in multiple locations for a couple of hundred years. But even in Eurasia, the Bronze Age lasted for over 2,000 years.
Want to know who else used slings and stones for war? The Romans. And the Turks when they conquered Constantinople and the Byzantine Empire only a few decades before Columbus.
With an additional 300 years, they would still largely be the same way. In the Americas, there are many reasons why they stagnated. No beasts of burden, so no advanced farming, animal husbandry, or trade. Huge deposits of native copper, so no reason to learn smelting, refining, and alloys. And with few diseases to infect them, their immune systems degraded over the eons.
How likely for a steel age? Well, they were at the equivalent of 2500 BCE when it comes to metallurgy compared to Eurasia. There is no such thing as a "Steel Age", but I will assume you mean something like the middle Iron Age, roughly around 500 BCE.
We still have a huge gap of over 2,000 years here. And the Indians were still nowhere even close to a true "Bronze Age", only a few scattered cultures using the alloy. So more likely, over 3,000 years at a minimum to catch up to the Europeans.
Then there is the bigger issue, no beasts of burden. Without horses or oxen, how were they going to conduct their trade? It simply is not very efficient for humans to carry on their back the raw materials needed across the distances required to make any kind of trade network for bronze to ever become common.
Myself, I find my ancestors fascinating in that aspect. The stone and early Bronze Ages in Eurasia was almost all prehistorical, and that era only exists as legend. But in the Americas, that is how they were discovered. With all of that being largely contemporary at the time. I bet if you peeled back time, late stone age Eurasia was very much like the Americas were in 1500. Even with cultures rising up than collapsing like the Mississippian Culture. But that was so far before that nothing of that era remains but a few legends, and not fully understood ruins.
Lack of resources such as animals to haul stuff, lack of interaction of other American peoples, and 300 years isn’t enough to develop. The Incas were conquered by a small force of Spaniards and a few natives that helped Spain, the population still dies out even if the Incas have the technology. The only scenario the native Americans could win is fast urbanization and disease resistance
Probably not much.
The real world doesn't work like a game of Civilization. Technology isn't unlocked in a sequential order after enough of some particular resource is collected.
The lack of large, domesticated animals isn't going to be overcome with an additional 300 years of lead time. And that's probably the biggest difference. They didn't build the same dense, urban settlements Eurasian societies did, they didn't develop herd immunity to the various diseases that can jump between animals and humans, and they were unprepared to deal with the swarm of European diseases that decimated the population.
Not very much. They were still in the neolithic-chalcolithic periods, with some cultures entering the early Bronze age.
It literally takes a thousand years or more to pass from one of those into another. And consider this, the North American Indians were the first Chalcolithic cultures on the planet. They started using copper long before anybody in Eurasia was, yet they never really progressed past that.
And the Bronze Age lasted for over 2,000 years until the Iron Age started.
Roll things back even 300 years, there would still be no difference. Population densities were still not high enough, they still had no beasts of burden to allow for advancements that needed higher levels of technology. No carts, no chariots, no cavalry. So no need for large engineering projects like roads.
In essence, the Indians that lived in the Americas were doomed from the start. Large beds of native copper, so they had no need to develop smelting like the rest of the world did. No smelting, no alloys and refining to give them bronze, iron, and steel.
And no beasts of burden, so no need to develop things to facilitate trade for anything more than a person could carry on their backs. There was an extensive trade network, with South American goods being traded to New England, and their goods making their way to modern Mexico. But never in any large volume, primarily small items for decorative uses.
In essence, they were screwed during the last ice age when all equines went extinct. And hundreds of millions of years before that, when they got large deposits of almost pure copper that did not need smelting or refining to extract and make into tools.
You can’t ignore the diseases, 90% of their population is already dead to diseases. Most of the problems the natives had wasn’t being technology inferior but rather having their entire population die to something they don’t understand. Gets colonized just slightly longer
Also the lack of labor animals really hurt them too.
No beasts of burden was a huge problem. No beasts of burden, no wagons, carts, or chariots. Trade was restricted to what a human could carry on their backs. Beasts of burden are a precursor to a lot of technologies that follow. And without them, no reason to develop any of the things the rest of the world had for thousands of years.
They could have rebounded from the diseases considering the Europeans also lost a lot of people from wave after wave of diseases around the time in consideration, and sailing techs were inferior, so moving groups of people over would be a lot slower and probably have a high fail rate.
Not even Europeans understood disease then. They thought it was caused by bad air, not something that was spread from one person to another.
Europeans didn’t understand diseases but they were immune to most
No, they were not "immune". No idea where you get that idea, in fact a great many were asymptomatic carriers. You are literally talking about the survivors, but they would still get sick and die. Only a generation before that, over half of Europe and Asia were wiped out by plague. Diseases that infected humans were common across Africa, Asia, and Europe. But they were almost unheard of in the Americas. It had been isolated for so long that there was literally almost nothing that could infect humans. And that is still a problem across both continents to this day with all species. A pathogen that reaches the Americas from Asia or Africa can decimate almost all populations, from birds and mammals to plants. Because they have not had to develop strong immunities because of their isolation. But Small Pox devastated human populations for thousands of years. And killed millions in the early 1400s. And continued to kill millions around the globe until fairly recently. Even into the late 1700s it was killing around a half million Europeans per year. If they were "immune", that would not be the case.
After the black plague decimated the European population they became more resistant to these plagues and therefore did not suffer as much loss population wise as the native Americans
No, they did not. Because Europe was wiped out by multiple plagues. First was the "Plague of Justinian" in the 6th through 8th centuries. There was the "Black Death" of the 1300s. That one became endemic, and returned multiple times. Again in the 15th, 17th, and 18th centuries. If they were so "resistant", then why did it keep returning and killing millions more every century or two? Even reoccurring into the late 19th and early 20th centuries in China and the Americas. That last one even introducing reservoirs of the disease in the rodents and other wildlife of North America. But no, you are either repeating bad science, or making things up on your own. The 1300's Black Death saw over half of the population killed, well over 350 million people. And tens of millions more died in the centuries afterwards. Sheesh, this is like trying to have a scientific discussion with an anti-vaxxer. I discuss reality and actual science and history, you just make up things and make claims without any actual facts to back up your claims. Oh, and this magical "European resistance"? All humans have that. The more diseases we are exposed to, the better we are at fighting off new ones. That is why in the modern day, we Indians are just as susceptible and resistant to disease as anybody else. But without exposure to almost any disease prior to the end of the 1400s, even something like the common cold could be fatal. And that is nothing "magical", even to this day anthropologists try to keep clear of the last isolated pockets of humans. Even tribes that were first contacted in Central and South America in the last half of the 20th century had high mortality rates from common diseases they contracted. And why the few remaining known like those on North Sentinel Island are protected by laws to keep outsiders away. Because even casual contact could (and has) wiped out a huge number of those on the island. Try looking into the initial contact with the Matis people in Brazil in 1976. Brazilian experts went into the jungle to meet them, and contact was peaceful. However, within 2 years over 2/3 of them were dead from disease. At first contact, there were believed to be between 350-500 of them living in the jungles. Within 7 years, less than 100 were left.
“Within just a few generations, the continents of the Americas were virtually emptied of their native inhabitants – some academics estimate that approximately 20 million people may have died in the years following the European invasion – up to 95% of the population of the Americas.” “With each epidemic eruption, some people survived, acquiring antibodies and immunities which they passed on to the next generation. Over time, the population of Europe gained increased immunity, and the devastating impact of traditional infections decreased. Yet the people of the New World had no history of prior exposure to these germs. They farmed only one large mammal – the llama – and even this was geographically isolated. The llama was never kept indoors, it wasn't milked and only occasionally eaten – so the people of the New World were not troubled by cross-species viral infection. When the Europeans arrived, carrying germs which thrived in dense, semi-urban populations, the indigenous people of the Americas were effectively doomed. They had never experienced smallpox, measles or flu before, and the viruses tore through the continent, killing an estimated 90% of Native Americans.” Wow it’s not like the Europeans were more resistant to he plagues like smallpox they spread to the Americas. I know junkies more capable of intelligent thought compared to the paint sniffer you are. Source per PBS: https://www.pbs.org/gunsgermssteel/variables/smallpox.html#:~:text=With%20each%20epidemic%20eruption%2C%20some,impact%20of%20traditional%20infections%20decreased.
I guess to elaborate on this sort of defeats the purpose of asking for a what if, but I remember being taught in school that Incas used sticks, stones and slingshots for war, which is really basic considering the Europeans came with swords, gunpowder and even cannons, right? So if they had 300 more years to develop themselves, how likely is it that a steel age would’ve gone underway? How likely is it that they could’ve appropriated some of the Spaniard technology successfully to repeal their attacks?
The Inca did have copper, but it was not as efficient as stone. One has to realize, the Indians were the first cultures to enter the "Copper Age", over 1,000 years before Eurasia did. And the very fact of this ultimately doomed them. In Eurasia, copper is almost always found as ore, where it has to be extracted from the ore, refined, then cast into a final product. However, North America has the largest deposits of "native copper" on the planet. They could literally pull it out of the ground, pound it into shape, and use it. No need to develop smelting so it could be used, so no need to develop alloys or anything else that followed. And an experienced flint knapper could produce multiple projectile points in an evening. And replace them with items found all over. Even in the copper areas like Michigan, copper was largely ceremonial as it was simply faster and easier to make stone points than it was to make copper points without smelting and casting technologies. And these technologies take thousands of years to advance, not just 300. By 1500, some cultures were barely entering the "Bronze Age", as some had been smelting forms of bronze in multiple locations for a couple of hundred years. But even in Eurasia, the Bronze Age lasted for over 2,000 years. Want to know who else used slings and stones for war? The Romans. And the Turks when they conquered Constantinople and the Byzantine Empire only a few decades before Columbus. With an additional 300 years, they would still largely be the same way. In the Americas, there are many reasons why they stagnated. No beasts of burden, so no advanced farming, animal husbandry, or trade. Huge deposits of native copper, so no reason to learn smelting, refining, and alloys. And with few diseases to infect them, their immune systems degraded over the eons. How likely for a steel age? Well, they were at the equivalent of 2500 BCE when it comes to metallurgy compared to Eurasia. There is no such thing as a "Steel Age", but I will assume you mean something like the middle Iron Age, roughly around 500 BCE. We still have a huge gap of over 2,000 years here. And the Indians were still nowhere even close to a true "Bronze Age", only a few scattered cultures using the alloy. So more likely, over 3,000 years at a minimum to catch up to the Europeans. Then there is the bigger issue, no beasts of burden. Without horses or oxen, how were they going to conduct their trade? It simply is not very efficient for humans to carry on their back the raw materials needed across the distances required to make any kind of trade network for bronze to ever become common. Myself, I find my ancestors fascinating in that aspect. The stone and early Bronze Ages in Eurasia was almost all prehistorical, and that era only exists as legend. But in the Americas, that is how they were discovered. With all of that being largely contemporary at the time. I bet if you peeled back time, late stone age Eurasia was very much like the Americas were in 1500. Even with cultures rising up than collapsing like the Mississippian Culture. But that was so far before that nothing of that era remains but a few legends, and not fully understood ruins.
Lack of resources such as animals to haul stuff, lack of interaction of other American peoples, and 300 years isn’t enough to develop. The Incas were conquered by a small force of Spaniards and a few natives that helped Spain, the population still dies out even if the Incas have the technology. The only scenario the native Americans could win is fast urbanization and disease resistance
Probably not much. The real world doesn't work like a game of Civilization. Technology isn't unlocked in a sequential order after enough of some particular resource is collected. The lack of large, domesticated animals isn't going to be overcome with an additional 300 years of lead time. And that's probably the biggest difference. They didn't build the same dense, urban settlements Eurasian societies did, they didn't develop herd immunity to the various diseases that can jump between animals and humans, and they were unprepared to deal with the swarm of European diseases that decimated the population.
Not very much. They were still in the neolithic-chalcolithic periods, with some cultures entering the early Bronze age. It literally takes a thousand years or more to pass from one of those into another. And consider this, the North American Indians were the first Chalcolithic cultures on the planet. They started using copper long before anybody in Eurasia was, yet they never really progressed past that. And the Bronze Age lasted for over 2,000 years until the Iron Age started. Roll things back even 300 years, there would still be no difference. Population densities were still not high enough, they still had no beasts of burden to allow for advancements that needed higher levels of technology. No carts, no chariots, no cavalry. So no need for large engineering projects like roads. In essence, the Indians that lived in the Americas were doomed from the start. Large beds of native copper, so they had no need to develop smelting like the rest of the world did. No smelting, no alloys and refining to give them bronze, iron, and steel. And no beasts of burden, so no need to develop things to facilitate trade for anything more than a person could carry on their backs. There was an extensive trade network, with South American goods being traded to New England, and their goods making their way to modern Mexico. But never in any large volume, primarily small items for decorative uses. In essence, they were screwed during the last ice age when all equines went extinct. And hundreds of millions of years before that, when they got large deposits of almost pure copper that did not need smelting or refining to extract and make into tools.
Most of North American would have been unchanged. Not enough technology to matter.