Was there ever a way for Native Americans to prevent European colonization?

Numbers.

Unification.

Numbers.

Bows have a higher fire rate than a musket and is superior in many facets.

Numbers.

History might have been entirely different if they got their collective shit together.

You know who sold slaves to Westerners? African states.

And don't get me started about Southeast Asia, place is crawling with Empires and Seaborne Kingdoms.

The Natives DID give the Europeans diseases.

Yep, user has no clue

Not nearly as bad as the Europeans gave the Natives diseases

>tropical africa
>existing kingdom

assimilate and adopt european technology as rapidly as possible, unfortunately they were too racist, xenophobic and afraid of new ideas to do this effectively, they massacred the men Columbus had to leave behind due to a ship getting wrecked, and then it got worse

This. Basically play the Euros off against each other. Would have required a lot of unity which they didnt have though.

And when the Europeans pull out centuries old brigandine armors that would be impervious to repurposed hunting bows?

this sorta happened in brazil. but the tribes weren't all united like in central america

>Kingdom.
>Has to be a civilization.

Nuh they were backward even compared to the Inca and Aztecs

The Lakota confederacy was the one real successful bulwark against western expansion, and it still ultimately conceded defeat in the face of far superior numbers as well as a tech advantage.

Muskets were too foreign to be adopted en masse before then. Centralized authority was scattered at best, and any real attempt at uniting tribes with centuries old grudges proved to be difficult, if not impossible.

The Natives, especially if North Anerica, were simply not used to the idea of a unified nation state.

I guess they could steal the European's guns much like the Maori.

Or just Zerg rush them like the Zulus

They die in every scenario where they don't have access to modern vaccinations. It will always come back to that. The disease waves left the lands empty, and europeans were able to settle there and crush the pitiful resistance.

I recomend to read 1491 and 1493. Both books deal with how badly mainstream view about colonization is.
Especially how deadly european diseseas were to natives.
In short they wipe out like 97% of local population. In few waves they crippled local civilization, limited gene pool, destroy population and even have amazing ecological impact(the small ice age was caused by population decline in North America and sudden reforestation of depopulated areas - bizons were a specie that repopulated Great Plains for example).
In North was settlers were facing were remnants o great confederations that were constatly weaken by plagues and gang(tribal) warfare.

>>no metal tools / weapons
Huh?

>>no large scale organized military
Mezoamerica and Inca, to a lesser extent Oasisamerica.

...

Have any of you read A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies? I'm certain it's very biased but it gives a lot of examples of Spanish conquistadors just senselessly killing the natives.

>Spanish are invited to Cholula
>Hear rumors of an ambush
Solution: Call all the nobles of the city to a meeting and slaughter them. Proceed to leave in charge the nobles who supported them and somehow didn't went to the meeting.

>Spanish are invited to Tenochtitlan
>There's a festival going on
>Hear rumors of an ambush
Solution: Block the entrances of the plaza with canons and kill 8 000 to 10 000 nobles in order to prevent hostilities.

>Smallpox kills the Inca Emperor and his heir
>Two brothers fight for the control
Solution: Capture one of them and demand a room full of gold as ransom. Kill him after receiving the ransom and proceed to get an alliance with the other brother.

Maybe by developing the technology to eliminate all disease, there really was no possible counter to losing your entire population to a disease spread by carriers immune to it

Yes the Europeans had very few troops with them and relied to a large extent on Native allies. For example the Aztecs killed three fourths of the Spanish army and would've completely killed them if not for the Native allies of the Spanish specifically the Tlaxcalans.

If Native Americans realized that the Europeans would eventually all drive them out and united they could've won or at least delayed complete conquest for a while. The Europeans might have lost interest, started trade and contact, and the Natives would've died in big numbers from disease but bounce back.

Of course that is like saying Americans should team up with ISIS, North Korea and Iran whenever the alien invaders come from Neptune. They would never do it.

Only way for it to happen (assuming North-American Natives) is if they would had needed to be much more centralized and unified at least to some early form tribal kingdoms instead of loose tribal confederacies.

The natives usually hated each other just that much and were so disunited that eventually Europeans would had turned them to their side.

Even if they would have had lets say a mid-sized kingdom, only by showing formidable force, being able to restrict Europeans only to trade instead of colonization might have helped. Technology the natives could had most likely adapted very fast had the conditions been more hospitable for that.

Diseases would still rekt 90% of the natives

shhh no facts, just memes

>Africa, India, Japan, China trade was set up without conquering the natives so the same is possible in America
>Implying any of these places could have been conquered by pre-Industrial Europe
>Implying that Europe wasn't forced to cooperate with everyone else

>What is Great Zimbabwe
>What is Ancient Ghana
>What is Aksum
>What is Puth
>What is Mali

Back to /pol/ with you faggot

>open arms
It was a much more terse relationship than that.
Montezuma's first message to them was to leave. Only Cortez's persistence and perceived invincibility in battle allowed them into the capital.

Most native americans were killed by foreign disease they had no resistance to. I think it some areas it's like by the time real colonization began, disease had killed off 90% of the natives. The natives did in fact have large settlements that became ghost towns.

And it's a misconception that they were decentralized and constantly on the verge of collapse before the Europeans got there. All it took for disease to wipe out most of the population already was exposure to a few Europeans before any mass settlement took place.

syphilis is the only one i can think of. not nearly as bad as small pox

If you take diseases out of the equation, I believe the Americas would still be mostly controlled by natives.

Tfw will never see modern incan civiization

The main weapon of the people of Cuzco was the axe, usually made of copper or bronze, the Inca nobility used a special type of bronze axe, called cancacuchuna champi, which resembled european halberds, it was a status symbol.

some inca axes

...

...

...

...

Why is that the natives never developed like Europe and remained savages anyway?

...

Is this like a mace-axe?

Because first human immigration to the Americas occured 30k years after immigration to Europe and Asia. The rest of the world had a 30,000 year head start.

Yes.

Oh. Then what the natives came up was pretty impressive by comparison.

>assimilate and adopt european technology as rapidly as possible
Enjoy your trail of tears.

...

The portuguese set up trade with the natives until they decided to colonize later on.
The first stage was to just trade, since they initially had no interest in the land.

>The Inca
are the inca the broest of the american civilizations? I understand that the aztecs were way too savage and that even though the mayan were almost gone when the europeans found them, their way of life would have been too savage for the europeans to work with also probably.

But the inca were relatively "non savage" compared to the other civilizations, no?

Engaging in counterfactuals is not really productive, but it was basically impossible to resist European colonization. Perhaps if the Indians cast aside all tribal affiliations and formed a nation-state they could have delayed, but not stopped it.

You talk about the natives as if they were an at least partially unified entity, when in fact the complete opposite was the case.

>Be mayan/Aztec

dropped

It did work for the Mapuches for a bit though, they held off the Spaniards, but ultimately were annexed by Chile.

>guys what if instead of native immune systems being shit it was the other way around?

And like what if they had abnormally well developed prefrontal cortexes and massive rippling muscles and perfect skeletal structures?

>and is superior in many facets.

lol

The Maya were never gone, they just abandoned their old cities. But they were living in new ones by the time the Spaniards came. They never 'died out'. There was even a temporary Mayan nation in the 1800s the British recognized. And to this day some people of the said nation still refer to the British as the red people, due to their uniforms.

It's called smoking and it's killed more Europeans than the amount of Natives ever killed

note I said "almost gone", what I meant is that the classic mayans we think of with the giant pyramids and astronomy and their crazy football games were hardly there when the spaniards arrived, no?

>awaken my masters

bows got range, accuracy and rate of fire... also European soldiers stopped wearing armour so no protection

>>no guns

True, but most European "guns" only allowed a slow non efficient shot

>>no metal tools / weapons

Incorrect

>>no large scale organized military (except maybe the Incas?)

Incorrect

>>hugely susceptible to European diseases

The only correct thing you said

Most Amerindians groups were not even conquered, only the ones who ironically allied themselves with the Europeans to fight their enemies/get territory. On the same hand, the Europeans didnt want to go killing everybody just because.

I think you dont know very much about the period you are talking about.

>accuracy

lol

have you even fired a smoothbore weapon in your life?

>range

l
o
l

the immediate lethal range of shot is much longer than that of say a 70 lbs bow.

this post is everything wrong with this board. read a source every now and then you fuckhead.

kek

I would say that they adapted very well to the lifestyle of the Spanish colony, so maybe.

>hugely susceptible to European diseases

That is always going to be the one great insurmountable obstacle. Smallpox and other European diseases are going to utterly wreck the Natives and there's not a whole lot, if anything, that they can realistically do about it based on the medical knowledge available at the time.

The only real counter to this is if the Natives had some equally virulent and lethal disease that would go back to and ravage the Old World, but they didn't. Syphilis is the closest that existed, but it just doesn't spread as easily nor kill as rapidly or totally.

>It's too late
>why didn't you listen?
>you could have stopped them

The pyramids, ballcourts and such were still there (minus the stelea), but just smaller scale. In the northern lowlands they were broken up city-states from the former League of Mayapan, in the southern lowlands they were also city states, but were the longest to resist coloniaztion. In the Southern highlands they were more like kingdoms but with a significant Toltec influence. In the northern lowlands though elements of Classic culture were returning like the stelea, the city-state polities, with two major powers, the Xiu and Cocom families. Similar to how in the Classical period you had the Kan and Mutal dynasties. And they still were writing in the Maya script, but by this time the writing looks more abstracted a bit.

Thus, the Mexicans were born.

were they still operating as the classical mayans though? With giant public executions, playing the ballgames and all that jazz?

Mayans are totally different from the Aztecs.

They should have equated white skin with disease and just shot any whites on sight

Manco Inca assimilated the european tactics and technology in record time, in just a few years after the first contact between Pizarro and Atahualpa, the incas were already making iron weapons and armor, gunpowder (i think a chronic even said that they were making fire guns), and trained cavalry troops. Manco Inca lived for a while with the spaniards and probably understood the huge advantage of the european inventions. That's why he spent so many men and resources to copy them and thanks him we can say that the Inca civilization resisted the spaniards for 40 years, dying as a civilization of iron and gunpowder.

Perhaps not on the same scale, but they have were big on the sacrificing. In the southern lowlands like the Aztecs they had skull racks and found many sacrificed warriors (some of which included women). The ballgames were still prevalent. Pic related is from Iximche.

But they were different from the Classical maya in many ways too. There was strong Toltec and Aztec influence in some áreas. And the way the government was organized was different as well. The K'iche for instance were governed by four lords of the major lineages. Two of these lords were the more important ones (one the head of the priests, and the other more secular).

Maybe if NA received the smallpox virus when Viking colonists were around in the 900s and were allowed to let their now mostly immune population to rebuild before the Western Europeans arrived.

That could buy them some time, but in reality even with high populations I'm sure the Europeans would just do what the UK did in India and play the tribes against each other until their influence is so great that they can just instantly take over.

They did, syphilis is a New World disease.

>Columbus turns tribal warfare into total war and enslavement for Caribbean tribes
>Hurr injuns were the evil ones!

Fuck off back to /pol/

Just like India remained mostly controlled by their natives right?

The Indians themselves considered muskets better weapons. By King Phillips War the Indians were armed almost entirely with muskets, even though they were expensive and required Europeans for ammo and repairs.

A musket has a longer effective range and is *far* more powerful than a bow and arrow.

interesting thanks for the info

Are you trying to make an argument?

>European soldiers stopped wearing armour so no protection
Not in the XV-XVI centuries

Next question, why native americans didn't domesticated animals?.
Why don't make a huge fence around buffalos instead of chasing them?

Make a fence in an area a thousand miles away from huge supplies of wood and in a world where long distance trade is difficult without horses?

>Why don't make a huge fence around buffalos instead of chasing them?

Are you able to make a large enough fence that you don't have to supplement their food, or show that harvesting and providing food to fenced buffalo isn't far less efficient than hunting the massive wild herds?

also this

livescience.com/33870-domesticated-animals-criteria.html

They did, dogs and Llamas were both domesticated, with the former being important in nomadic societies as they helped carry supplies for long distances before horses were introduced.

For the same reason buffaloes are still not domesticated today.
They could gather them, Montezuma even had a couple in his zoo, it's just that they aren't domesticable as turkeys, ducks, dogs, llamas, alpacas and such.

>Montezuma even had a couple in his zoo
Proofs?

>"It has crooked shoulders, with a bunch on its back like a camel; its flanks dry, its tail large, and its neck cover’d with hair like a lion. It is cloven footed, its head armed like that of a Bull, which it resembles in fierceness, with no less strength and agility"

- Cortes' accounts collected by Solís y Ribadeneyra

Just found a better citation