So why couldn't the Natives defeated the Europeans

Well idk. They look more like RPG characters/fierce barbarian warriors than the Europeans and their fancy hats with belts.

Is this our version of 'start with the Greeks'?

they didn't believe in Jesus

ancient gods abandoned them after they went full retard on sacrifices and shit

Roman Empire, the natives had under bronze age technology.

They were massively outnumbered

What if all the 18th century tribes combined vs. the roman empire at its peak?

>i thought the Native Americans were much more skilled at warfare
nigga wat

Roman empire. Metal beats rock.

I think he is talking about NA natives not Aztecs

Brown people with feathers and shit, who gives a fuck?

>i thought the Native Americans were much more skilled at warfare
No, native american tactics and strategy were extremely simplistic and europeans were better at fighting in formation and as a cohesive unit

other anons are more qualified to speak on other side, but why not.

18th century Natives have the gunpowder factor, but probably a tiny percentage. If I were a prick, I could just choose the Byzantines with their cannons. But I imagine you refer to the classic crimson legionaries.

on paper, lets just say two typically equipped and organized outfits of 500 Apaches and Romans

Apache's cavalry has the slightest potential of being superior due to stirrups, but probably will be sparse in supply as well (or saddles for that matter). So they better stick with bows.

The fierce Apache warriors may charge Roman infantry lines. They will do this only once.

Unless the Apaches do as the Germanians and stick to ambush and guerrilla tactics, I think the roman iron train will grind them away.

You have to consider that over 90% of the Native populations died from disease that raced ahead of European contact. The nomadic tribes and horse cultures we know from the indian wars were the disheveled scraps of larger groups we know next to nothing about.

Why didn't European settlers mention coming across empty villages?

They did, a lot.

>the Native Americans
Which ones? Which tribes? The word Native Americans describes everyone from Inuit to Inca to Iroquois.

Not enough industry and artisans to produce high quality weapons and armour on a mass scale.

They were retarded

The idea that the natives were better at horse warfare after less than a generation compared to europeans that had been living with horses for millennia annoys me greatly.
Same for "tomahawks" which were literally dutch boarding axes sold to the natives, no different from a number of earlier european battle axes and somehow it's an amazing weapon that can be thrown and cut trough a katana and every piece of shit tacticool survival axe is dubbed tomahawk nowadays.
Noble savage myth needs to disappear

You should because you're on a history board you fucking retard.

Yep

Well, more like the Selk'Nam to the Inuits

It was disease. With the numbers greatly reduced their societies were too weak or had already collapsed to put up a strong front. And the numbers were really low to mount a serious offensive against Europeans. There were early attempts to colonize that failed because they were driven back.

stupid question,

They might have been skilled at tribal warfare and could have beaten the Europeans if they fought like the Natives. Instead the Europeans relied on numbers, battle tactics, standardized training, technology, etc.

It is like saying a UFC fighter is better at fighting than a fat redneck if we send them to an open field with a bunch of rednecks with shotguns why wouldnt their superior fighting ability cause them to win.

Can't fight pesky bacterias with martial arts, bro.

The Internet

because they're savages, savages!

What, /pol/ historians?

The europeans were basically fighting a post-apocalyptic society.

The only time they fought (barely) healthy societies they almost got their asses handed to them.

/thread

Anyone who is simple enough to ask a question like "why did they lose" will need a basic explanation, Guns, Germs and Steel delivers that.

It's pretty fucking obvious why the Europeans decimated the native Americans, being 1500 years ahead of them in technology and what not. Why they got so far ahead is a different question and the main question behind Guns, Germs and Steel. This is also the part that is disputed.

>i thought the Native Americans were much more skilled at warfare

???

Fewer numbers, lack of cavalry, lack of armor
Your /pol/ faggotry is showing.

>it's a "the ornithologue explains to his papuan friend the demise of his people by comparing the mighty inca empire with some island subhumans" episode

> a healthier lifestyle and diet breeds stronger men

is what op meant to say. Also warrior societies.

Did you even read the book, or just watched the shitty teevee show?

> also, that's not how you spell ornithologist.

But user there were far more natives EVEN AFTER THE GERM WARFARE than Euros in North America, there are so many of them in South America that there are still stone age tribes in most south american countries.

I'm going to say that the people who have been fencing and duelling with tempered steel for centuries have the edge on club and stone knife in 1v1 hand to hand too.

>The only time they fought (barely) healthy societies they almost got their asses handed to them.

When was that?

The shitty tv show, of course. The writer Diamond was in it, so at the very least he believes that the shitty tv show summarizes his points well.

Seminole wars, , Spanish wars against Inca rule, french and indian wars, etc. etc.

>Spanish wars against Inca
>almost got their ass kicked
That "war" was basically bullying

So while this thread is up i have to ask, why are native americans ( especially the north american ones) always pictured as tall stoic/heroic people? I mean i get they were kinda just chillin huntin buffaloes and shit but when ever they're represented in media they're always the bestest and/or coolest in a sense.
I personally cant attest for wether this is racists or not cause ive never meet an Indian, they seem to have almost died out and the ones that are left are either mexicans or whites claiming "muh heritage".

-no cannons
-no cavalry
-no steel weapons/armor
-disease

A Stone Age civilization goes up against the Iron Age. You do the math.

>horse cultures
who do you think brought horses over there you dinugs

Movies and videos games are only loosely connected to reality. To be fair, if it has a basis in reality it is situations where full time warriors attacked settlers who had to draw upon reservists and levies.

However there was not much difference in skill between say a redcoat and a native warrior, both had their advantages and disadvantages. Redcoats were not mindless goons who did nothing but stand in a line and shoot, they may not have been as specialized in individual combat and guerrilla warfare, but their training allowed them to concentrate firepower and aid in logistics.

no intergration nothing in place in case of an overkill scenario

>Millenia behind in technology
>Nigh to zero military through
>Nigh to zero military organization
>Pandemics

google image search overkill theory

>technology is a straight line
>>>r/paradoxplaza/

Natives cant drink milk or alcohol which makes them inferior.

Natives are found en mass in reserves and the reserves are horrible places with high crime rates..

A combination of guilt, underdog effect, and hollywood

whatever happens we have got
the maxim gun and they have not!

>much more skilled at warfare
Maybe more so than the average white settler, and only because most natives practiced hunting and archery from very young ages. Also frequently fought and raided other tribes.

Also, how the fuck do people still wonder "How did the natives 'lose'"
The answer was and always be disease

D I S E A S E

lets stop having these threads now

thats what he's saying, they weren't like that before.

I think the natives have it. They had both guns and kind of a steppe nomad style.

The issue with tribal peoples, and this is also a big part of why the Amerindians fared the way they did, is that they tend to hate each other and so it's very easy to pit them against each other.

This is what the Romans did with the Celts and Germanics, it's what the Chinese did with the Mongols, it's what the Spanish did with the Mesos and it's what the English and French did with the Amerindians. The Romans in particular got very good at this kind of thing towards the late Western days, constantly paying off one group of goths or franks to go after the other and then doing the opposite the next year.

Forgot to say that the natives have it UNLESS the Romans can pit them against each other.

By the way I've also heard that the Persian Empire after receding their attempts at domination over the Greeks simply sat back and started egging on inter-Hellenic conflicts by throwing money at whichever side was down, possibly even contributing to or indirectly causing the Pelloponesian War.

They were much more skilled at warfare.
But if you're outnumbered by the millions with no external support your gonna lose eventually.

>some awesome warrior guy who catches thrown javelins mid air and fights on with it.
>his descendants form into drug gangs and kill each other over cocaine.

If there is a god he is a dark humour satirist.

>fencing and duelling with tempered steel
>standard 17th century european soldier
Pick one and only one

Even leddit doesn't like GG&S.

hardcore illness killed 90 percent before Europeans. so the remaining ones Europe fought were mad max style fringe survivors

I thought the tomahawk was an adaptation of the Francisca?

No guns versus guns stopped working out well at that point. Add the fact that the Natives were barbarians and the Europeans had military academies, and disease, the Natives had no chance.

Actually, from some of the books I have read, if you extend the disease vector across the 1st 100 years of interaction between the natives and the Europeans, it increases the percentages well into the up 90's, something like 98% in places, especially when you consider some of the NA tribes to have been wiped out completely.

80% of their entire population died from disease

probably romans their legionary formation is the direct weakness of fast-moving hand-to-hand combat types like the natives (like the Gauls were of a similar vein to the natives).

>Why didn't European settlers mention coming across empty villages?

They did, but a lot of it required modern archeology. It's not like the Europeans were hot on their heels. Hundreds of years between the great dying and European settlement means most land engineering and agriculture would be undetectable.If indian populations peaked in the late 1400s, Europeans first contact with most of it came in the 1700s.

Man made soil in the Amazons is probably the most famous example, but we know native north americans were clearing trees and burning grasslands too.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_preta

not enough soldiers

also disease

Inferior 80 IQs genes.

>i thought the Native Americans were much more skilled at warfare

At the very small scale yes, but when you hit the company level most of them were very bad at it.

Disease, before the original english settlers arrived they had already suffered an incredible die-off (something like 80%) due to smallpox and other killers.

Raw numbers is one thing, you still need to consider how colossally destabilizing an epidemic is on a society.

South America is a good example, given that civilizations like the Aztecs had their leaders dying off.

Native Americans were also quite disunified, Europeans usually had native allies who helped them fight other natives.

great post user

Call the cops, faggot.

no unity
tribes allying the conquerors for short term benefits

>egging on [...] conflicts by throwing money at whichever side was down

>yfw this has been the US foreign policy since then

Back 2 reddit

Are you completely clueless? Pick both without a doubt.
That was the high age of duelling both in spain and in britain. Spain and portugal fielded soldiers with sidesword and steel shield to defend and harrass the pikemen for fuck sake

Why the fuck would they resurrect an iron age design of which we still don't know the exact use nor how the handle was shaped (and people back then had even less of a clue since archaeology didn't even exist) when they had mass produced boarding axes at hand ready to sell? A more plausible influence on the design would be late medieval battle axes.

>The idea that the natives were better at horse warfare after less than a generation compared to europeans that had been living with horses for millennia annoys me greatly
why?

Europeans had to train new generations of cavalrymen for 1000s of years, it wouldn't be an ordeal for some pioneer to teach members of his qt native wife's tribe these skills. Settlers running off the join the natives seems to be a familiar theme through history.