Imagine that Europeans forever stayed in Europe. What tribe would dominate America?

Imagine that Europeans forever stayed in Europe. What tribe would dominate America?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inca_Empire#Weapons.2C_armor_and_warfare
incas.homestead.com/inca_metallurgy_copper.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiram_Bingham_III
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quizquiz
cam.ac.uk/research/news/mystery-of-the-domestication-of-the-horse-solved
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zebra
defenders.org/zebra/basic-facts
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasus-Anatolian-Hyrcanian_temperate_forest
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

The Incas

Incas. The decadence of the aztecs would have destroyed them by the time incas get to mesoamerica.

Also incas would either lose the south of their empire or conquest the mapuches. Aldo the empire would purge the uncivilized tribes leading the spread of civilization and a pseudo-competence aggresion between potential civs on the east coast of south america and the mainland of the incas.

>counterfactual history

fan fiction

Chinese

This

>100 naziboo stormcuck fantasy threads on catalog
>buaaaa you can't talk about this!!!
Get out of here nigger.

The Chinese. Redman too weak against old world pathogens. Gets them every time.

To avoid what happened the redskins would need a way to slowly build immunity. Considering the Black Death wiped out 2/3rds of Europe's population I doubt that.

What about the Ottomans, did they have any interest in leaving the Old World?

inb4 "Turks are 100% European"

>What about the Ottomans,
Logistically impractical. I'd envision moors reaching America before Turks did.

>Europeans forever stay in Europe
>Indian and SE Asian trade routes remain stable without the Dutch and Portuguese barging in and taking everyone's spices
>Ming dynasties don't have to overtax peasants to maintain isolation as a result of the tip in the traditional power balance
>nobody cares enough to send ships off to America, if there is such a place

Okay, just curious. This is a new kind of counterfactual for me, so I haven't really thought about it much.

The Chinese certainly had the money/technology to do so in the 1400s, but they never had a Henry the Navigator kind of king after Zheng He's voyages.

Independent of the Old World, some type of Mesoamerican civilization (it's likely that the Aztecs wouldn't stick around, however something else would certainly come after it) would spread its influence in North America. The Incas or their successors would influence South America. At some point they would have met up and compared notes.

Would have been interesting if the Inca ever found out bat shit could go boom

Or if they bred a llama large enough to ride/pull a plow.

Have you ever seen a Llama?

Those things are huge, they CAN be used for riding. It's just not practical in the terrain of West South America. The horse didn't played a mayor role in the conquest of the Andes.

Link one faggoroni.

Iroquois
They were practically in the founding of Rome stage.

it would be a selknam continent

The mayas.

>Have you ever seen a Llama?
Not him, but I lived on the farm with some and the reason it's not practical to ride one is because they're ornery, ill-tempered beasts who would sooner hawk a loogie in your face and run away nervously than let you ride it, and while they can get big they don't get as big as a horse (and don't have nearly as strong of a back) so you'd be better off using them like a poor man's donkey than trying to ride one

They're a fucking pain in the ass and when the last one finally croaked we got the much smaller, more gentle-natured Alpacas and have been happy ever since.

Whichever tribe first gained the ability to sail to Europe and bring back our sweet sweet guns, philosophies, and diseases

Yeah while everyone down south was in the imperial period of Rome level.

They're pretty fucking retarded, yeah, but I was sure they had strong backs.

Or maybe they were used instead of horses/mules because they can take the shitty climate of the mountains better?

Mayas. They literally have a higher average IQ than European peoples.

Mayans are a meme, they had already collapsed without the yuropoor intervention.

They try to gain independence from Mexico in the 1900s, with guns and shit, and they got BTFO.

Dakota in North America

They're strong enough to haul around a decent amount of supplies, and I'm pretty sure that you're right about them being more useful in the dry, desolate wastelands of the Andes, they may be dumb, but they are hardy, and not nearly as high maintenance as horses.

Would it be possible to use selective breeding to make a Llama capable of preforming like a horse? Possibly, but they'd never be quite as good at it as horses, they just don't have the bodies or the temperaments. They're more like a donkey than a horse.

Sioux are like the Mongols, they were horse riding barbarians who may have established a temporary hegemony but would eventually fall away to irrelevance.

There would be no single dominant tribe, you'd have regional powers such as the Iroquois and Hurons and Cree but if America was united at all, it would be as a supra-national trade union like the EU.

Looks like retarded frat boys lmao.

>Mayas. They literally have a higher average IQ than European peoples.
Interesting. Sauce?

Original llamaposter here. So you can't see a time when llama cavalry would be viable?

Mesoamerica is a cradle of civilization, but it's never the cradles that remain dominant over the long term, and in the Americas the eventual powerhouse would be in the north east, where all the coal and iron are.

The Iroquois-Algonquin-Huron complex. Them lakes man, ships are eventually going to happen.

Alternatively if the Amazonians fucking sort themselves out they can completely own South America.

>The Chinese
Probably never happened. Chinese exiles though, maybe could have happened.

Doesn't mean they're necessarily Han you know.

what the fuck

>and while they can get big they don't get as big as a horse

What the hell do you think the first domesticated horse looked like? Think it was great for riding? Look into it, the matter is actually shocking.

It takes a lot of time, many generations on both sides and real investment to select for those kinds of positive traits.

>they were horse riding barbarians

Yeah but they didn't have horses until Europeans brought them over, so that's completely meaningless.

I thought they were doing that already with some animals.

>implying nomadic mapuches won't invade the incans and set up their own dynasty like the mongols and manchus did in china

They're literally camels. Except separated by a few million years.

>So you can't see a time when llama cavalry would be viable?

Not that user, but cavalry wouldn't have a fun time traversing the Andes, or the Amazon. They'd only ever could be useful in such a way in North America or the plains of the dry Andes.

Good one user.

The actual domestication of animals changes the people who domesticate them by necessity. Those animals actually exert selective pressures on the people who are domesticating them, the process actually works both ways.

The best domesticator is usually going to have the best animals in his society. Think about the effect of that advantage. Generally the animals of the person who most excels at domestication will thrive, and he thrives in return as a result. And when he thrives, his animals thrive likewise.

>Original llamaposter here. So you can't see a time when llama cavalry would be viable?
Sure, if you could breed one to be the size of a camel

Camels average 430 to 750 kgs, quite a bit larger than a llama, which average 130 to 200 kg

>What the hell do you think the first domesticated horse looked like? Think it was great for riding? Look into it, the matter is actually shocking.
It was actually quite shitty for riding for a very long time: chariots were used because horses just hadn't been bred to handle a human on their back. And while horses existed all over the world, the ones we use for riding all come from a specific place (the black sea area IIRC) everywhere else they were hunted for their meat like the rest of the ungulates.

>It takes a lot of time, many generations on both sides and real investment to select for those kinds of positive traits.
That's my point: taking 130 to 200 kg Llamas and breeding them to be the equivalent to 640 to 910 kg working horses would take many generations of careful husbandry (and war horses tended to be even bigger). I'm not saying it's impossible, it's just that they way they are now I would sooner use them to haul around supplies than try using them like cavalry.

The pathogens were certainly devastating, but just as important was the spaniard's disruption of economic and agricultural systems which made populations more vulnerable to disease. Also, huge forced labor systems in the Andean Highlands to extract silver for Charles' V's wars were monstrous and also accelerated death by disease. In Mexico you also have forced labor systems which are used to build Catholic churches all over New Spain.

problem is there were no horses. but when the spaniards introduced horses the mapuches mastered them and held off europeans until the late 19th century.

Say the Euros get BTFO by the Turks at Vienna and they invade France and Spain and even England.

Then Americas never colonized.

>horses existed all over the world
well see all the native American horses died way before Europeans ever came to the Americas because of a combination of over-hunting and *climate change*. But mostly it was over-hunting, horse flesh is tasty.

>it's just that they way they are now I would sooner use them to haul around supplies than try using them like cavalry

that makes good sense if you're a copper age society. But those other guys who end up breeding their horses into monsters are going to gape you in 500 years. Who knows why?

>The decadence of the aztecs would have destroyed them

the distance between china and North America's western seaboard is nearly twice the distance between Europe and the eastern seaboard.
source? indios in modern mexico aren't exactly doing well for themselves

on the other hand, what if incan society began to prize, or at least gather, shorter men and women akin to jockies that ride race horses? surely these shorter people would be able to ride llamas as scouts or as skirmishers

>that makes good sense if you're a copper age society. But those other guys who end up breeding their horses into monsters are going to gape you in 500 years. Who knows why?

Yes user, 20/20 hindsight is fantastic isn't it?

No, but being hated by LITERALLY everybody around them probably would of destroyed them sooner or later.

Again, maybe useful in the steppe. In the mountain and the jungle it really is just easier to go on foot.

We really don't know how far East the Incas would of gotten. But without horses or jungle an organized society with organized war tactics was going to wipe the floor with all other stone-age tribes anyway, without too much effort or need for innovation.

no it's useless, kind of like llamas except llamas are at least good at climbing mountains. Too bad horses are so tasty.

>copper
Incas were already using bronze weapons.

You sure love that tasty tasty horse meat don't you user?

even in the peruvian highlands, the spanish used horses and lancers to great effect as scouts. its part of the reason that when the got sieged in cuzsco they had no problem breaking through enemy lines and scouting and attacking at ease. also doesn't explain why spaniards bred donkies and mules in peruvian highlands for centuries during colonial rule.

>Again, maybe useful in the steppe.
the pampas were steppes. all you needed to do was introduce llamas there.

Take your pedophile cartoons back to

no way, really? Impressive if true.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inca_Empire#Weapons.2C_armor_and_warfare
>ctrl-F bronze
>Bronze[citation needed] or bone-tipped spears
>Their armor included:[citation needed]

wow, sauce me buddy.

I read it on some conquista records IIRC.

Can you google it as "bronce inca"?

The highlands are lower, of course. But the Incas did a lot of actual things on top of the mountains.

Also yeah, mules and donkes are very good for carrying your shit, but i'm talking about organize charges which were pretty much the only use of cavalry besides pursuing fleeing enemies.

Most battles were fought between natives in the mountains.

>What tribe would dominate America?
None.
They lacked the technology to dominate anything beyond their immediate neighbors.

thats where the natives had the advantage by ambushing the spaniards on narrow mountain paths and crushing them with boulders basically. what mattered though is that the spaniards came to control all the important economic and political areas very quickly.

>googles incan bronze metallurgy

all I'm finding are some details on the extremely low tin-content ornamental bronze work the Incans did. It's like 97% copper. Seems like they made good knives with the stuff, though their usage appears to be sacrificial or religious. Reminds me in some way of Japanese smithing, very meticulous. It's hard to do exquisite bronze ornamentation with low-tin, but that's almost necessary without iron tools. They had mirrors too.

Copper axe heads are far and away the most common thing. Very impressive stuff, apparently the Incans are btfo every other native American group. They can almost certainly be described as a late copper age people.

source
incas.homestead.com/inca_metallurgy_copper.html
>potentially dubious
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiram_Bingham_III

If they did use bronze weapons, they would have used them against the Spanish. This may have been recorded, but I'm having real trouble finding any mention of their armaments beyond slings, maces/clubs, and axes.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quizquiz

Incas have a real shot at weaponizing spit with llama chariots being able to transport slingers and also have the best metal weapons and armor on the continent.

Too bad those would only really be useful on the Great Plains, though there may be some sparse valleys suitable for their use locally. I know for a fact that Tibetans used rolling bladed wheels as weapons against invaders.

I can see the Incas blobbing like crazy if they didn't btfo themselves in the civil war so hard and then Spaniards. Their labor obligation system had some real upward potential.

Then they have absolutely zero chance of being relevant, before the horse the Sioux were literally savages subsisting by hunting and gathering in the Canadian taiga.

>well see all the native American horses died way before Europeans ever came to the Americas because of a combination of over-hunting and *climate change*. But mostly it was over-hunting, horse flesh is tasty.
That and it was really only a horse from a very specific region of the world, where an environment with few natural predators bred horses which were docile and even keeled rather than nervous and skittish.

>But those other guys who end up breeding their horses into monsters are going to gape you in 500 years.
Right, but in the present day those other guys are going to break their llama's backs trying to ride them, while my baggage train benefits from the extra load capacity and my food supply benefits from an animal which will chase away most predators.

Whose to say that the other guy's husbandry is better than mine? I'd be breeding the biggest and the strongest llamas for the sole reason that bigger llamas means more shit that I can have them hauling around, but also be breeding the ones which get along best with humans and are least freaked out when they're in the company of them. I'll be sure to encourage my great, great, great grandchildren to consider training some to handle a human rider, assuming that they start approaching the size of some of the larger camelids.

>an environment with few natural predators bred horses which were docile and even keeled

hahahaha ok sure please go ahead and sauce me on horse domestication

>Whose to say that the other guy's husbandry is better than mine?
>literally eats all the horses

>I'll be sure to encourage my great, great, great grandchildren to consider training some to handle a human rider, assuming that they start approaching the size of some of the larger camelids.

You couldn't unless you somehow created a religious idealization around horses/llamas capable of lasting that long. Possible for sure.

More likely is that your great-great-great...grandchildren will be intimately familiar with llamas/horses because of your work, and may even know some things about them that you didn't. So they can just do it themselves.

>idealization
*ideation*

they would be inferior soldiers for the simple question of physics: short means less reach and less mass, which means you can't throw a javelin or shoot a bow and arrow as far as a strapping young buck in his prime, which means your skirmishers get annihilated at range.

At best, you could use them as scouts or messengers, but really you'd want to keep them away from battle and use them more like mules or donkeys

>hahahaha ok sure please go ahead and sauce me on horse domestication
cam.ac.uk/research/news/mystery-of-the-domestication-of-the-horse-solved
All of the horses that humans have used throughout history comes from a specific region of Eurasia, the PIE region, and spread outwards in all directions as people found these tamer breeds actually worth the effort to domesticate.

In theory, a Zebra would be an even better candidate for a llama for domestication, except for the fact that they're insanely temperamental and near impossible to go near.

>>literally eats all the horses
I'm talking about Llama husbandry, and breeding them to be large enough to use like camels. New World horses would have been about as wild and difficult to capture and domesticate as a deer.

>You couldn't unless you somehow created a religious idealization around horses/llamas capable of lasting that long. Possible for sure.
Or you just pass along knowledge so that they are having the same conversation we are having now, but with animals which are a reflection of their times.

true, mobile scouts are useful though. and while theyd have less archery range they can be used to flank the enemy and harass supply lines. you can also use them as mobile troops thatd thwart enemy skirmishers

>In theory, a Zebra would be an even better candidate for a llama for domestication

Nope, zebras aren't social or hierarchical like Llamas and horses, there's virtually no way to domesticate them. In b4 pictures of tamed zebra: Domestication is not taming, people have been taming Elephants for thousands of years but they're still not domesticated.

>All of the horses that humans have used throughout history comes from a specific region of Eurasia, the PIE region

Yes.

>people found these tamer breeds actually worth the effort to

I'm having some trouble finding evidence for this assertion, namely that this particular breed was the only one docile enough to be domesticated. In fact there is nothing obvious in your linked source that even suggests those particular Equus ferus were more docile than others.

with this talk about the Incas

had they been politically stable when the Europeans arrived, could they have held them back?

>, zebras aren't social or hierarchica
>"Like most members of the horse family, zebras are highly social. Their social structure, however, depends on the species. Mountain zebras and plains zebras live in groups, known as 'harems', consisting of one stallion with up to six mares and their foals. Bachelor males either live alone or with groups of other bachelors until they are old enough to challenge a breeding stallion. When attacked by packs of hyenas or wild dogs a zebra group will huddle together with the foals in the middle while the stallion tries to ward them off."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zebra

>Zebras as very social animals and live in large groups called 'harems.'
defenders.org/zebra/basic-facts

I'm agreeing with you that it's virtually impossible to domesticate them, but it has more to do with the fact that they come from an ecosystem bristling with dangerous predators, so their personalities are wily, skittish, and easily agitated, which makes them poor candidates for domestication.

>I'm having some trouble finding evidence for this assertion, namely that this particular breed was the only one docile enough to be domesticated. In fact there is nothing obvious in your linked source that even suggests those particular Equus ferus were more docile than others.
Horses existed all over the world, and yet it was only horses in this specific region which humans found suitable for domestication, every where else they were simply hunted like deer. Since we know the difference is not physical, there's only one real explanation, that the Equus ferus produced by this biome had temperaments amenable to domestication, which was probably a reflection of the balance of predators to prey.

If you have any competing theories to offer, I'm all ears.

>it was only horses in this specific region which humans found suitable for domestication
Maybe it was those humans that were special, rather than the horses. They certainly had a novel reaction. Perhaps both were, perhaps that same biome had a similar effect on the people dwelling there.

>every where else they were simply hunted like deer

maybe not everywhere else, but mostly yes that's true.

>the Equus ferus produced by this biome had temperaments amenable to domestication
this is pure conjecture and your premises may actually be faulty.

That said en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasus-Anatolian-Hyrcanian_temperate_forest

Not sure if this zone covers the Urals, which if I'm not mistaken this actually went down.

>Maybe it was those humans that were special, rather than the horses.
So was it the horses which were unique, the humans, or was it the effect that the biome was having on both of them?

I would lean towards the latter, which is why I doubt that any New World civilization would have been able to domesticate a horse on its own, and would probably have keep breeding larger and larger llamas.

North American cultures changed quite dramatically when European horses were introduced.

Civil wars for the incas were pretty much as bad and common as they were in Europe at the time.

They would of recovered if the Spanish hadn't seen the opportunity and taken it.

Incas are legit the only american civilization that was advanced and powerful enough to become a dominant power in the region.

>So was it the horses which were unique, the humans, or was it the effect that the biome was having on both of them?
idk

but if it is true that the as of yet unspecified biome did impose unique selective pressures to the wild horses living there, it would almost certainly have affected the humans there too.

Possible. Depends on how fast they adapt newer guns.

But Spaniards would of have to arrive much later, as the Incas still had freshly annexed tribes under their wing that would not have been yet assimilated and would of been reason for de-stabilization.

The problem with annexing tribes and not being a literal hammer like the Romans, Ottomans or Spanish is that tribes are incredibly hostile and they have an extreme version of tribe mentality, so they're hard to keep in your area of influence without a constant eye over them.

Te thing is most battles were fougth between natives.

Even the corpses of famous battles are incas that died due to other Inca enemy.

Civil war destroyed their dominance and the smallpox ruined the continent definitely.

They small tribes would of had more reason to try and do such a thing than the large empires.

But by the time they saw the need it would of probably been too late.

>nomads without horses
>accomplishing anything

>Imagine that Europeans forever stayed in Europe. What tribe would dominate America?

A tribe called Quest

>implying

The Sultan of Morocco toyed with the idea of setting up a New World colony IIRC. Probably wouldn't have worked though; it would probably have gotten gangbanged by every Christian power on day one.

Europe's worst sin is extinguishing these beautiful people

>Europe's

They were genocided by Argentina after its independence from Spain.

Mapuches without horses are still able to fend off any imperialist force. Conquest territory however? Not so much.

user, are you implying Argies aren't European?

Nah, he's right

>HURR

Why not blame Africa, or the Big Bang? Argies are responsible for their own crimes.

Argentina is part of Europe, not latinamerica.

What a stupid cunt you are.

Cree

they're goddamn everywhere in the continental interior

Spain would cuck them at Gibraltar unless they conquered Morocco and set up a MAJOR port on the Atlantic.

awesome pic lol