Reminder that the "European colonization of the Americas" was the bloodiest war in history

Only if you use a unique standard for it DISEASE COUNTS EXCEPT WHEN YELLOW PEOPLE DO IT.

>Mongol Conquests
>Excludes the (up to) 200,000,000 deaths from the Black Death migration that arguably may have been associated with the Mongol expansion

Smallpox wasn't the only factor in the complete destruction of the amerindians. Yes it was a bit factor but not the only one. Europeans had superior weaponry, making any confrontation between euros and redskins skewed from the start unless the amerindians vastly outnumbered the euros.

>amerindians

Please never post again

>bloodiest war
That's the china wars surely, when you eat someone it makes lots of blood

>there only was 1 (one) black disease which made up the black death
>90% survive
then stop crying
don't forget to sage and hide EVERY thread of an Incafag

>superior european

Just lucky sociopaths , that benefit from eastern inventions.

I just made an observation how Amerindians have demonstrated a better communal behavior against not-immunized epidemic diseases for survival.

In even the highest credible estimates there were never more than 70 million people in the Americas, and frankly even that is extremely generous. 80-90% of the ones that died did so from disease. Even going with relatively high demographic and low disease death toll estimates, the European colonization of the Americas was surpassed by the Mongol conquests, both World Wars, the Russian Civil War, and several Chinese civil wars that your average non-history buff will have never heard of.

>population estimated by arable land and support of modern corn
>doesn't even take into account for war, change of climate, wealth disparity or crop strain
not saying a lot of people didnt die, but why do people parade this around like its a solid fact?

>the European colonization of the Americas was surpassed by the Mongol conquests, both World Wars, the Russian Civil War,

Did any of those literally deleted whole cultures ?

By that logic every time an isolated tribe in New Guinea is wiped out by their neighbors that also counts as one of the "bloodiest wars in history."

I just made a question. Because is not only about the body count.

For instance nobody talks about the slavery on the mines. It was huge.

I would pick to be killed young, over years taking rocks out of a muntain to finally die in missery.

Small pox spread much faster than the Europeans did, so when Europeans came upon the tribes much further away from their original landing spot the indigenous populations were already decimated.

>Just lucky sociopaths , that benefit from eastern inventions.
Why didn't the Asians benefit from their inventions to the same degree?

China didn't want to expand further. (Some Confusian doctrine as far as I understand).

For the rest of asia, the muslim world and eastern europe, check out a map. Western Europe was lucky.

Sucks to suck.

Luckier than tuaregs and eskimo, whether they were luckier than the other major old world civilizations is up to debate. Also "luck" is an ambiguous confusing term. It took centuries for Europeans to develop grain agriculture in their climate to the point populations started to grow in the middle ages. It is lucky they had the potential to do so, yet they also needed effort and ingenuity to do it. So was it luck?

There may well be cultural differences that actually had a significant impact on the course of a civilization like the philosophies of Confucius, though to be honest I don't see much compelling evidence of this. China was always trying to expand their influence, warring with kingdoms that stopped paying tribute and so forth. Is there some sort of "belligerence index" we can use to compare China to other cultures and determine the exact impact of Confucius? There isn't and probably won't ever be.

It is very difficult to develop a compelling argument for or against any of the things discussed in this thread. Also it is obvious no one here wants to discuss this properly, which would be the only way to yield a remotely accurate conclusion. Your egos are all tied to your ethnic group.

Still better than reddit though.

>the fact that their immune systems were weak actually makes them stronger

>Reminder that the "European colonization of the Americas" was the bloodiest war in history
>You cannot dispute this.

I can, by pointing out that it was not "a war."

>These death toll estimates vary due to lack of consensus as to the demographic size of the native population pre-Columbus, which some say might never be accurately determined.
also wasn't really a "war" in the traditional sense, although wars did take place.

Define "a war"