30-09-2002 21:39									#1
	Native American Empire Get a bigger avatar today!

In keeping in tradition with speculation about history. Could the Native Americans have produced a nation to rival European ones if left alone? Or if the US had stayed east of the Mississippi, could the remaining Native Americans have ever really compeated with the US?

Answer for N. American and S. America if you wish.

	30-09-2002 21:53									#2
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Not if they stayed nomadic I think.

Plus the ancient Civs that produced a more elaborate scheme like the Mayas or the Aztecs were man - eaters. The Conquistadors nearly vomited when entering a sacrificial temple where thousands were sacrificied by reaping their hearts out.

"Glorification" of american indians has some serious loopholes.

Not that english settlers who "donated" blankets infected with european diseases and wiped out whole villages by that were any better but still. Some indians were very bloodthirsty and canibalistic.

	30-09-2002 21:55									#3
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

(=not good for the deveopment of civ - scientific or other)

	30-09-2002 22:00									#4
	Increase Your PM Length

Left alone, I have no doubt the Native Americans would have produced a complex civilization similar to those of Eurasia. It just would have happened thousands of years later. The process of achieving urban civilization relies on many factors being met, such as availability of surplus food to spur large population growth, regions of dense population to spawn artisan classes, etc. Considering the way of life and population density for most of the Native Americans, I think urban civilization would have been a long time coming.

However, the Meso-American cultures were already creating urban civilization, but would still be over a thousand years behind Eurasia in technology, if left in complete isolation.

You should read Guns, Germs and Steel. It would likely answer your question about this far better than anyone here could post, as it examines the biological origins of civilizations and explains why societies developed so differently, depending on geography and the availability of food and resources.

	30-09-2002 22:02									#5
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by paiktis22 Not if they stayed nomadic I think. Plus the ancient Civs that produced a more elaborate scheme like the Mayas or the Aztecs were man - eaters. The Conquistadors nearly vomited when entering a sacrificial temple where thousands were sacrificied by reaping their hearts out. "Glorification" of american indians has some serious loopholes. Not that english settlers who "donated" blankets infected with european diseases and wiped out whole villages by that were any better but still. Some indians were very bloodthirsty and canibalistic.

While the Aztecs certainly did practice human sacrifice, the Mayas were not known to do so. And it did not often involve cannibalism. Cannibalism was extremely rare among Native American groups.

The Aztecs were the major practicioners of Cannibalism, and some deep jungle Brazilian groups. But for the Aztecs, already a very violent and bloody culture, it was a matter of religious ritual, not nourishment.

Regardless, human sacrifice was just as prevalent in some early Eurasian societies, so I don't see it as an impediment to future civilization at all.

	30-09-2002 22:08									#6
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Canibalism was not that rare in indianoi (sorry it's silly not to have 2 different words for indians and american indians in the english language so from now on indanoi=american indians). Nor was human sacrifice that uncommon.

Also the magnitute, the sheer volume and brutality of human sacrifice by the aztecs was unprecedendent.

Conquistadors were hardened warriors just after liberating the Iberian peninsula. When they entered the aztec temple and came face to face with thousand of women children and men having their hearts ripped out and then eaten by priests of that "religion" vomited.

Some Indianoi outdone anything previous recorded in human hisotry when it comes to sheer brutality, homicide and canibalism.

	30-09-2002 22:08									#7
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

I believe the closest that the Native Americans really got was the Iroquois League but since they were located in the Eastern part of the US they came into contact with Europeans early and had no chance to get going. If the League had been somehow protected or had been farther away it might have been interesting at what they could come up with.

	30-09-2002 22:09									#8
	Re: Native American Empire Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Sprayber In keeping in tradition with speculation about history. Could the Native Americans have produced a nation to rival European ones if left alone?

I believe they could have, but I think they would have needed another couple of thousand years. Their main problem was isolation.

	30-09-2002 22:11									#9
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

The Mayans were indeed known to do so! In fact they were probably just as bloody. My main problem is with THIS statement:
"Not if they stayed nomadic I think. "
EXTREMELY few Native American tribes on the north american continent were nomadic, basically only the plains indians. Native americans built quality buildings, and although they didn't have the population that Europe had after the agricultural revolution, it is almost a certainty that they had a larger population than Europe before the agricultural revolution. The native american tribes used many methods to make the best game grounds possible. They used fire to clear out brush, small trees, and allow the bigger trees to thrive, which provided better habitat for game.
You guys should check out the Atlantic Monthly article on this for more.
Also the Aztecs only had MASSIVE sacrifices after great victories when they brought home lots of prisoners… ewwww

	30-09-2002 22:14									#10
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

A better question might be is with contact with European civilizations, would some groups of Native Americans have borrowed and be stimulated by ideas from Europe and eventually be able to rival them. Or would they still have to wait to develop on their own.

	30-09-2002 22:14									#11
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

"Also the magnitute, the sheer volume and brutality of human sacrifice by the aztecs was unprecedendent."
That is… until Hitler/Stalin came along… also I'd REALLY like to see some sources Paikty

	30-09-2002 22:15									#12
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Amerindians is the commonly used designation for the American natives.

The only reason that the Aztecs brutality was worse than "anything recorded in history" is because such things were in Eurasia's pre-history past, and Eurasian cultures had thousands of years in which to conveniently forget all about it. Certainly the brutality described in many Eurasian myths and legends (even Greek) is quite severe.

Of course, there is also much speculation that the Conquistadors exaggerated the barbarity of Aztec culture a bit to further justify their conquest. Of course, the local tribes the Aztecs had conquered did not hesitate to help overthrow them (and in fact were instrumental in helping the Spanish do so), so that says a great deal as to how Aztecs were regarded by their contemporaries...

	30-09-2002 22:20									#13
	Got spare money?

That's quite a cumbersome word.

When The Conquistadors met the Aztecs and other Indianoi they had no reason to justify anything. They merely recorded what they saw. The need of "Justification" of the extermination of Indianoi came to american life much much later.

Plus European history even in the dark ages or even in the Greek dark ages has not recorded anything of the homicidial and canibalistic magnitude of the Indianoi.

	30-09-2002 22:24									#14
	Full PM-box? Change here!

For Stalin your info is a bit biased, sorry if I keep a critical eye.

As for the Nazi Germans, yes they killed millions.

However I am pointing the gruesome canibalistic practice of the Aztecs who's magnitude is unrivalted, expept maybe by the Turks. (beheadment of children etc in the Armenian Genocide of 1.5 million of people).
But they were not canibalistic.

	30-09-2002 22:26									#15
	Got spare money?

The Iroquois partly brought about their own destruction by dividing among themselves during the American Revolutionary War, with some Iroquois chiefdoms choosing to side with the Americans, and others siding with the British. It was easier for the Americans to destroy the Iroquois Confederacy this way.

Who can know what would have happened had the Iroquois remained united, against the Americans, and fighting on the British side in that war??

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov You should read Guns, Germs and Steel. It would likely answer your question about this far better than anyone here could post, as it examines the biological origins of civilizations and explains why societies developed so differently, depending on geography and the availability of food and resources.

That is an interesting book -- I especially liked how the author explained why the variety of African animals were never domesticated.

	30-09-2002 22:26									#16
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

The Iroquois Confederacy was, for all intents and purposes, an impressive empire by it's own right. Despite the natural handicap of being on the North American continent, it united 4 (and later 5) nations of Indians into one. It remained a considerable power even for some time after the Euros arrived.
Socially, the Iroquois more than made up for what scientific advancements that they lacked. In addition to practicing a primitive form of commnism, they also had a council with elected officials. Some have thought that their Democracy was influential on the pilgrim's creation of the Mayflower Compact.

	30-09-2002 22:31									#17
	Increase the size of your Attachments

"The northern tribes of the American red men never attained real statehood. They never progressed beyond a loose confederation of tribes, a very primitive form of state. Their nearest approach was the Iroquois federation, but this group of six nations never quite functioned as a state and failed to survive because of the absence of certain essentials to modern national life, such as:

1. Acquirement and inheritance of private property.

2. Cities plus agriculture and industry.

3. Helpful domestic animals.

4. Practical family organization. These red men clung to the mother-family and nephew inheritance.

5. Definite territory.

6. A strong executive head.

7. Enslavement of captives--they either adopted or massacred them.

8. Decisive conquests.

The red men were too democratic; they had a good government, but it failed. Eventually they would have evolved a state had they not prematurely encountered the more advanced civilization of the white man, who was pursuing the governmental methods of the Greeks and the Romans."

	30-09-2002 22:47									#18
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov Left alone, I have no doubt the Native Americans would have produced a complex civilization similar to those of Eurasia. It just would have happened thousands of years later. The process of achieving urban civilization relies on many factors being met, such as availability of surplus food to spur large population growth, regions of dense population to spawn artisan classes, etc. Considering the way of life and population density for most of the Native Americans, I think urban civilization would have been a long time coming.

May I actually point out that at the time of the Spanish landing, Tenochtitlan was supposed to be considerably larger than any European city. The Aztec Empire was pretty sophisticated, and were advancing.

	30-09-2002 22:50									#19
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by paiktis22 That's quite a cumbersome word. When The Conquistadors met the Aztecs and other Indianoi they had no reason to justify anything. They merely recorded what they saw. The need of "Justification" of the extermination of Indianoi came to american life much much later. Plus European history even in the dark ages or even in the Greek dark ages has not recorded anything of the homicidial and canibalistic magnitude of the Indianoi.

Human sacrifice was practiced in Europe as early as 5000 BC, and the Romans found it quite prevalent among the Celts, some Germanic tribes and the natives of Britain. In Egypt, China and other early civilizations, mass sacrifices were carried out, sometimes entombing hundred alive with dead rulers. It was common practice in many Eurasian civs to slaughter those they conquered (remember the fate of the sons of Troy, or the orders of the first Chinese emperor to kill the children of Qin, or the brutality of the Assyrians).

It is a little disingenuous to give the Aztecs some sort of special place as history's worst brutes. While indeed a brutal and horrific culture by the standards of those Europeans who discovered them, they weren't all that exceptional in history.

Regardless, it doesn't really answer Sprayber's question, as the sacrificial traditions of the Aztecs wouldn't necessarily prohibit the flowering of an Amerindian civilization.

Cali--what is that source? "red man?" Lord, is it from 1925 or something?

	30-09-2002 22:54									#20
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Provost Harrison May I actually point out that at the time of the Spanish landing, Tenochtitlan was supposed to be considerably larger than any European city. The Aztec Empire was pretty sophisticated, and were advancing.

Sorry, using standard American definitions:

Native Americans = North American natives.

Meso-Americans = Central and South Americans.

I did differentiate in the original post, ya know.

	30-09-2002 22:56									#21
	Inflate your Upload Space

I repeat: Aztecs were holding rituals in which thousand of people were having their hearts ripped out and then eaten by others.

This is sort of canibalism is unprecedented in history both in volume and in practice and only depicts the greusome monstrocity of an almost "satanic" societal scheme. Conquistadors vomited by the sight and the stench of this place. And Conquistadors were not pancies.

But you're right this is not what Sprayber was asking about.

	30-09-2002 23:16									#22
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov Cali--what is that source? "red man?" Lord, is it from 1925 or something?

You should know the source. The post was by Caligastria after all.

Here is the page he took it from in The Book of Urantia:

http://mercy.urantia.org/papers/paper71.html

	30-09-2002 23:18									#23
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov Cali--what is that source? "red man?" Lord, is it from 1925 or something?

The link is in my sig

	30-09-2002 23:21									#24
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by paiktis22 Canibalism was not that rare in indianoi (sorry it's silly not to have 2 different words for indians and american indians in the english language so from now on indanoi=american indians). Nor was human sacrifice that uncommon.

Boris was a little off, the term is Amerind not Amerindian.

	30-09-2002 23:21									#25
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Oh good lord...

	01-10-2002 00:14									#26
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Amerind is a shortening of Amerindian. AFAICT, both terms are used interchangeably to designate native American peoples, and either is as legitimate as the other. A quick Google search will turn up equal uses of both.

	01-10-2002 01:05									#27
	Suffering from ads?

Who gives a **** what the term is? It's not like if we call them Amerinds it'll restore their sovereignty and give them back their dignity.

Some people are too obsessed with what things are called, and not concerned enough with what things are.

	01-10-2002 01:13									#28
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Felch X Who gives a **** what the term is? It's not like if we call them Amerinds it'll restore their sovereignty and give them back their dignity. Some people are too obsessed with what things are called, and not concerned enough with what things are.

Amen to that.

	01-10-2002 01:22									#29
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

It's unlikely that any Amerindian civilization would have developed technological parity with the Eurasians unless they magically acquired large domesticatable animals (prior to any Eurasian invasion).

	01-10-2002 01:32									#30
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Felch X Who gives a **** what the term is?

People that prefer not to call an outhouse a rose for one.

quote: It's not like if we call them Amerinds it'll restore their sovereignty and give them back their dignity.

Whats that got to do with avoiding confusion?

quote: Some people are too obsessed with what things are called, and not concerned enough with what things are.

Some people are so obsessed with ranting they forget that discussions about Indians could easily be on a Tamil thread.