AHC : Native Americans Immune to Europeans
- Thread starter Pyni
- Start date
-
- Tags
- pre colombian
In this context immunity is provided by a population having contact with the disease, it just it tales time and a lot of people die in the meantime (depending on how it's introduced and other exacerbating or mitigating factors))
The thing is the C16th colonisation was faster than a C12th century colonisation would be, on top of that the technological disparity was greater as was European population sizes and resources and capability to drive it. Meaning that once they got there colonisation flowed faster in greater numbers and with greater ability to "finish the job" with other interactions. Another way this expresses is once CC comes back the word of his discovery quickly spreads throughout Europe, and there were several nations and organisations who could kick start colonisation (despite attempts by some to control access). This is partly because of the increased population and resources as mentioned above but also because Europe is much more "joined up" place in the C16th than it is the C12th.
Then there's where the different colonisers went. the Viking landed in the north east a relatively underpopulated and isolated part of the continent. If they had stayed or even slowly moved down and in, even if they were interacting with locals there the sheer distances and isolation of that ares would have decelerated the spread of diseases into the whole continent. C16th colonisation on the other hand landed right in heavily populated areas of the continent with established vectors of communications thus speeding up the process
Then there's also the point that C12th viking are in terms of resources and technology on much more equal terms with the people they'll meet in terms of being able to subjugate them even in a weakened state. The follow up subjugation is important not just in terms of physically doing it additionally stress an already disease stressed population but the quicker settlers move in the faster they can spread additional diseases that will effect an already weakened population.
Basically anything that can slow colonisation down in terms of numbers of interactions between new populations and how quickly they mingle will buy more time for the native population to absorb and then recover in the face of it.
Ultimately you are right once discovered by Europeans and that gets established NA is going to never be undiscovered so there will be colonisation and thus interaction, but it's how it happens that's key here.
They Island hopped, which brings up the point above regarding the different nature of the colonisation. The Viking led colonisation of NA would have to be a more multi stage process than the later C16th colonisation. I.e you are going to have to have staging points at teh very least in Iceland and Greenland, all of which adds friction to the process (and it would also allow those lands to control it more tightly)
It can do certainly, but it's not guaranteed too and regular strains still say around. And since mutated species are seldom completely new pre-existing population experience with other strains helps. As a point of comparison Spanish flu it actually only had a mortality rate (including 2ndary infections) of 2.5%! (only is a relative term) what made it so bad was how quickly in spread having infected an estimated 30% of the world population by 1919.
The records of 11th and 12th Norse expeditions to North America are sporadic. We think unlucky breaks and Native American encounters turned them away from settlement. But how close did the world come to a more permanent settlement and a conduit of immigration by other powers in Europe? While the westward trip was a bit harrowing, soon the Gulf Stream would be discovered and the prevailing winds charted to make the eastbound trip much easier. A gradual influx of Europeans to Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New England and southward would have infected Native Americans, but given them more time to adapt and develop resistance to certain diseases. Then, European technology would evolve differently as 15th century shipbuilding would likely arrive sooner. So, Columbus and 1492 would not be milestones in history. Arguably, earlier European expedition to the New World should be more gradual and more humane.
Then you have the plague of the mid-14th century. Contact between continents would likely spread it across the Atlantic. Conversely, Europeans might flee westward to avoid it. Will the result be a lower world population c.1400 with substantially better immunity?
Then you have the plague of the mid-14th century. Contact between continents would likely spread it across the Atlantic. Conversely, Europeans might flee westward to avoid it. Will the result be a lower world population c.1400 with substantially better immunity?
So a greater interchange in the Atlantic a century before Columbus, introducing diseases and domesticated animals gradually. the problem I see is the black plague, probably many would go to America to escape the plague, spreading it across America, I wonder how the natives will be affected
I'm guessing not well, but the point is the Bubonic plague was a European example of very contagious new disease running quickly though a previously unexposed and thus low immunity population. I.e it's basically what happened in the America's anyway with other diseases.
But IIRC Bubonic Plague has pretty quick incubation and onset cycle, so the travel time between Europe and the Americas might actually help isolate the Americas especially if the infected ship's with survivors can't complete the journey. (although ultimately It's going to get there, in fact it has historically)
Last edited:
You have a set of disease scenarios that wiped out millions OTL. Without cures, there is no really “good” way to stop their spread. My instinct is that the more gradual the influx of immigrants/carriers to a continent, the slower the diseases spread and the more recoverable the populations are. The plague apparently dies without a host, so separation should keep it down some. Making the matter worse is that the people of the time do not understand viruses, bacteria, germs, etc.
Yep sounds right to me. There are other knock on effects for the natives for a slower more gradual colonisation for other reasons as well that are ties into the overall positive feed back loops of bad things exacerbating other bad things.
Last edited:
I think avoid the diseases that decimated the Native Americans is impossible. Sustained contact prior to the 15th Century, is very difficult, to provide, at least in such a way that the Natives could immunise themselves, without also facing the same sort of decimation that took place during that time period.
A better idea, instead of looking for exposure, is treatment. What if the Native Americans had in their possession a primitive form of Antibiotics and awareness of Immunization techniques? Sub-Saharan African tribes practiced forms of inoculation prior to any western country. It's not infeasible for this to happen. Should the Natives practice techniques like this, then the potential for them to better respond and survive exposure to European diseases increases.
The biggest issue is that no amount of techniques can truly prepare the human body for a completely alien disease. It's still going to carve a massive wave of destruction, but instead of taking 8 generations for the Natives to finally survive, it might only take three.
Another way to reduce the impact, is to have a more inter-connected america. There is evidence that suggests that at least in Central and North-South America there was trade, but what you'd want is trade much further, potentially most places of the Americas. I don't see an easy way to do this. Population growth is usually tied to developments in agricultural techniques. The Aztecs were getting there, but they were still in the copper age by the time the Europeans arrived. Maybe the first idea helps with the latter.
More interaction between natives, leads to further mutation of diseases, which should lead to more resistances when the Europeans come along. For that you need a bigger population.
A better idea, instead of looking for exposure, is treatment. What if the Native Americans had in their possession a primitive form of Antibiotics and awareness of Immunization techniques? Sub-Saharan African tribes practiced forms of inoculation prior to any western country. It's not infeasible for this to happen. Should the Natives practice techniques like this, then the potential for them to better respond and survive exposure to European diseases increases.
The biggest issue is that no amount of techniques can truly prepare the human body for a completely alien disease. It's still going to carve a massive wave of destruction, but instead of taking 8 generations for the Natives to finally survive, it might only take three.
Another way to reduce the impact, is to have a more inter-connected america. There is evidence that suggests that at least in Central and North-South America there was trade, but what you'd want is trade much further, potentially most places of the Americas. I don't see an easy way to do this. Population growth is usually tied to developments in agricultural techniques. The Aztecs were getting there, but they were still in the copper age by the time the Europeans arrived. Maybe the first idea helps with the latter.
More interaction between natives, leads to further mutation of diseases, which should lead to more resistances when the Europeans come along. For that you need a bigger population.
Plague (Yersinia Pestis) has the well known rodent-flea-human cycle. However assuming you had a Viking ship leave Greenland with some plague infected rats aboard, the ship arriving in Vinland with infected persons or rats aboard is quite possible. You don't need rats, any rodent will do - OTL there is a focus of murine (animal based) plague in the US southwest where it is endemic in the four corners area in prairie dogs and a few human cases every year or two occur. Once you get some infected rats ashore, or humans with fleas, it becomes established. Yellow fever and malaria both came to the new world via infections from Africa or Europe, and this are mosquito borne disease. Yellow fever affects simians, and is established in jungle areas now in new world monkeys.
Measles and smallpox, both big killers, are likely to burn out if introduced to a relatively isolated area in North America (like Vinland). They have no non-human carriers or animal pool for infection, and will be highly deadly. The survivors have lifetime immunity and no permanent infective load (unlike HIV for example) so after the wave of infections, especially in a relatively small population, it is gone.
Measles and smallpox, both big killers, are likely to burn out if introduced to a relatively isolated area in North America (like Vinland). They have no non-human carriers or animal pool for infection, and will be highly deadly. The survivors have lifetime immunity and no permanent infective load (unlike HIV for example) so after the wave of infections, especially in a relatively small population, it is gone.
yes, in fact the issue is not to completely immunize the natives of diseases, but instead of 90% of the population dying in 100 years, is something like 10 - 30%
problem is more connectivity increases infection rates and spread once the new disease gets there. I'm not sure encouraging the mutation of your current endemic diseases is going to give you improved immunity to that alien disease when it turns up.
I do think behaviour adaptation might help even if it not primarily motivated by the spread of disease. What if say there was a pretty strict set of behavioural taboos regarding physically touching strangers or covering your face in their presence. Obviously won't stop all pathways but might slow stuff down.
I do think behaviour adaptation might help even if it not primarily motivated by the spread of disease. What if say there was a pretty strict set of behavioural taboos regarding physically touching strangers or covering your face in their presence. Obviously won't stop all pathways but might slow stuff down.
Or allowing their population to rebuild before colonisation and competition starts in earnest
Lusitania
Donor
The scenarios described here are neither realistic or possible. All it takes if for one individual a trader or explorer to pass through an area to devastate the people living there.
Case in the early 17th century Spanish explorers passed through the Ohio valley and visited some of the tribes inhabiting the river valleys. The complex nations of 20-40 villages were described in great detail. When British and French explorers visited the area a century later those string large tribes were gone and in their place the survivors now living in half a dozen villages.
So would the arrival of Vikings in 12 century help as I said it depend if they continued contact. Why did they stop visiting Greenland resulting in the Viking settlements to be lost to combination of attacks by Inuit and starvation disease? If the same happen to Vikings in newfound land then what would of been the outcome of the larger settlers there?
Even the Vikings were themselves on the fringe of Europe and might not of been explosed to all the diseases.
The best scenario could be 50% drop instead of 90% ad estimated iotl.
Yep and having more time to recover from the epidemics leaves them in a better position to resist or reduce the other issues of colonisation
The point is not to avoid the epidemics (that is likely impossible), it's to either reduce the effect, slow them or put some more recovery time between them and the colonisation starting in earnest. l.e. to avoid colonisers arriving at an "empty land" which is in terms of natives basically a post apocalyptic scenario. There may well be some significant knock on effects on the american colonial narrative here.
A 50% drop instead of a 90% drop would be a massive improvement as you'd be starting recovery from 1 in 2 left around instead of 1 in 10!
The C12th viking/Scandinavians were by then a pretty well travelled population, as well as travel within Europe already being pretty common (relatively) not just at this time but for chunks of the prior history (romans etc) so that's a pretty mature population in terms of disease contact. Similarly the two intermediary points between Scandinavia and the Americas (Greenland and Iceland) were themselves populated colonies of reasonably diverse groups.
Last edited:
50% drop seems way too low, I think the stress should be on the subsequent recovery, not smaller drop.
Norway still suffered disproportionally from the Black Death, so it doesn't look like Scandinavia is at the level of the mediterranean in terms of spread of diseases, plus a plethora of diseases could be spread only with a more mediterranean or African population(malaria, yellow fever etc.)
I agree. Although I think slowing the rate of deaths so that even if the same overall total number die it's not quite as an acute shock to the societies in question leading to other knock on effects, is also area of mitigation that could be looked at.
OK but the Black death was a new disease to Europe as a whole (ish), plenty of bits of Mediterranean Europe got hit bad as well! The point being made was that Scandinavians being on the edge of Europe wouldn't be carrying wide spread and ubiquitous diseases of Europe that were passed on 300 years later, but that's not relevant to how susceptible or not they may have been to newly introduced one (and how susceptible or not they were to the black death isn't proof of the point that didn't have the other already established diseases).
And as I said they might have been on the edge but it's not like rhey were that isolated from Europe there being a lot of back and forth trade, as well as movement of Scandinavians in general.
Good point abut malaria and Yellow fever though!
Also did Scandinavia suffer disproportionately from the black death, and did it do do because of the point being made? One of the big drivers of deaths is how much of your overall population is close to the initial points of contact of the disease in your country (sea ports in this case), not to mention your overall population size. There's a lot of factors involved here and it's why death rates varied in a lot of places.
Last edited:
Go to the technological in military disparity the Native Americans still get curb stomped by the Europeans, it just takes a little longer.
Thing is we're not talking about a pitched battle for the continent were the natives charge grapeshot firing canon. But rather a contest between two (or more) groups of people over a period of time. Yes of course the Europeans turn up with guns and horses, and lots of iron an steel. But not every European coloniser is a heavily armed and armoured, military trained conquistador. The Native were (not being stupid) pretty happy to utilise introduced technology. Plus it not like Europe could just take millions of people and drop them on demand in the Americas i.e they had long supply lines.
On top of this the natives are not 'just" reeling from a recent 90-95% hit in population but a pretty fundamental break down in their social structures that went with that. So not only did the Europeans turn up in what they considered an "empty land"* making their life easier, but the few native survivors thay did interact with were trying to recover from the massive upheaval as well as huge loss of numbers. So Imagine a native population that is not only hugely larger, but more cohesive and established and less shell shocked.
Don't get me wrong technological advantage and long term near infinite supply of Europeans means it's never going to be equal, but it could be a lot less unequal and that I think could well mean the end result might well be a lot less unequal as well as the practical realities of getting the OTL end result will change. As I said earlier some of the narratives might well change as well, it's harder to sell the "God given pristine wilderness for the righteous" meme, if there is considerably more original inhabitants on it!
*and for all intents and purposes it often was as those who where there either being dead, scattered or having left due to social upheaval!
Last edited: