The Camelry Has Arrived

[RaptorWolf]

This is a series of maps of Old World empires:




And now look at the pre-Columbian New World empires:




We're not 100% sure why Old World empires were so huge and New World empires so small, but a good guess is that the Old World took advantage of a mammal called Equus ferus--the horse. Horses had been used as draft animals, long-distance carriers and war weapons.

The horse used to be a triumph of New World evolution, but the Younger Dryas climate chaos 13,000-11,000 years ago drove the Western Horse into extinction, so the horse could not be a source of New World cavalry. The Younger Dryas also drove to extinction another American originality--the camel.

In this alternate history scenario, the Younger Dryas still happened, and it still drove the American horses into extinction, antelopes--real and pronghorn--never existed, but camels still thrived in North America. Questions follow:

• Would the Native Americans still view them as food, or would they be domesticated just like horses?
• Would camel cavalry change the very foundation of Native American culture? If yes, then to what extent?

 

[SenatorErnesto]

There was a timeline recently exploring this idea of surviving camels in the New World.

But even with a ridable domesticate I think the major factor of limiting empire growth and size in the America(s) is geography and longitude rather than lack of domesticates.

The Romans, Alexander, the Persians, the Mongols all had the boon of easily traversable seas and land routes that were settled and connected by trade routes.

Meanwhile in the New World the deserts, jungles, and lack of easily navigable sea routes meant no huge empires in my opinion.

 

[Arkenfolm]

This is a series of maps of Old World empires:




And now look at the pre-Columbian New World empires:




We're not 100% sure why Old World empires were so huge and New World empires so small, but a good guess is that the Old World took advantage of a mammal called Equus ferus--the horse. Horses had been used as draft animals, long-distance carriers and war weapons.

The horse used to be a triumph of New World evolution, but the Younger Dryas climate chaos 13,000-11,000 years ago drove the Western Horse into extinction, so the horse could not be a source of New World cavalry. The Younger Dryas also drove to extinction another American originality--the camel.

In this alternate history scenario, the Younger Dryas still happened, and it still drove the American horses into extinction, antelopes--real and pronghorn--never existed, but camels still thrived in North America. Questions follow:

• Would the Native Americans still view them as food, or would they be domesticated just like horses?
• Would camel cavalry change the very foundation of Native American culture? If yes, then to what extent?

Of course Native Americans would view them as food. That's part of the reason why they went extinct OTL. They presumably were harder to domesticate than their Old World relatives, so were hunted to extinction instead of domesticated.

But if the American Indians did have camels, then it would be pretty major. Presumably they still don't have the wheel, so they don't have chariots, but they do have a beast which is great for towing sledges behind, and maybe ploughs too. More efficient agriculture and transportation would help them out big time. They would produce milk, which would be helpful for sustaining larger populations, and could be bred as a meat animal, also helping nutrition. I don't know how fast they could run, but I'm sure they could help with hunting bison on the Plains in some form.

There was a timeline recently exploring this idea of surviving camels in the New World.

But even with a ridable domesticate I think the major factor of limiting empire growth and size in the America(s) is geography and longitude rather than lack of domesticates.

The Romans, Alexander, the Persians, the Mongols all had the boon of easily traversable seas and land routes that were settled and connected by trade routes.

Meanwhile in the New World the deserts, jungles, and lack of easily navigable sea routes meant no huge empires in my opinion.

The Andes played host to pretty impressive empires despite the difficult terrain. Was it really impossible for an empire as massive and complex as the Inca to have arisen earlier, assuming the right stimulus?

Judging by this simple map of ocean currents, a thalassocracy around northeastern Brazil could produce great results. Those currents are probably related to the spread of Arawakan and Cariban languages OTL. Similarly, a state around the Gulf of Tehuantepec could trade with the Manteños of OTL Ecuador, and be a link between the Andeans and Mesoamericans. OTL potatoes were spread into Mexico not long after the Spanish conquest of the Inca, so these links could prove very productive.

 

[Escape Zeppelin]

There was a timeline recently exploring this idea of surviving camels in the New World.
But even with a ridable domesticate I think the major factor of limiting empire growth and size in the America(s) is geography and longitude rather than lack of domesticates.

The Romans, Alexander, the Persians, the Mongols all had the boon of easily traversable seas and land routes that were settled and connected by trade routes.
Meanwhile in the New World the deserts, jungles, and lack of easily navigable sea routes meant no huge empires in my opinion.

I would agree with this. I can't find the source but I read once that Roman armies rarely operated more than a two or three days distance from reliable road or water transport. Meanwhile both the Alexandrian and Mongolian Empires conquered established lands with large existing trade routes and logistics networks. Horses definitely gave the Mongols a mobility advantage but identifying and securing logistics and supplies well before invasions was a key element to their success. New World trade and logistics networks on the other hand were limited by geography and the lack of more advance naval technology as exampled by the Aztec and Inca's lack of contact with each other.

On the other hand domesticates such as horses and camels would do much to expanding the New World trade and logistics network, making larger empires possible.

 

[SenatorErnesto]

The Andes played host to pretty impressive empires despite the difficult terrain. Was it really impossible for an empire as massive and complex as the Inca to have arisen earlier, assuming the right stimulus?

Judging by this simple map of ocean currents, a thalassocracy around northeastern Brazil could produce great results. Those currents are probably related to the spread of Arawakan and Cariban languages OTL. Similarly, a state around the Gulf of Tehuantepec could trade with the Manteños of OTL Ecuador, and be a link between the Andeans and Mesoamericans. OTL potatoes were spread into Mexico not long after the Spanish conquest of the Inca, so these links could prove very productive.

While the ocean trade routes have to do more with advancing sailing technology rather than domestication I could see it being viable.

When it comes to the Andes however, yes it’s tough terrain but it’s pretty constituent throughout the area the Incas conquered. Not to mention there use of advanced roads made this area easily traversed by their armies.

 

[Nik]

IIRC, the Andean llamas were bred up from 'wild' to ass/donkey size as beasts of burden.
Why did they stop there ?
Was it because so many Andean trails were literally too narrow for anything larger ?
Was it because terraced mountain 'fields' had no space for larger ?
IDo camels & llamas lack the anatomy that allows easy harnessing for traction of oxen and horses ??

Or is it some quirk that allows eg dogs and horses to be bred to an astonishing range of sizes, but llamas lack the genetic / epigenetic flexibility ??
--
Nike-note: Half my reply was cached when AH had its outage. I'm impressed...

 

[Escape Zeppelin]

IIRC, the Andean llamas were bred up from 'wild' to ass/donkey size as beasts of burden.
Why did they stop there ?
Was it because so many Andean trails were literally too narrow for anything larger ?
Was it because terraced mountain 'fields' had no space for larger ?
IDo camels & llamas lack the anatomy that allows easy harnessing for traction of oxen and horses ??

Or is it some quirk that allows eg dogs and horses to be bred to an astonishing range of sizes, but llamas lack the genetic / epigenetic flexibility ??

I suspect that its a combination of the factors you mentioned. Old world pack animals like the donkey and horse remained surprisingly small animals for several thousand years. And even in the 20th century small donkeys were often the preferred animal for rough narrow terrain or areas with poor feed. Larger animals only became really efficient with the introduction of roads, horse collars, and carts to pull. In the narrow winding trails of the Andes with rough fodder it may not have been an advantage to have really large pack animals. Also, some sources I've read indicate that while llamas were first domesticated in 4-3,000 BC archaeological evidence suggests they only became commonplace throughout the Andean cultures about 500-200 BC which would dramatically shorten the amount of time that they would have been available for slow selective breeding (especially when compared to the horse or donkey). It may have been a case of the llamas simply not being around long enough.

 

[Nik]

Saw this on PhysOrg...
https://phys.org/news/2018-07-chile-art-llamas-divulge-secrets.html

quote:
Open air rock paintings in the world's driest desert pay testament to the importance of the llama to millennia-old cultures that traversed the inhospitable terrain.

Conservationists working in Chile's Atacama Desert want UNESCO to recognize the Taira Valley drawings as a heritage site so they can develop sustainable tourism in the region.

Taira is "a celebration of life," said archeologist Jose Bereguer, describing the site as "the most complex in South America" because of its astronomical importance as well as the significance to local shepherds.

The rock art was a "shepherd's rite" needed to ask the "deities that governed the skies and the earth" to increase their llama flocks.

First rediscovered by Swedish archeologist Stig Ryden in 1944, the Taira rock art is between 2,400 and 2,800 years old.
/

 

[RaptorWolf]

Saw this on PhysOrg...
https://phys.org/news/2018-07-chile-art-llamas-divulge-secrets.html

quote:
Open air rock paintings in the world's driest desert pay testament to the importance of the llama to millennia-old cultures that traversed the inhospitable terrain.

Conservationists working in Chile's Atacama Desert want UNESCO to recognize the Taira Valley drawings as a heritage site so they can develop sustainable tourism in the region.

Taira is "a celebration of life," said archeologist Jose Bereguer, describing the site as "the most complex in South America" because of its astronomical importance as well as the significance to local shepherds.

The rock art was a "shepherd's rite" needed to ask the "deities that governed the skies and the earth" to increase their llama flocks.

First rediscovered by Swedish archeologist Stig Ryden in 1944, the Taira rock art is between 2,400 and 2,800 years old.
/

That does not answer the question. At all.

 

[RaptorWolf]

Of course Native Americans would view them as food. That's part of the reason why they went extinct OTL. They presumably were harder to domesticate than their Old World relatives, so were hunted to extinction instead of domesticated.

I don't buy Blitzkrieg.

 

[Redcoat]

I don't buy Blitzkrieg.

What?

 

[RaptorWolf]

What?

The "theory" that we were primarily responsible for the extinction of the Pleistocene megafauna, despite the mounting evidence to the contrary.

 

[Arkenfolm]

The "theory" that we were primarily responsible for the extinction of the Pleistocene megafauna, despite the mounting evidence to the contrary.

There has never been a single place where a major new predator is introduced and didn't have detrimental effects on the native wildlife. Particularly when said predator brings smaller predators with them (and all their parasites and diseases), and is also known for using fire to manage the landscape.

 

[The Professor]

The "theory" that we were primarily responsible for the extinction of the Pleistocene megafauna, despite the mounting evidence to the contrary.

There has never been a single place where a major new predator is introduced and didn't have detrimental effects on the native wildlife. Particularly when said predator brings smaller predators with them (and all their parasites and diseases), and is also known for using fire to manage the landscape.

Iirc the consensus is they might not have gone extinct if we hadn't been there.
That is, climate change etc made them endangered and then we came along and it was too much.

 

[RaptorWolf]

There has never been a single place where a major new predator is introduced and didn't have detrimental effects on the native wildlife. Particularly when said predator brings smaller predators with them (and all their parasites and diseases), and is also known for using fire to manage the landscape.

The timing was still too wide for us to blame.


Let’s use a recent tragedy to put into perspective. When Lewis and Clark crossed the Great Plains in 1802, an estimate of 30-60 million bison thundered the prairies. By 1880, that number had dropped to 325. That is 0.000011-0.000005% the number during the time of Lewis and Clark in less than a century, and that was just in two short human lifetime when we consider that the average human lifespan at the time was 40 years. There is recent evidence saying that the gap between man setting foot on Australia and the extinction of the Australian megafauna is 13,000 years. By today’s standards, that is roughly 165 human lifetimes, 325 by 1880 standards. That alone is too substantial a gap for the extinction to be done by human hands. The case is the same in Eurasia and the Americas, as well—the megafauna coexisted with their human hunters for thousands of years before they became extinct. If Blitzkrieg is the prevailing theory of the megafauna extinction, then what was taking them so long? What were they waiting for?

 

[The Professor]

The timing was still too wide for us to blame.


Let’s use a recent tragedy to put into perspective. When Lewis and Clark crossed the Great Plains in 1802, an estimate of 30-60 million bison thundered the prairies. By 1880, that number had dropped to 325. That is 0.000011-0.000005% the number during the time of Lewis and Clark in less than a century, and that was just in two short human lifetime when we consider that the average human lifespan at the time was 40 years. There is recent evidence saying that the gap between man setting foot on Australia and the extinction of the Australian megafauna is 13,000 years. By today’s standards, that is roughly 165 human lifetimes, 325 by 1880 standards. That alone is too substantial a gap for the extinction to be done by human hands. The case is the same in Eurasia and the Americas, as well—the megafauna coexisted with their human hunters for thousands of years before they became extinct. If Blitzkrieg is the prevailing theory of the megafauna extinction, then what was taking them so long? What were they waiting for?

How accurate are the dates you've given for Australia? Are they the same location ie not Northern Australia for one and Southern for another? Is there are record of smaller creatures going extinct first or dropping in numbers? How easy are the megafauna to hunt? Etc etc.
Extinction at human hands doesn't have to be swift. All it takes is added pressure that stops numbers being replenished and then every natural disaster that happens to that animal population isn't recovered from. We see the same thing in human populations.

 

[Forbiddenparadise64]

The timing was still too wide for us to blame.


Let’s use a recent tragedy to put into perspective. When Lewis and Clark crossed the Great Plains in 1802, an estimate of 30-60 million bison thundered the prairies. By 1880, that number had dropped to 325. That is 0.000011-0.000005% the number during the time of Lewis and Clark in less than a century, and that was just in two short human lifetime when we consider that the average human lifespan at the time was 40 years. There is recent evidence saying that the gap between man setting foot on Australia and the extinction of the Australian megafauna is 13,000 years. By today’s standards, that is roughly 165 human lifetimes, 325 by 1880 standards. That alone is too substantial a gap for the extinction to be done by human hands. The case is the same in Eurasia and the Americas, as well—the megafauna coexisted with their human hunters for thousands of years before they became extinct. If Blitzkrieg is the prevailing theory of the megafauna extinction, then what was taking them so long? What were they waiting for?

The vast difference in technology, transport and migration speed renders this analogy completely moot. Those dates also don’t take into account the fact that it took thousands of years to colonise the vastness of Australia, especially the dry interior, and thus migrations took over a long period of time since they walked out from the lush north into the drier exterior and south over time. Also looking at regional extinctions, like more modern studies do, it is very clear that human arrival was very well coordinated with the extinctions. Same with the other regions like the Americas, where in less than 5000 years, humans were all around the Americas and the megafauna were gone.