And the diseases were only a small factor in the outcome of the colonization. Guns being a much larger factor, for example.
I don't know how you get there. I'm pretty sure diseases went ahead of the colonists in many cases and wiped out entire civilizations before the colonists ever made contact. Even if it didn't wipe out literally everyone, it would have significantly destabilized or collapsed all significant political or economic systems.
Relatively speaking, any advantages of guns versus bows and arrows seem small. If I were inclined to make arguments about military technology, I'd speculate that plate armor and horses were more significant advantages than guns, but all of these pale in comparison to contagion.
Logistics wins wars. With exception of WW1 and WW2, soldiers didn't really die in large numbers to the enemy. Soldiers died to the cold, to disease, and deserted due to lack of food / supplies / morale.
There are occasional exceptions where large numbers of soldiers died in battle... but those exceptions become remembered for centuries. It certainly wasn't a regular event (except in WW1 / WW2, which truly were horrific).
As a strategy, you could do a lot worse than Liberty ships and a lot of Russians.
But I know that Medieval English Longbowmen were only given something like 6 arrows per battle. And even that was enough to stretch the capacities of Medieval Britain's supply chain. 10,000 Longbowmen x 6 arrows is 60,000 arrows per battle.
IIRC, it was said that during wars, there wasn't any gooses or ducks to be found in all of Britain. They've all been killed, and their feathers plucked for the war arrows.
IIRC records for Henry in the Tower of London show a total of 3/4 Million arrows paid for and collected for the invasion that lead to Agincourt. With an estimated 5,000 archers at Agincourt.
Modern reconstructions show about 6 arrows per minute - and again IIRC ten minutes of volley fire against the French lines - something like 60 arrows per archer, or around 300,000 arrows. Even in plate armour that shits gonna hurt.
..with a lever action, effectively fighting a US army lead by battle hardened civil war veterans.
The natives weren't military slouches. What they lacked was the population and material resources to field fighting forces that could go toe to toe with the Europeans.
This is absolutely what happened to the Incan empire predatory to its subjugation to a few hundred conquistadors led by Francisco Pizarro. For those interested check out Last Days of the Incas.
I know the imperialists weaponized their diseases and intentionally tried to spread it and that may be the difference.
Usually the smallpox theory is presented in a way that removes agency and culpability from the conquerers. It's always struck me as remarkably convenient and quite unbelievable; they were an idyllic people in some wondrous land without their own disease. Oh really now ... we're talking the Caribbeans here.
Even the Wikipedia page on the matter (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influx_of_disease_in_the_Car...), does it cite epidemiological sources with someone looking at like bone sample DNA? No. It's economic and social science. Excuse me for questioning the qualification of economists for being able to authoritatively make confident statements about historical virology.
It may be true but I'd like more evidence than convenient stories by the descendent of a conquerer about how by sheer coincidence his/her ancestors were actually not guilty of genocide and as of by miracle, North America became a land without people; it just happens to follow Frederick Jackson Turners Frontier Thesis a little too closely to be called a coincidence.
Not all diseases are equally harmful, right? Perhaps the indigenous populations of the Americas simply lacked a disease as deadly as those brought by the Europeans.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_syphilis :
The first recorded outbreak of syphilis in Europe occurred in 1494/1495 in Naples, Italy, during a French invasion ...
Also it's generally believed that syphilis didn't exist in the Old World before 1492, so there's at least one disease that probably made the opposite journey.
However, the disease narrative doesn't absolve the Europeans. Nobody forced the European powers to colonize the Americas. If they'd packed up and gone home, even if the Americas had still been decimated by smallpox, they would have bounced back, given the opportunity. Human populations tend to do that.
(The Black Death is sort of an exception, it suppressed European population for a long time, because it kept coming back, killing a bunch of people, and then going away again. But- Europe thrived during that period, the Renaissance was coterminous with very bad bubonic plague outbreaks)
Cities are a breeding ground for diseases. America wasn’t densely populated at the time.
But Europe, Asia, and Africa combined was a much bigger population pool, so more opportunities for mutation and transmission leading to more types of infectious diseases.
They did: syphilis! But the Europeans had far more diseases to share because there was far more animal domestication going on in the Old World. And most of our diseases came as a result of that animal domestication, so they had already spread through the population which developed immunity in the millennia between the first human infection and the Columbian Exchange.
> Usually the smallpox theory is presented in a way that removes agency and culpability from the conquerers. It's always struck me at remarkably convenient and quite unbelievable; they were an idyllic people in some welder land without their own diseases, oh really now ... we're talking the Caribbeans here
Typically I hear "the smallpox theory" presented as "Europeans killed 90% of Native Americans including by disease" as though Europeans collectively set out to exterminate Native Americans. To be certain, there was a lot of brutality and genocide and even some deliberate spread of disease, but no European could have credibly believed that the disease would spread throughout the new world to such effect.
Certainly not, but once they figured out what was going on, they certainly aided and abetted the spread of these new diseases.
If we ignore this example, we still have dead and infected bodies/livestock being catapulted into cities.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3qslhq/where...
Maybe someone could help me understand -- with such a prolific practice it must have been diaried and such? What are the best primary/secondary sources detailing the practice.
I've heard the "they gave blankets but they knew the blankets had smallpox infection". But we presumably know who the they were.
Presumably a lot of the colonists were sick as well. But not sick enough that the indigenous population noticed and stayed away.
I guess people's capacity for evil is always greater than one can imagine.
https://www.history.com/news/colonists-native-americans-smal...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEYh5WACqEk
In short, you need cities to develop these types of viruses. Cities where the virus can just keep killing, without ever hitting a dead end.
The far left says it's a cop out on racism, blaming white evil on natural conditions. The far right says that it's too PC, that plenty of other places had the right conditions and gives no credit to culture or innovation.
So both the far left and far right want to take credit from chaos and put it on the people: either to hate them, or to take pride.
This in and of itself is not proof of anything. But if something pisses off far left and right at the same time, I tend to think of it as a green flag.
Actual academics have problems with it
There's definitely plenty of holes in the theories of GG&S, if that's what you mean by "academics have problems with it" === "it is not a perfect theory."
But overall, it seems most of the points hold more than enough water to be worth merit. None of them perfect, but vastly better than throwing the whole thing out.
-----
Also, holy crap I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here, but the first few threads I went into were... blatantly far left (as Reddit tends to be). Seriously though: spiraling into tangents of communism, your classic woke/sassy "dunk" lingo, clearly had some external bias bone to pick. I'm not sure r/badhistory is a community worth considering the acme of academia, only based off my short interactions with it. But maybe the worst just came up first?
Like, sure there's probably a bias to the left but it's not the hellhole of r/badphilosophy for instance there. They won't advocate for nonsense stuff,just use the terminology from social sciences
While I think you are probably more likely to sympathize with restricteddata than anthropology_nerd, I do think that anthropology_nerd's comments may be able to elucidate a little bit why GG&S provokes such hostility among academics.
I think both parties are talking passed each-other, having missed a very, very important statement:
> You recommended people read GG&S with a grain of salt, but the vast majority of casual readers lack that salt when it comes to understanding the flaws in the book.
Whether or not this salt is there seems like the addition / omission from which each side argues. With salt, it's a fine enough book. The broad strokes are close enough. Without salt -- as in "I'm a professional because I read this book" -- it probably gets really, really annoying.
I definitely agree that nuance is important, and the book should put more effort into not presenting itself as fact. But it's pop-history. It wouldn't be pop if it didn't, and what would be pop would be even worse IMO.
But a large part of the problem with r/badhistory, and r/AskHistorians as well, is that it seems like most of the users don't realize that being better at history than most of Reddit is an extremely low bar. There's certainly some good stuff that ends up there (well, in r/AskHistorians, less so in r/badhistory), but there's still a lot of junk as well, and too many people act as if the stuff there is equivalent to published work by professional historians.
* Jared Diamond posits an explanation of megafauna extinction in North America that's heavily predicated on the Clovis-first hypothesis and the overextinction hypothesis. The former hypothesis is very thoroughly discredited, and the latter is also generally disfavored, especially in the it's-the-primary-cause way that Jared Diamond uses it. (Specifically, it should be noted that the megafauna extinction in North America also coincides pretty closely with the Younger Dryas, whose climatic effects were most pronounced in North America).
* The primary north-south/east-west transmission hypothesis doesn't actually hold that well up to evidence. The two things I'd note are a) local topography has a major effect on climate that's not accounted for, and b) if you look at the transmission of cereal crops, there's very little transmission between the Mediterranean/Mesopotamian basin and China basin but universal spread of maize along the vertical axis of the Americas--the complete opposite of what the theory predicts.
* I don't have a link handy, but I've seen someone more versed in the history of infectious diseases point out that the killer diseases that Diamond identifies don't appear to have actually become epidemic in the manner that Diamond asserts.
* Diamond also places way too heavy on emphasis on the unreliable accounts of the conquistadors in explaining how the Spanish conquests happened.
In short, the main problem with Guns, Germs, and Steel is that... it gets the facts wrong. And people have brought these complaints to Diamond previously, so it's not like he's aware that there are facts which destroy his thesis, and Diamond's response is to double-down on the thesis without trying to explain why the countervailing facts might be incorrect interpretations or whatnot, or providing other nuggets of insight to bolster his thesis, just continually reassert that he's right.
Try reading Charles Mann's 1491. It goes into more well-researched explanations of pre-Columbian cultures that would help you understand why Diamond's thesis is wrong.
They do negate some of the spurious theories, but the central theory (IMO) is that there's a whole lot of luck involved in global domination, and that luck is not evenly spread.
The one about germs being less of a killer is definitely very interesting though. That's totally central, though -- if not germs doing the killing -- it'd just fall back onto guns. If you happen to dig up the link, I'd love to read through it.
Centuries, actually. Indigenous peoples in the Americas were able to hold out against European, and later successor state, attempts to acquire their territory until around 1900.
Being a wildly successful popularizer is always risky for an academic. The most serious criticisms I've seen have been about tangential stuff.
If we're just speculating though, I wonder if the fact that one group was traveling by boat could have insulated the disease transfer a bit. Most really bad diseases would run their course by the time a sailing ship made it back across the ocean and certainly people knew to quarantine ships with sick people on them in Europe. For a disease the ship crews were resistant to reach the Americas they just had to visit a village, where to go the other way it had to survive an in built month plus quarantine which is plenty of time for most diseases to show up
It should also be noted that human populations are incredibly resilient to epidemics. In the absence of "other things", populations suffering catastrophic virgin soil epidemics will typically rebound to pre-epidemic levels in decades. It's not a sufficient explanation for the centuries-long decline of indigenous American populations. The black death was no less severe and successor epidemics continued throughout Europe in the 15th century, yet we see nothing like the demographic collapse of the Americas post-contact.
We have a more recent example in Hawaii. Hawaii was not subjugated by any foreign power until the 1890s. That being said, the Native Hawaiian population pretty much collapsed from a high of 300,000 in 1770 to 20,000 in 1920.
That's quite the claim to toss out. I can certainly imagine gunless conquistadors taking over New Spain in a slightly longer span just by waiting for people to die.
Though by the same token it could also have produced a plague that was devastating to the conquistadors, and might then have been carried back to Europe for Black Death Round 2, devastating the imperial powers and generating a long-lasting fear of New World contact. Lots of interesting AU scenarios to consider here.
The colonization of North America would have gone quite differently with that many folks to contend with.
1. https://www.businessinsider.com/climate-changed-after-europe...
One point of comparison would be Ireland. They didn't suffer from colonist-brought diseases, because obviously they had all the same diseases already, but they did suffer a precipitous decline in population.
Another example would be the west coast of Africa, which was similarly colonized from early modernity on.
That was a TIL for me, because I was about to say tat the "precipitous decline in population" only happened in the mid-19th century, i.e. a couple of centuries after Cromwell's campaign (the point where the English power over Ireland really became a colonial one), but then I skimmed through the History section of the Ireland wikipedia page [1] and I read this:
> This control was consolidated during the wars and conflicts of the 17th century, including the English and Scottish colonisation in the Plantations of Ireland, the Wars of the Three Kingdoms and the Williamite War.
and
> Physician-general William Petty estimated that 504,000 Catholic Irish and 112,000 Protestant settlers died, and 100,000 people were transported, as a result of the war.[66] If a prewar population of 1.5 million is assumed, this would mean that the population was reduced by almost half.
Again, I personally had no idea that Ireland's population was reduced by almost half immediately after the English conquest that happened during Cromwell's time, that's kind of gruesome and imo not studied enough outside of Ireland and the UK (I suppose that this subject is studied in there).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ireland#The_Kingdom_of_Ireland
These estimates vary wildly, by more than a factor of 10.
One large source of error is the accounts by Spanish Conquistadors. They are suspected of greatly inflating the numbers they conquered, in order to boost their prestige back in Spain. It also seems doubtful their censuses were more than just wild guesses.
I'm not so sure about that. Writing gave a huge advantage to the Western forces. By that I mean military men had access to a couple thousand years of military tactics books. Having advanced weapons is one thing, knowing strategy and tactics is quite another.
For example, there are battles where the Romans were outnumbered 10:1 and still defeated a better armed barbarian army. The Romans were organized, disciplined, and trained to fight as a unit. They would just slaughter the barbarians who fought as individuals.
Remember, guns at the time were muzzle-loading, and had some rube goldberg contraption to light the powder. They were unreliable, inaccurate, and very slow to reload.
If memory serves me correctly, military tactics didn't really become a genre until the late 16th century, after the Spanish conquest of the Aztec and Inca empires. And during the early 16th century, it's quite likely that most of the soldiers (including the commanders!) would have been illiterate and thus not really able to read any extant military tactics books, especially whatever survived of Greek or Roman military texts.
The way they operated was clear evidence of military sophistication.
And why couldn't, say, the Inca draw on the Wari, who could draw on the Moche, who could draw on the Chavin, who date back even before the Greeks?
The problem with claiming the utility of writing in developing military tactics is that Western Europe doesn't have a tradition of discussing military tactics in written texts until the Early Modern period. There's nothing like Sun Tzu's Art of War that keeps getting passed down and talked about; any transmission of tactics is going to happen via practical experience in a kind of apprenticeship--which is exactly the same method of transmission an illiterate society is going to do for military tactics.
Or you could do what the Aztecs did and send all of your boys (rich or poor) to school to learn how to become warriors, come to think of it.
If you've got evidence that the Inca military had organized tactics, like units, feinting maneuvers, flanking attacks, procedures for taking fortified positions, covering fire, strategic retreat, breastworks, defense in depth, etc., I'm interested.
We do know the Inca had no plan for when their leader was captured but not killed. But Pizarro knew about that one, and that's how he defeated an empire. Disrupting the enemy's command and control is a well-understood technique in Western military tradition.
And OFC from their enemies.
It also became clear that the Spanish, despite their superior technology, were so outnumbered that they wouldn't have been successful if it weren't for their local allies. They were nearly all killed in a desperate escape from Tenochtitlan when things went downhill.
The biggest significant factor for Spanish people was getting the support of the local population. It was not foreign powers against local powers. But local powers against local powers.
And that was because local empires were terrible with the subdued tribes. There was human sacrifices with subdued tribes and they were slaves. Under Spanish rule those who supported the Spaniards were soon considered Spanish citizens, a huge improvement.
And Rome usually worked the other way around. Rome did outnumber everybody and squashed any opposition. First they did because mandatory Conscription ("the draft")in the army, an army of peasants that was way more numerous than anybody else and a population that will replace casualties much faster than anybody else.
The Army of peasants did fight against elite warriors that were much better trained and equipped but were way less numerous, for example against the Macedonian Army,and they won.
Finally, after growing and organizing themselves much more, Rome will use infrastructure that only they had like the Mediterranean sea and specially roads to move massive amounts of soldiers very fast from one part of the Empire to another.
This was the equivalent of the train that will make it possible for Germany, Russia or the US moving so much people to the war front fast.
It was the Romans those who did outnumber everybody else concentrating the army at one point, defeating the enemy and moving the Army to another place.
And it was Julius Caesar who wrote "divide et impera" because that was the Roman way of doing things, dividing their enemies, and fighting them isolated with a much bigger army.
I didn't say they were. I said they lacked writing. Writing preserves orders of magnitude more information for others than oral tradition possibly can.
Yes, I know the Mayans had writing, and their books were burned by the Spanish. But the Spanish conquered the Inca and the Aztecs, not the Mayans.
The ideas of recruiting the locals to your side, and divide and conquer, are part of western military tradition. If the Aztecs and Inca used such tactics, I'd be interested if you have sources.
There were battles that the Romans fought and won against the barbarian much greater numbers. That isn't going to happen without superior organization, discipline, training and tactics.
And finally, the Roman idea of conquest was to assimilate, not exterminate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defeat_of_Boudica
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Alesia
And, of course, this triumph of discipline, tactics, organization and training:
Having horses may also have helped. There were no beasts of burden (iirc) in North America until the Spanish arrived.
(Actually, I do think the New World peoples were particularly prolific when it came to domesticating plants… they punched way above their population size in terms of number of today’s staple foods they domesticated… plus chocolate, vanilla, etc…)
> ”Similar argument if you base it off of… number of domesticated animals…”
But again, I think that fact isn’t surprising, either, considering the Old world is much larger and had more wild animals and more humans than the New World.