[PredatorOC]

Some of the highest estimates I'm aware of claim that around 90% of the native population of the Americas were killed by European diseases. Estimates of pre-Columbian populations vary from 10 to 100 million, but it is safe to say that diseases were far mightier in conquering the Americas than any bullet or sword.

So I'm wondering what the Americas might look like today, had disease not played a role? I personally think the Americas would look something akin to Africa. Europeans would have had political hegemony and there might have been some limited colonization, but there would not have been the kind of population displacement that essentially wiped out the native populations. Granted, Africans had access to things like steel swords, which Americans didn't have, but I don't see how Europeans could have accomplish what they did had there been considerable populations to resist them.

[Dave]

American Indians are more intelligent and cooperative than Africans (reflected in the fact that they built civilizations with less than what was available in Africa), so the region would be more advanced. I suspect it would be something more like Southeast Asia, middle income civilizations with a mixed background of European colonization.

[Potemkin]

American Indians are more intelligent and cooperative than Africans (reflected in the fact that they built civilizations with less than what was available in Africa), so the region would be more advanced. I suspect it would be something more like Southeast Asia, middle income civilizations with a mixed background of European colonization.

That may be true for Meso-America, but not really for the Plains Indians of North America. Oh, and your dig at Africans is unwarranted. Africa itself had and has some pretty nasty diseases which have held back the development of civilisation there. David Livingstone had an image of the tsetse fly embossed on the cover of his first book on Africa, as he blamed the diseases carried by that fly for most of Africa's backwardness.

[Cookie Monster]

So I'm wondering what the Americas might look like today, had disease not played a role? I personally think the Americas would look something akin to Africa. Europeans would have had political hegemony and there might have been some limited colonization, but there would not have been the kind of population displacement that essentially wiped out the native populations. Granted, Africans had access to things like steel swords, which Americans didn't have, but I don't see how Europeans could have accomplish what they did had there been considerable populations to resist them.

They would have been conquered, politically and culturally, under different circumstances. But I wonder why European powers didn't colonise Africa on a large scale during the age of exploration.

[Dave]

That may be true for Meso-America, but not really for the Plains Indians of North America. Oh, and your dig at Africans is unwarranted. Africa itself had and has some pretty nasty diseases which have held back the development of civilisation there. David Livingstone had an image of the tsetse fly embossed on the cover of his first book on Africa, as he blamed the diseases carried by that fly for most of Africa's backwardness.

My dig at Africans is hardly unwarranted, their low intelligence and conscientiousness is extremely well documented.

The Plains Indians of North America had begun building proto-civilizations, such as the Mississippi mound culture and some of the anasazi cave dwellers.

Africans did construct primitive civilizations after coming into contact with superior peoples in the Sahel (Moslems) and West Africa (European slavers). Sleeping sickness and other nasty African diseases weren't helpful, but it's not as if Eurasia was a wonderful disease-free place. A more relevant environmental factor might be the hot, humid climate of Africa which makes food storage a rather difficult proposition, but this was an obstacle that Indian civilizations of the Americas surmounted.

They would have been conquered, politically and culturally, under different circumstances. But I wonder why European powers didn't colonise Africa on a large scale during the age of exploration.

Africans didn't die off en masse and the environment was very inhospitable to Europeans (sleeping sickness, malaria, the generally awful climate).

[Potemkin]

My dig at Africans is hardly unwarranted, their low intelligence and conscientiousness is extremely well documented.

The Plains Indians of North America had begun building proto-civilizations, such as the Mississippi mound culture and some of the anasazi cave dwellers.

Africans did construct primitive civilizations after coming into contact with superior peoples in the Sahel (Moslems) and West Africa (European slavers). Sleeping sickness and other nasty African diseases weren't helpful, but it's not as if Eurasia was a wonderful disease-free place. A more relevant environmental factor might be the hot, humid climate of Africa which makes food storage a rather difficult proposition, but this was an obstacle that Indian civilizations of the Americas surmounted.

Great Zimbabwe. The Africans did develop several large-scale civilisations and empires before contact with the Europeans. These mostly did not survive the large-scale slave trade. And need I mention the Ethiopians? They had a sophisticated civilisation going back to Biblical times.

Africans didn't die off en masse and the environment was very inhospitable to Europeans (sleeping sickness, malaria, the generally awful climate).

The main factor was that the natives didn't die off from European diseases; instead, the Europeans died off from African diseases. Because the human race first evolved in Africa and then spread from there into Asia, from Asia into Europe and into the Americas, Africa is the continent with the worst human diseases, followed by Asia, followed by Europe, followed by the Americas. The Europeans won the genetic Russian roulette in the Americas, but lost it in Africa.

[Dave]

Great Zimbabwe. The Africans did develop several large-scale civilisations and empires before contact with the Europeans. These mostly did not survive the large-scale slave trade. And need I mention the Ethiopians? They had a sophisticated civilisation going back to Biblical times.

Nilotics are not true negroids and the Horn of Africa has always been in contact with Eurasia. I will grant you Great Zimbabwe and related sites in Southern Africa, but what other indigenous African civilizations were there before contact with Arabs or Europeans? The finest African civilizations seem to have largely existed in the Sahel and the West African coast. The Zulu State has always impressed me but I am not sure if it qualifies as civilization, and we certainly would not have known about it had we not come into direct contact with it.

The main factor was that the natives didn't die off from European diseases; instead, the Europeans died off from African diseases. Because the human race first evolved in Africa and then spread from there into Asia, from Asia into Europe and into the Americas, Africa is the continent with the worst human diseases, followed by Asia, followed by Europe, followed by the Americas. The Europeans won the genetic Russian roulette in the Americas, but lost it in Africa.

That's not really how it works. Most nasty diseases in Eurasia developed due to cohabitation with domestic livestock, whereas most in Africa seem to have been the result of various nasty insects whose evolution I couldn't tell you anything about. The Americas did not have such nasty insects and had relatively little livestock which in turn was relatively recent. I believe we have the Americas to thank for syphillis, however.

[Cookie Monster]

The main factor was that the natives didn't die off from European diseases; instead, the Europeans died off from African diseases. Because the human race first evolved in Africa and then spread from there into Asia, from Asia into Europe and into the Americas, Africa is the continent with the worst human diseases, followed by Asia, followed by Europe, followed by the Americas. The Europeans won the genetic Russian roulette in the Americas, but lost it in Africa.

So then germs where indispensable for the colonisation of the Americas.

But what about the fact that most if not all native americans find their origins in Asia. Shoudn't they have carried the resistance of an immune system developed in Asia?

[Potemkin]

So then germs where indispensable for the colonisation of the Americas.

Indeed.

But what about the fact that most if not all native americans find their origins in Asia. Shoudn't they have carried the resistance of an immune system developed in Asia?

That resistance is quickly lost if the population is in an environment in which the diseases themselves are not present.

[Cookie Monster]

That's not really how it works. Most nasty diseases in Eurasia developed due to cohabitation with domestic livestock, whereas most in Africa seem to have been the result of various nasty insects whose evolution I couldn't tell you anything about. The Americas did not have such nasty insects and had relatively little livestock which in turn was relatively recent. I believe we have the Americas to thank for syphillis, however.

Ah that explains it, they were long gone and lived under different conditions to develop a resistance similar to Asians.

[Potemkin]

I will grant you Great Zimbabwe and related sites in Southern Africa, but what other indigenous African civilizations were there before contact with Arabs or Europeans?

The Mali Empire, for one.

[Dave]

So then germs where indispensable for the colonisation of the Americas.

But what about the fact that most if not all native americans find their origins in Asia. Shoudn't they have carried the resistance of an immune system developed in Asia?

Ah that explains it, they were long gone and lived under different conditions to develop a resistance similar to Asians.

American Indians are believed to have begun crossing the land bridge over 16,000 years ago, and the land bridge is believed to have existed between 22,000 and 7,000 years ago. During most of this period civilization simply did not exist, and the land bridge may have disappeared before civilization existed on the North China Plain. The deadliest Eurasian disease, smallpox, emerged about 12,000 years ago.

The Mali Empire, for one.

An Islamic civilization in the Sahel that emerged five centuries after the Islamic Conquests, and one which was in continuous contact and trade with Eurasia. It most certainly was not an indigenous civilization in the way Great Zimbabwe was or, given the subject of this thread, the Indian civilizations of the Americas.

[Cookie Monster]

Some of the Polynesians lived quite isolated. So how did they fare in this germ roulette with the Europeans when the Europeans explored/conquered the islands of the Pacific?

[PredatorOC]

I wonder why European powers didn't colonise Africa on a large scale during the age of exploration.

African cultures were in many ways equal to European cultures and had the same technological and agrarian advantages as Europeans (steel working, practical beasts of burden, etc). Europeans simply couldn't advance further than the shoreline in most of Africa. Which is why Africa was/is called the dark continent. Until the later stages of European colonialism, European interaction with Africa was more about trade than conquest.

Nilotics are not true negroids and the Horn of Africa has always been in contact with Eurasia. I will grant you Great Zimbabwe and related sites in Southern Africa, but what other indigenous African civilizations were there before contact with Arabs or Europeans?

You are setting odd parameters here. Cultures/civilizations rarely develop in a vacuum and looking down on one because it was influenced by another is silly.

And while we are at it, I'm not a fan of how "great civilizations" are judged. It seems greatness has more to do with whether or not the culture left a well preserved literary record than anything else.

[Dave]

You are setting odd parameters here. Cultures/civilizations rarely develop in a vacuum and looking down on one because it was influenced by another is silly.

I don't disagree with that at all. While there was some indigenous civilization in Europe, it never would've gotten off the ground without ideas and migrants from the Near East. I was only pointing out that the Indians developed civilization indigenously, whereas indigenous African civilizations, not surprisingly, were very primitive. The reason for pointing this out was to advance my idea that the Americas in your scenario would be more advanced today than what you suggested.