GlaceauXJoin Date: 2012-06-13
Post Count: 1278 |
[ Content Deleted ] |
|
DravumJoin Date: 2009-03-25
Post Count: 28399 |
We would still be using bow and arrows- ONLY.
-\By the definition of perpendicular-\ |
|
|
|
ArcariusJoin Date: 2012-07-28
Post Count: 20844 |
Far better and smarter than 'america' |
|
LolocksJoin Date: 2010-05-22
Post Count: 1355 |
Not very much different. They didn't just die out from disease, they were slaughtered by the 'white men' that threatened them.
They were greatly underdeveloped and would have stood no chance if the British colonising them at the time had to take up arms against them.
Or the French.
Or the Spanish. |
|
CyrrowJoin Date: 2011-06-26
Post Count: 21470 |
Much better, we wouldn't have this crack pot economy that you pale faces got us into. Because you wouldn't be in America, you'd be back in Europe where you belong.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0Fc3k2LfXA
|
|
GlaceauXJoin Date: 2012-06-13
Post Count: 1278 |
[ Content Deleted ] |
|
CyrrowJoin Date: 2011-06-26
Post Count: 21470 |
We didn't have crossbows.
We had Bows and arrows and clubs and spears.
After a few years we got muskets.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0Fc3k2LfXA |
|
GlaceauXJoin Date: 2012-06-13
Post Count: 1278 |
[ Content Deleted ] |
|
DravumJoin Date: 2009-03-25
Post Count: 28399 |
Small pox was brought by European conquerors.
-\By the definition of perpendicular-\ |
|
|
GlaceauXJoin Date: 2012-06-13
Post Count: 1278 |
[ Content Deleted ] |
|
LolocksJoin Date: 2010-05-22
Post Count: 1355 |
We still went to America, there is no changing that. Furthermore, whilst smallpox did kill off quite a few of them - it was not exactly the KEY factor to the Natives dying out. If they were immune - they would have been killed. It's simply how it would have worked and indeed did work in other colonies when people protested against rule from a greater power and didn't die from disease.
We had muskets a while before we invaded the Americas too, I'm afraid. Although more basic weapons pre-date the flintlock, like the matchlock. They still depended upon, suitably, 'native' weapons and would not have stood a chance against the legions of the British, French or Spanish.
However, the tides of the battle for the Americas may have changed. The Spanish would have probably tried to get them on side to topple the French. Or the French getting them on side to topple the British. There is still no question that they would have been exterminated, though. |
|
GlaceauXJoin Date: 2012-06-13
Post Count: 1278 |
[ Content Deleted ] |
|
LolocksJoin Date: 2010-05-22
Post Count: 1355 |
Lets take this in to context.
Spread out tribes that war with each other with primal weapons (Bows, spears, etc) taking war against three major empires each with an organised military(French mostly), strong naval power (Especially the Brits) and a lot of money behind them (Spanish).
Like I said. The best thing that could have happened to them, if they did take up arms against the empires, was one empire siding with them to topple one of the other two. Then again that empire would have probably killed them in the end seeing them as a potential threat to stability.
If they did manage to 'unite' and fight the British, French and Spanish they wouldn't have lasted long anyway. Especially with the colonial powers buying in cannon-style-mounted repeater weapons that could rip down entire tribes in seconds.
Moral of the story: Gun beats spear. |
|
DravumJoin Date: 2009-03-25
Post Count: 28399 |
Lolocks, you forget that Britain, Spain, and France weren't the best of pals.
They would ally the tribes(as they did in the past), and kill off eachother.
-\By the definition of perpendicular-\ |
|
GlaceauXJoin Date: 2012-06-13
Post Count: 1278 |
[ Content Deleted ] |
|
Josh6906Join Date: 2009-07-22
Post Count: 1822 |
It is a topic of debate, but remember that the Europeans showed heavy interest in taking control of the Americas. The smallpox (and others, another being the bubonic plague) epidemic were an important factor to Cortez's success.
Here is a more controversial scenario for any of you historians. What if Ogedei Khan never died and Batu Khan and his forces conquered the rest of Eastern Europe? Those Native Americans would have had worse coming in my opinion. c: |
|
GlaceauXJoin Date: 2012-06-13
Post Count: 1278 |
[ Content Deleted ] |
|
Josh6906Join Date: 2009-07-22
Post Count: 1822 |
That was Halaqu Khan, and may I remind you the Mongols had the highest level of tolernace within their empire and had a multi-cultural mix. One could find Buddhists, Christains, Muslims, and others within the Mongol Empire (and the later four Khanates). Although theey were notorious for mass destruction and killing when a faction stood in their way. |
|
LolocksJoin Date: 2010-05-22
Post Count: 1355 |
I couldn't imagine the British bowing to a foreign ruler - they are far too proud. Same with the Germans, actually. Look at what happened last time foreign countries tried to make them bow down - they fought until they had nothing left.
|
|
DravumJoin Date: 2009-03-25
Post Count: 28399 |
When it all comes down to something, Israel wins.
Fought 3+ countries at the same time for the territory given to them after WWII,
and won.
-\By the definition of perpendicular-\ |
|
GlaceauXJoin Date: 2012-06-13
Post Count: 1278 |
[ Content Deleted ] |
|
Josh6906Join Date: 2009-07-22
Post Count: 1822 |
"they fought until they had nothing left."
Mongols had no problem with that when they encountered an enemy, whether they intended to fight to the death or not. Plus they completly SLAUGHTERED (yes slaughtered, as in decimated, destroyed, whatever floats your boat) the Eastern European coalition at Battle of Legnica. Knight warfare proved to be ineffective against Mongolian tactics. The only European country that had the best chance of surviving were the French because they allied with the Mongols.
|
|