Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by soapdog 1814 days ago
That is the biased narrative that we have been told for centuries, and it doesn't match recent research. Diseases happened first, they travel faster. The population affected devolves into chaos as disease often kills 9 in 10 and leave them without ruling and without those with specialised knowledge. Basically society is broken, the traumatised survivors are the ones that face the Europeans.

> military, political, administrative, trades

The civilisations of the Americas were trading with each other. Many of them had highly structured political and administrative centers. Just research the Inka for example, they had an administrative structure that in many ways is better than their European counterparts, a good example is how they eliminated hunger in the Empire. They had mechanisms in place to prevent the population dying of starvation, they were able to feed their whole Empire, that is not easy and requires a ton of accounting and planning.

Do not dismiss the civilisations of the Americas, and think that there is a ladder of evolution in which Europe is somehow higher. These civilisations were very advanced, and had they been able to survive in their own path, who knows where we'd be.

As for military, just check how fast the Spanish conquistadors changed from their equipment and garments to the native ones because they were better suited for work in the tropical climate, and how bitter were the confrontations with the pockets of resistance.

Disease is the key factor. Recent figures such as 90% dying from diseases is a devastating blow to any civilisation, there is no recovering from that.

3 comments

The civilizations in the Americas were certainly large and complex, but in almost all areas of technology they were thousands of years behind Europeans. It's a real stretch to label them "advanced".
I agree with the majority of what you're saying, but like so many wars throughout history, surely superior weaponry played a huge role in the conquests? Particularly here where the difference is so large. Not the only role, certainly, and maybe not the biggest (compared to disease), but a very sizable one still. I struggle to imagine Spanish success had the weapons been reversed.
By "superior weaponry" playing a role in the conquest, are you referring to Russia's successful conquest of Afghanistan in the 1980, or to the United State's successful conquest of Afghanistan in the 2000's?
This seems to me to be a very disingenuous comparison and you're not responding to my question. Are you seriously arguing that superior weaponry doesn't help in a war? I think it's reasonably clear that the situation of the Aztecs differs to the conquest of Afghanistan not only by many hundreds of years.

I am not making the statement that all winning a war takes is superior weaponry, as your strawman would suggest. It doesn't take any one factor. Many factors add up. I'm saying this is one of them.

these conflicts cannot really be compared how you are comparing them. Also it should be noted that US lost 2,420 soldier in Afghanistan, probably 50 thousand or more Taliban died, and 200+ thousand civilians.. US may have not 'won' the war but Afghanistan sure did lose.
If they were so advanced why didnt they sail to europe and conquer them?