WI: North America's natives of agricultural areas(like the Eastern Woodland zone) had/maintained a higher population density during Anglo colonization

[PecuTheGreat]

Like the population estimate of the Haudenoshonee citizen during its height in 1680s is 23,000 max and it controlled a quite large area, like easily bigger than France.

Like people bring up technological and military superiority of the Europeans and disease for the conquest and population replacement but few bring up the population density, maybe cuz its assumed that mentioning the disease death toll already covers that but its quite astonishing that the largest armies the colonies had to face didn't even number up to 5,000.

Like, let's compare this to Old world for a second. Caeser when in Gaul estimated 3 million people in Gaul(tho in a rhetorical phrase) and fought armies easily over that 23,000 population, with those dynamics one could argue that Rome could easily conquer half of North America during the colonial Era.

So I wonder, what if the Anglo colonists met armies of like 100,000 max Ameridians or 20-30,000 on a normal battle?.

 

[Arkenfolm]

Like people bring up technological and military superiority of the Europeans and disease for the conquest and population replacement but few bring up the population density, maybe cuz its assumed that mentioning the disease death toll already covers that but its quite astonishing that the largest armies the colonies had to face didn't even number up to 5,000.

It's really not astonishing when put into perspective. The Eastern Woodlands were a Neolithic civilisation much different than Gaul or Germania. It is noted that Iroquoian and Algonquian villages and towns (as in thousands of people) had to move every few decades because there were too many insect and rodent pests in the area than they could handle with the meager technology they had (they did not breed rodent-killing dogs nor use nicotine as a pesticide). The Mississippian civilisation at its height was not much different either and had similar constraints. Indeed, when a site like Cahokia aggrandised itself beyond reason, it collapsed within a few decades. The highest estimates of population seem completely bunk when weighed against the archaeological data to the degree some archaeologists argue that assuming such civilisations is akin to making a "neo-Mound Builders" hypothesis where the Amerindians encountered by Europeans are "devolved" and "degenerate" much as the "Mound Builders" were once popularly assumed to be a civilisation of whites, Jews, or something "superior" to the local Indians,

It is not likely the Iroquoians or Algonquians could have much higher population at European contact without very specific circumstances. The cultures that emerged from the late Mississippians may have been able to be stronger (i.e. Middle Tennessee not as part of the "vacant quarter" but with its own equivalent to the confederacies of the Creek, Choctaw, etc. descended from the centers who built the long-since destroyed mounds in the Nashville Basin) but would still face the problem of their agricultural limits (including the 16th century drought and Little Ice Age, the latter of which brought ruin to 13th century Mississippian cultures and allowed the party led by James Robertson to walk over the frozen Cumberland River and found modern Nashville on the site of a large abandoned Mississippian center).

So I wonder, what if the Anglo colonists met armies of like 100,000 max Ameridians or 20-30,000 on a normal battle?.

Then it would be a totally different North America with repercussions on Mesoamerica and the Caribbean. The OTL sort of alliances and divide and conquer strategy would still be very efficient.

 

[Gloss]

So I wonder, what if the Anglo colonists met armies of like 100,000 max Ameridians or 20-30,000 on a normal battle?.

What makes you think those numbers would be possible even in this scenario?

 

[Sol Zagato]

Sounds like another colombian exchange denialist has entered the thread. NA populations were huge, to the point the archeological record shows timber becoming scarce. Yes.

So you get a collapse of the Missisipians, but that wasn't a big die-off. It was nothing compared to the disease waves that followed contact. Guess what, when you have catastrophic population losses, you lose technology.

What do those larger pops mean, and how big are they? Almost ASB to avoid smallpox and tuberculosis, but let's go there for a moment. Multiply population by ten in most cases.

 

[Gloss]

NA populations were huge

They weren't by any objective comparison with other similarly sized regions in the world, North America north of Mexico would have had a very low population density compared to South-East Asia, South Asia, East Asia, Middle East, Europe, West Africa, Mesoamerica, Andes and probably even Amazonia(though the latter one is debatable)

Even the most exaggerated favourable comparison would merely make North America similar to the less dense regions, not "huge"

 

[Sol Zagato]

They weren't by any objective comparison with other similarly sized regions in the world, North America north of Mexico would have had a very low population density compared to South-East Asia, South Asia, East Asia, Middle East, Europe, West Africa, Mesoamerica, Andes and probably even Amazonia(though the latter one is debatable)

Even the most exaggerated favourable comparison would merely make North America similar to the less dense regions, not "huge"

They were by comparison with later, which is the relevant comparison. Populations that high can't just be rolled over. Even what was encountered fought hard.

 

[PecuTheGreat]

Sounds like another colombian exchange denialist has entered the thread. NA populations were huge, to the point the archeological record shows timber becoming scarce. Yes.

So you get a collapse of the Missisipians, but that wasn't a big die-off. It was nothing compared to the disease waves that followed contact. Guess what, when you have catastrophic population losses, you lose technology.

I don't really care for the tech question, just the population one.

You'll need quite the amazing collapse to go from like a million or more in the area conquered by the Haudenosaunee to well less than 50,000. I don't think there's any precidence for that in the Old world, so it is quite the thing.

The 90% death rate had been called into question, with what I saw more recently being 90% death due to disease AND colonization which with constant recovery as human populations tend to do, would expect far more than 23,000 citizens in a state well larger than France.

And to go from like a million to less than 50,000. If that isn't a huge die off, I don't know what is.

What do those larger pops mean, and how big are they? Almost ASB to avoid smallpox and tuberculosis, but let's go there for a moment. Multiply population by ten in most cases.

Population density, let's say, 30 times higher, as for avoiding small pox. I dunno, hand wave it.

 

[PecuTheGreat]

What makes you think those numbers would be possible even in this scenario?

Maybe this might have been better in ASB.

I am looking for a senerio where the numbers the natives field in battle is more comparable to like Kongo or Gaul.

With armies of up to 30,000 common.

 

[PecuTheGreat]

The Eastern Woodlands were a Neolithic civilisation much different than Gaul or Germania. It is noted that Iroquoian and Algonquian villages and towns (as in thousands of people) had to move every few decades because there were too many insect and rodent pests in the area than they could handle with the meager technology they had (they did not breed rodent-killing dogs nor use nicotine as a pesticide). The Mississippian civilisation at its height was not much different either and had similar constraints. Indeed, when a site like Cahokia aggrandised itself beyond reason, it collapsed within a few decades.

You know, I would have expected the mound building era to have been largely permanent sites. Were the Mound cities permanent but the villages that surrounded them shifting?.

Then it would be a totally different North America with repercussions on Mesoamerica and the Caribbean. The OTL sort of alliances and divide and conquer strategy would still be very efficient.

If it would be that different, then maybe I should ask something similar again but on the ASB forum.

But I guess divide and conquer attempts like the Portuguese in the Congo or Spanish in Mexico would be the main trend of things.

 

[Gloss]

They were by comparison with later, which is the relevant comparison. Populations that high can't just be rolled over. Even what was encountered fought hard.

Visigothic Iberia had 5 million people and it was conquered in a few years and there are countless of similar examples, rapid conquests are possible and in fact the most populated regions in the Americas were conquered the fasted because you could actually take over existing adminsitration and actually had enough people to rule over to finance an extensive administration.

 

[Kerney]

They weren't by any objective comparison with other similarly sized regions in the world, North America north of Mexico would have had a very low population density compared to South-East Asia, South Asia, East Asia, Middle East, Europe, West Africa, Mesoamerica, Andes and probably even Amazonia(though the latter one is debatable)

Even the most exaggerated favourable comparison would merely make North America similar to the less dense regions, not "huge"

Note: Populations of the Americas have been estimated at everything between 12 M to 110M in 1491. Objectively numbers as research gets better estimates tend to be higher and there are accusations of political bias on both sides. Wiki says 50 M is the closest to a consensus with 4-8 Million north of Mexico. My personal read is more like 60-70 M.

 

[Arkenfolm]

Sounds like another colombian exchange denialist has entered the thread. NA populations were huge, to the point the archeological record shows timber becoming scarce. Yes.

Only locally, at most akin to the Bronze Age Near East. In the East, timber only became scarce in the most intensive regions of settlement which rarely lasted more than 100-150 years. Now yes, it was more scarce than when settlers showed up, but this only affected individual regions and outside of a few large centers, was not really a problem.

So you get a collapse of the Missisipians, but that wasn't a big die-off. It was nothing compared to the disease waves that followed contact. Guess what, when you have catastrophic population losses, you lose technology.

It wasn't a die-off so much as a population decline from increased infant mortality, warfare, and likely decreased birth rates. The population was already shifting southwards before De Soto ever showed up in the South, likely because of the better climate (less frost, likely better soil), and the Spanish arrival in Florida sealed that deal thanks to the goods they offered. We can trace these migrations from archaeology (i.e. the final native culture living in Middle Tennessee happened to share traits with the subsequent culture in East Tennessee as well as that of northern Alabama i.e. ancestors of the modern Yuchi and Muskogean-speaking peoples) and even oral history (reading between the lines in Creek, Choctaw, Chickasaw, etc. myth shows how they reassembled into a new group).

There was no technology that was lost, merely the social structure shifted to cope with the changes (i.e. the Cherokee story of the Ani-kutani). Even mound-building was declining centuries before De Soto arrived. That's why outside of Monks Mound in Cahokia, many of the highest mounds are all Woodland-period mounds like the Pinson Mounds in West Tennessee which were practically uninhabited in the Mississippian period.

You know, I would have expected the mound building era to have been largely permanent sites. Were the Mound cities permanent but the villages that surrounded them shifting?.

Some became solely ceremonial sites, and it's speculated at least some of them were barely inhabited to begin with but were the product of a powerful local ruler/lineage trying to glorify their native village. Others were periodically abandoned like Etowah in Georgia in the early 13th century because of warfare or drought (although Etowah was repopulated), and some were absolutely abandoned like much of Tennessee and Kentucky south of the Ohio from 1400-1450 (where the largest settlements, like the one underneath Fort Nashborough and others destroyed by white settlement/farming, were abandoned decades before as part of the native migrations south/east).

The power behind these cities/chiefdom was unstable because while there was a noble class, culturally they lacked the sort of "power" that a European monarch or Ancient Near East king might have and could only rely on wealth, family ties, and persuasiveness to rule (basically not different than their OTL descendents among the Muskogean speaking peoples, the Dhegihan Siouans, etc.). De Soto's expedition attests to this and the short-lived span of many Mississippian sites suggests it was common for these rulers to become supplanted by their kin, who would either relocate to the chief center or instead move the people nearer to their own site.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Wiki says 50 M is the closest to a consensus with 4-8 Million north of Mexico.

4-8 million would still be extremely sparse. France alone had over 15 million people as of 1500.

 

[Jürgen]

I think a interest comparison would be megalith Stone Age culture in Europe, they were known to abandon their villages every few generations, built a new one elsewhere and migrate back a few generation later. Of course we’re talking about a few kilometers away, so the the megalith stayed in their territory. In the same way the settlement of the mound builder culture was not necessary near the mound, if they were built for ceremonial reasons.

 

[Gloss]

I think a interest comparison would be megalith Stone Age culture in Europe, they were known to abandon their villages every few generations, built a new one elsewhere and migrate back a few generation later. Of course we’re talking about a few kilometers away, so the the megalith stayed in their territory. In the same way the settlement of the mound builder culture was not necessary near the mound, if they were built for ceremonial reasons.

The burned horizon in Ukraine and Moldavia was also like that with big cities, some people argue it was mostly religious but I can't help but wonder if soil exhaustion didn't play a part.

 

[Jürgen]

The burned horizon in Ukraine and Moldavia was also like that with big cities, some people argue it was mostly religious but I can't help but wonder if soil exhaustion didn't play a part.

Yes, the point is that moving settlements were pretty common in temperate regions in the Neolithic.

But beside that when people compare Neolithic USA with Celtic Gaul a few factor we should include why their population density would differ.

Gaul had domesticated animal which could be used for food, clothing and labor. Gaul was iron using society, iron eased s lot of labor,cas example it made it far easier to work the land, cut tree, work stone and work timber.

 

[Arkenfolm]

I'll bump this because it's relevant to something I was thinking of lately. If we handwave the changes the increased population causes (let's say 2-3 times more, no Vacant Quarter, more widespread farming of turkeys, etc.) then one big killer is going to be the European-encouraged Indian slave trade. In the southern Appalachians, around 30-40% of the native population died or was enslaved in the late 17th/early 18th century until the Yamasee War basically crippled the Indian slave trade because the Indians themselves were tired of it and most tribes allied against the Carolinas and especially because slaves were increasingly scarce. This more or less wiped out a sizable number of ethnic groups (including remnants of those attested in De Soto's era) because they joined other tribes (i.e. the Catawba assimilated several different groups).

Put two and two together, and more Indians to enslave means more and longer Indian slave trade. The majority were sold to the Caribbean, so this would continue for some time. Given the millions of Africans shipped there, I wonder what effect more Indian slave trade would have on the transatlantic slave trade and Africa in general? We'd definitely see more/larger "Maroon" type ethnic groups in the Caribbean. The Indian slave trade was IIRC more profitable than the transatlantic trade due to shorter shipping distances.