Pilgrims vs. Greeks: Hypothetical Scenario

[Greg]

Please elaborate.

There were local powers of different levels of development (technological and otherwise) interacting with European powers who were at the far end of a very long over-water journey. Different parts of Africa were more or less desirable and desired by Europeans for actual settlement, as well.

The relationships that Europeans had with local powers of different levels of development, over time when the European powers themselves were at different levels of development and capability, were quite different in very (one would think) telling and educational ways for our 'advanced North American natives' scenario.

[BDK]

Africans were much farther behind than Greeks, though, when it came to reason, trade, and law. Aside from Ethiopia, TMK, none of them even had developed writing.

[slowpoke]

Africans were much farther behind than Greeks, though, when it came to reason, trade, and law. Aside from Ethiopia, TMK, none of them even had developed writing.

Kinda explains why Ethiopia was never successfully colonized by Europeans. Only country in Africa like that.

[Greg]

North Africa counts, too.

The differing experiences of North Africa and sub-Saharan Africa are educational for this scenario.

And the area of the Horn of Africa is different from the rest of sub-Saharan Africa in a similar way to the way North Africa is different - it was easily reachable from part of the 'civilized' world.

[BDK]

N. Africa, in large part, were "Greeks" - Ptolemy dynasty, subjugated by Rome, etc... They were part of civilization, going back to the Phoenicians and Fertile Crescent.

[Greg]

N. Africa, in large part, were "Greeks" - Ptolemy dynasty, subjugated by Rome, etc... They were part of civilization, going back to the Phoenicians and Fertile Crescent.

Which is kind of the point. If it's easily reached by 'the rest of civilization', it will become part of 'the rest of civilization'. It may be conquered, it may not, it's up to the locals to keep up. If the locals don't keep up, bad things will happen to them.

Ancient Egypt was its own thing. Carthage was a Phoenician colony, and they were Semitic (like Arabs and Hebrews). There were also 'black' African kingdoms and powers. Then of course there was the Hellenistic period, and finally Rome wound up conquering the whole area. Then Germanic tribes came, etc etc.

Sub-Saharan Africa is a test case for what happens when an area is *hard* to reach from 'the rest of civilization' but then civilization manages some contact. (But 'some contact' tends to eventually become 'easily reached' eventually.)

[Vonz90]

N. Africa, in large part, were "Greeks" - Ptolemy dynasty, subjugated by Rome, etc... They were part of civilization, going back to the Phoenicians and Fertile Crescent.

North Africa does not count, nor does India and the various parts of Asia that were temporarily taken over western powers. In none of this cases did the invaders permanently displace the native population.

The places where that did happen were North America, parts of South and central America, New Zealand and Australia. What all of those places had in command was a lack of intensive agriculture.

Do not confuse conquest with colonization, they are not the same things.

[Greg]

N. Africa, in large part, were "Greeks" - Ptolemy dynasty, subjugated by Rome, etc... They were part of civilization, going back to the Phoenicians and Fertile Crescent.

North Africa does not count, nor does India and the various parts of Asia that were temporarily taken over western powers. In none of this cases did the invaders permanently displace the native population.

The places where that did happen were North America, parts of South and central America, New Zealand and Australia. What all of those places had in command was a lack of intensive agriculture.

Do not confuse conquest with colonization, they are not the same things.

Um, you know the thread was created to imagine what it might have looked like if there had been more advanced native cultures in the Americas when IRL the Europeans were actively colonizing. That includes agriculture.

And invaders displaced native populations multiple times in North Africa, just not especially recently.

Ah, and conquest and colonization were different yes, but far from mutually exclusive.

[Vonz90]

N. Africa, in large part, were "Greeks" - Ptolemy dynasty, subjugated by Rome, etc... They were part of civilization, going back to the Phoenicians and Fertile Crescent.

North Africa does not count, nor does India and the various parts of Asia that were temporarily taken over western powers. In none of this cases did the invaders permanently displace the native population.

The places where that did happen were North America, parts of South and central America, New Zealand and Australia. What all of those places had in command was a lack of intensive agriculture.

Do not confuse conquest with colonization, they are not the same things.

Um, you know the thread was created to imagine what it might have looked like if there had been more advanced native cultures in the Americas when IRL the Europeans were actively colonizing. That includes agriculture.

And invaders displaced native populations multiple times in North Africa, just not especially recently.

Ah, and conquest and colonization were different yes, but far from mutually exclusive.

I would disagree relative to North Africa. The Phoenicians, Greeks, Romans, Vandals, Byzantine and Arabs all tramped over the area, but the base population was always more or less the same, what changed was the political control and culture. DNA surveys of the area show that 87% of the population is Berber (East African decent). It is not likely that it was all that different 2000 years ago.

Compared to North America, there was basically a change out in population. One people conquering and even assimilating another (or turning them into a lower tier cast like in India) are common. However, there are relatively few cases of complete (or near complete) replacement. Those cases always correspond to groups who were nomadic or semi-nomadic (i.e. not practicing intensive permanent agriculture).

To spell it out, if the American Indians were as advanced as even the Bronze Age Greeks in terms of agriculture, we very well would may have conquered them, but complete replacement would not have followed.

The reason is that replacement is not a function winning battles and that is not really how our ancestors replaced the Indians. We replaced them because we could settle a spot, build a house, clear land and stay. Even the Indians who practiced agriculture did not do so in permanent settlements so they could never match that level of staying power. We lost some battles here and there, it did not matter because they Indians never had the excess wealth that is generated by intensive agriculture (and the specialization which goes with it).

[slowpoke]

The native americans did have agriculture. The Mississipean culture raised crops and lived in cities and villages. The later Cherokee when the spaniards came through had a caste society and were also agricultural living in villages. By the time the English started to colenize the plagues had destroyed theur societies. If not for those plagues there would not have been sucessful colinization and suplanting if the natives. Look Mexico is much more mixed with lots of mestizos, the plagues there were not as bad as what hit north america.