The Gun Counter

It has been mentioned on here that the Native American tribes were so backwards that they hadn't even invented the wheel. What if it were different? Let's say, for the sake of jump starting our scenario, the settlers to North America had discovered a society similar in power and ability to Ancient Greece. How different would things have been? In order to make it somewhat analogous to the NA Indian tribes, I've chosen Greece for a couple of reasons. 1. I don't think the American settlers could have defeated the Romans, with their central organization, numbers, and tactics. 2. The Greek city-states are closer to a tribal society with their frequent spats and rivalries, despite being nominally the "same people." This also allows the possibility of pitting them against one another on occasion, as the Europeans did with the Tribes. To give the Europeans a toehold, let's say the first NorAmerin-Greek city state is no farther east than the Western side of the Appalachian mountains, in Kentucky. Fire Away!

Looks like the Vikings must have got their tails whupped by the locals when they tried. The native population was huge at the time. It was a lucky accident for European settlements in the 1600's that they arrived after huge civilizations had been wiped out by disease.

I'll play...

The colonists have gunpowder, artillery, stirrups, and horse collars. The locals don't. I think what happens is that they team up with some of the local tribes and beat the rest back...remember that intertribal war for fun and profit was nearly continual among the native tribes.

Having said that, I think the balance between fighting and trading is very different. More like what Rome did to Spain, Greece, and Gaul.

I am going to say the Greco-Indians get creamed.

The European powers wanted to settle people here and did what all people did, follow the path of least resistance. If the locals could have put up a real fight organized units would have stabilized the area to have place to put the settlers.

How about the Romans? Could they have defeated a civilization as large and powerful as Rome?

blackeagle603 wrote:Looks like the Vikings must have got their tails whupped by the locals when they tried. The native population was huge at the time. It was a lucky accident for European settlements in the 1600's that they arrived after huge civilizations had been wiped out by disease.

This. The vikings were wiped out. Vikings are known to be warriors. If it hadnt been for the apocolyptic plague that wiped out the indians they would have wiped out the english too.

Yeah. Smallpox is pretty well the only reason it worked.

Just the Amazon river basin used to have 5 million residents. If they were actually of a similar advancement as Greece, it'd be mostly trade - and they'd shortly be s serious world power

Technology is easily adopted. They already had reason logic and the concept of law

Kind of an interesting link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/29/scien ... -ills.html

BDK wrote:Yeah. Smallpox is pretty well the only reason it worked.

Just the Amazon river basin used to have 5 million residents. If they were actually of a similar advancement as Greece, it'd be mostly trade - and they'd shortly be s serious world power

Technology is easily adopted. They already had reason logic and the concept of law

The English fishing ships reported the eastern sea board of north america had smoke coming from villages better than every mile just a few years before plymouth. Squanto, who helped the pilgrims, his whole tribe died from the plague while he was a prisoner in europe. And they think it was smallpox, but the virulence, fatality rate, and time to infection dont really match. Maybe it was an ebola?

I'm sure nations and companies would also be lining up to sell them weapons and training, such as how Japan's forces were modernized in the late 19th century.