American Indians Colonize the Old world in 1250 BC

Thomas Bowman said:

You don't have to, your character only has to deal with the immediate situation in front of him. If some Indians bring their magic thunder sticks and try to conquer and enslave your character, your character will understand that situation quite well, and he would adapt just as the Indians in our history did, perhaps a little better, because our history Indians weren't quite as advanced as the Bronze Age with Europeans first came over. I'm sure the Ancient Greeks, Egyptians and others could figure out how to make such things as muskets or printing presses, once they have samples to copy and work from. The difference between Renaissance and Bronze age is really very little. If Bronze agers capture a black smith or obtain a printing press or a gun and know what it does, they could probably build one in short order. Those devices are not beyond their comprehension, they just haven't thought of them. It is easier to copy than invent.

Click to expand...

Problem of copying firearms is obtaining materials of sufficient quality, and having manufacturing techniques of similar high enough quality. Firearms require quite high technology (metallurgy in particular, but also in chemistry, and also in mechanisms and machining, and eventually, in repeatable manufacturing processes). Manufacturing firearms will require advancing a sizable industrial base.

Thx!
TomB

Bluenose said:

A small correction, the New World had plenty of domesticatable plant species (rice, maize, potatoes, and many others). It was large animals that could be domesticated that were rare (the llama, alpaca, and perhaps the Turkey). There are a number of reasons why the lack of those would have a severe impact on farming (ploughing, for instance, is much less efficient). There's also an argument in Diamond's book that in Eurasia east-west transmission of a variety of food plants was much easier because they'd stay within a climate zone, where the Americas north-south alignment meant the south American civilisations couldn't utilise most central American crops because the climate wasn't suitable. What that suggests is that if there's contact between different regions of the Americas with different civilisations, then they might develop extensive trade networks to exchange unusual goods. That could be the start of a technological revolution that would bring Americans to Europe, although prevailing wind/sea current directions aren't exactly favourable for some of that potential trade (or for going to Europe in some regions).

Click to expand...

I forgot about the N-S alignment problem. But I thought that the New World plants were less desirable than what was available elsewhere, in particular, wheat.

Thx!

tomBitonti said:

But I thought that the New World plants were less desirable than what was available elsewhere, in particular, wheat.

Click to expand...

One word: Potato.

Some more: Corn, sweet potato, tomatoes, peppers, cacao (chocolate), squash (including zucchini).

And, not edible, but highly important - tobacco and cotton.

Later: peanut

When the new plants are unlike most things seen in the old area, there's not much to be "less desireable" about.

I think this would be a fun idea for a campaign. But I also think a lot of folks are taking something that should really be a fun and engaging thought exercise, counterfactual history, and turning it into something of a misery. People are going to approach this with different levels of mastery of the subject, with different assumptions, and they are naturally going to overlook things other people might see. But it completely drains the enthusiasm out of the experience, by using the discussion to position yourself as the smartest guy in the room at other peoples' expense. In counterfactual history there are not always clear answers, and people can reach wildly different conclusions, which is half the fun. Especially if the end goal is just a campaign or game book and not a history paper.

To the OP, I'd say run with this concept and explore counterfactual history for inspiration if you need it.

Bedrockgames said:

But it completely drains the enthusiasm out of the experience, by using the discussion to position yourself as the smartest guy in the room at other peoples' expense.

Click to expand...

Please don't ascribe motives to other posters.

In counterfactual history there are not always clear answers, and people can reach wildly different conclusions, which is half the fun. Especially if the end goal is just a campaign or game book and not a history paper.

Click to expand...

If you are doing it for just the people at your home table, sure, do what you want. If the goal is a graded history paper, then critique or discussion of the real history, and how changes in cultures really play out, is pretty crucial. Especially if your counter-factual history is based on incorrect points of real history - that, sir, will get you a failing grade. You cannot answer the question of what would happen if people X experienced changes Y, unless you really understand X very well.

If your goal is publication of game product, there's a different issue. If you don't understand X, what you end up with isn't counterfactual history, it is fantasy. There's nothing wrong with fantasy, but fantasy sets different expectations than alternate history, and you should be clear about which expectations you are aiming for if you want a successful publication.

And, there's the simple matter that if you don't want people to talk about it, you probably shouldn't post it on a discussion board. Put it in a place like this, there is an implicit acceptance that folks are going to go over it in detail.

Umbran said:

Please don't ascribe motives to other posters.



If you are doing it for just the people at your home table, sure, do what you want. If the goal is a graded history paper, then critique or discussion of the real history, and how changes in cultures really play out, is pretty crucial. Especially if your counter-factual history is based on incorrect points of real history - that, sir, will get you a failing grade. You cannot answer the question of what would happen if people X experienced changes Y, unless you really understand X very well.

If your goal is publication of game product, there's a different issue. If you don't understand X, what you end up with isn't counterfactual history, it is fantasy. There's nothing wrong with fantasy, but fantasy sets different expectations than alternate history, and you should be clear about which expectations you are aiming for if you want a successful publication.

And, there's the simple matter that if you don't want people to talk about it, you probably shouldn't post it on a discussion board. Put it in a plac elike this, there is an implicit acceptance that folks are going to go over it in detail.

Click to expand...

Personally I love history. But I just have to disagree with you here. I think a lot of these approaches, the way they are done in threads like this, actually have opposite the intended effect. Obviously, if you are writing a paper to be graded, you are going to be graded on the quality of your work. But then again, I don't think a discussion forum where people essentially try to show off what they know, often at the expense of the person expressing curiosity, is the best place to seek corrections. And I don't know that the bar for accuracy isn't scalable in a gaming product. Sometimes you are going to want a truly authentic and rigorously examined alternate history, sometimes you are going to want something that dives into history in a way that is fun and inventive. Again, for me, what troubles me, is I just see so many people lose interest in something that should be fun and exciting. And it is usually at the point where someone, perhaps with good intentions, picks up on all the flaws they see in what the person is trying to do. With counterfactual history, there is wide space for different levels of rigor. There are degrees of realism and plausibility depending on the kind of entertainment you are trying to create. But if you set the bar too high, or say all alternative history has to be the same in terms of accuracy, people will just avoid it. It can be very fun to take real historical accounts and knowledge and add a twist for flavor. It can also be fun to take enormous liberties with the history. And you can have alternative history where magic or fantasy elements seep in (but that doesn't cause it to no longer be alt history in my opinion). In short, I think the more we encourage people to have fun with history, the more they will engage with it seriously in the end. And even then, I don't think it is desirable for all of our interactions with history to be dry and dull (which is the usual charge people level at the discipline when they express a lack of interest). On gaming forums, these discussions just suck the life right out of it.

I see this all the time with historical RPGs. You have to give people space to experiment and fail without embarrassment. And I think gamers have a particularly strong tendency to like to show off their historical knowledge (often when that knowledge really isn't as strong as they believe). I see so many players clam up at the table, avoid historical RPGs, and I see a lot of GMs avoid running historical settings for that reason. I think loosening up about history would do us all some good (particularly if you like history and think it is important).

Umbran said:

Please don't ascribe motives to other posters.

Click to expand...

Obviously, I cannot read minds. So I can't say what a given poster's motives are. I am speaking generally of what I see on forums, and how it comes across to me.

Thomas Bowman said:

You think a Pharaoh that has organized the building of a pyramid could command the labor necessary to build a musket? I don't think the Indians had such organization.

Click to expand...

...



I'm just gonna leave this here.

On the topic of having gunpowder in earlier eras. Worth checking out a game called Fvlminata which has the premise of gunpowder existing in ancient Rome. Also worth checking out some of the early Chinese gunpowder-based weapons like freelances.

Thomas Bowman said:

You think a Pharaoh that has organized the building of a pyramid could command the labor necessary to build a musket? I don't think the Indians had such organization. Anyway, I don't know whether the Indians will know enough to conquer Egypt first, they might conquer some other hapless barbarians on the west coast, and the Pharaoh would hear about it. A tribe can't be expected to get so heavily into musket manufacture, but a civilization with its own writing system, which has built many monuments temples and pyramids, might have the necessary labor to build one of those things. They certainly could build a printing press, as that is made out of wooden blocks with character symbols on it. I think Egypt has the necessary artisans to carve those hieroglyphics onto wooden blocks and glue them onto a printing press. Egypt already has papyrus, they could start printing books right away.

Click to expand...

Its not a matter of labor force but of skill and knowledge.
I do not know how the metallurgic skill of the high cultures in America, Inca, Maya, Aztec would compare to 1200BC Europe. Considering their jewellery they must have known smelting so maybe them not using bronze much might just have been an issue of availability.
The tribal natives in North America probably didn't know how to work metal at all.

In Europe in this setting it would be similar. The big nations around the Mediterranean, the Greek states, Persia, Egypt and the Phoneticians probably would be able to at least create hand cannons or maybe even a mortar considering their skill in bronze working. Everything north of them is very unlikely to possess the skill to do anything.
The real problem would be the availability of gunpowder. If the Natives sell it in good quantity some nation in Europe will at least experiment with them. If it is scare then probably no one will bother or even realize what it is.