No livestock

[alsih2o]

What about the horse?

I think we were speaking of pre-settlement by europeans.

No, wait, I know that was what I was talking about.

 

[silentspace]

I was reading a theory recently that the big difference between native American culture and European culture was that the native Americans never domesticated a big, burly animal that could pull huge loads.

Here's a theory that is pretty widely circulated.

The Europeans not only domesticated animals, they lived with them in the same houses, relying for them for heat. Different Asian and African cultures also domesticated animals, but kept them more separate from humans. One result of this was that Europeans over time became host to a wide variety of diseases, transferred to them from their animals. So when the Europeans went to America and Asia, they brought with them deadly diseases that devastated the native populations, helping the Europeans in colonizing those places. America in particular was devastated by the diseases brought by the Europeans, but Asia was as well. Africa, in comparison, was deadly to the Europeans. In other words, when Europeans first started going to Africa, it was the Europeans, not the Africans, who started dying off because of disease. The Africans did not live in close proximity to their animals, but disease was easily transmitted via insects. This helps to explain why Africa was one of the last regions of the world to be colonized by Europe, even though it is very close to Europe, and despite the European's clear advantage in military technology.

 

[BobROE]

I think we were speaking of pre-settlement by europeans.

No, wait, I know that was what I was talking about.

In south america they had domesticaed the Llama and Alpaca, but they aren't really burly, and the terrain of SA (ie the Inca lived in the Andes) limits their usefulness as a mean of transportations.

 

[tarchon]

What about the horse?

Wasn't reintroduced to the Americas until the 15th century or so. They did manage to domesticate llamas and alpacas though.

 

[alsih2o]

In south america they had domesticaed the Llama and Alpaca, but they aren't really burly, and the terrain of SA (ie the Inca lived in the Andes) limits their usefulness as a mean of transportations.

Right, a llama is a great helper animal, but cannot pull a plow and usually refuses to carry any load over 100 pounds.

Now, if only those giants sloths had stuck around....

 

[Keska]

See, now it depends on which parts of America you're talking about. The North Americans had domesticated dogs, and used them to pull sledges. There was never what we would consider very "advanced" culture , though - no large cities and whatnot.

In Central and South America, however, enormous empires were built with nothing more than the power of human muscle. Even the wheel wasn't seen as a useful tool there due to the mountain terrain, but the Incas, at least had hundreds of miles of "roads" through the mountains on which foot travel travelled.

Sorry, after taking a class in Pre-Columbian Art, I got fascinated with the cultures of ancient South America. Did you know that the Incan empire didn't have money? Or writing? It's amazing.

 

[silentspace]

Right, a llama is a great helper animal, but cannot pull a plow and usually refuses to carry any load over 100 pounds.

Now, if only those giants sloths had stuck around....

One big difference between America and Eurasia is the practice of agriculture. Americans did not plow fields, either in the north or the south. Their agriculture is more 'natural' in a way. Their crops are interspersed with existing plants. I've been to native (post-Mayan) farms in the Yucatan. As a city boy, I can't tell the difference between a Mayan farm and untouched jungle. In fact, I doubt a farm boy would be able to either, unless maybe they were familiar with the specific crop plants that are interspersed. Of course, modern American farmers plow fields and all that.

 

[Someone]

I was reading a theory recently that the big difference between native American culture and European culture was that the native Americans never domesticated a big, burly animal that could pull huge loads.

Something by Marvin Harris, perhaps?

What happens to D+D settings if all the domesticated critters bigger than a dog get removed?

For what I can think right now:

-Land transport becomes difficult and ineficient (I mean, even more difficult and ineficient) Large cities would be built in coastal or large river areas that also could be easily farmed, and large armies would find difficult to march through areas of wilderness and carry everything needed with them, thus I see empires and large states reduced to said rivers and coasts (like ancient Egipt, now that I think on it) Aztecs seem to be an exception to the rule, but it seems that they had to pay a huge price.

-Sounds stupid, but armies would be composed only by infantry.

-Food is an important thing to include into the equation. Even without animals protein supply isn´t too much of a problem, but availability of milk could determine if the northern, colder parts of the world without accest to fishing areas are inhabited or not at all.

 

[Voadam]

Here's a theory that is pretty widely circulated.

The Europeans not only domesticated animals, they lived with them in the same houses, relying for them for heat. Different Asian and African cultures also domesticated animals, but kept them more separate from humans. One result of this was that Europeans over time became host to a wide variety of diseases, transferred to them from their animals. So when the Europeans went to America and Asia, they brought with them deadly diseases that devastated the native populations, helping the Europeans in colonizing those places. America in particular was devastated by the diseases brought by the Europeans, but Asia was as well. Africa, in comparison, was deadly to the Europeans. In other words, when Europeans first started going to Africa, it was the Europeans, not the Africans, who started dying off because of disease. The Africans did not live in close proximity to their animals, but disease was easily transmitted via insects. This helps to explain why Africa was one of the last regions of the world to be colonized by Europe, even though it is very close to Europe, and despite the European's clear advantage in military technology.

The Black Plague came from Asia and decimated Europe. I'm familiar with that one as well as European diseases devastating American natives. When did European disease decimate Asia?

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

The Black Plague came from Asia and decimated Europe. I'm familiar with that one as well as European diseases devastating American natives. When did European disease decimate Asia?

In addition, smallpox was known in Asia and India as many as 3000 years ago. There is no record of the disease in Europe before the 6th century A.D.

Influenza also has its origins in Asia among the bird populations.

The organism that causes syphillis came (debatably) from North America, where it was relatively harmless, and transformed to a virulent, sexually transmitted disease in Europe.

I also know of no European disease which decimated Asia.