Pre-American industrial "evolution"

[Cthulhudrew]

I'm not an anthropologist, or a historian, so I just want to ask a question regarding this. If disease was a major factor in a take over of the Americas (and I know it was), why then wasn't Europe conquered during any number of the epidemics they picked up from Asia?

Who would have conquered them? The Chinese were very insular and had little to no contact with the western world for the most part. India I can't say very much about, but from what I recall, they were largely concerned with internal politics as well, and not conquering one another. Europe was almost conquered by the Mongols back in the 13th century, but possibly were only halted by the death of Ogodei Khan and their subsequent retreat to deal with the succession.

As for Europe itself, it was subject to many back and forth conquests and wars for a long time during (and before and after) the years when plagues were rampant and widespread. I think the fact that it was such a mix of small feudal kingdoms and such probably helped to isolate it from any "large scale" conquest by an outside power. There was no central authority that would have been weakened in and of itself by a ravaging epidemic.

As for specific plagues, I'm not sure of any that might have been able to have an impact (the bubonic plague was brought by mongols in 1346, but I think it was confined largely to the eastern european region).

Otherwise, I could think of any number of reasons. Primarily, that they were in a better position to treat such diseases than the native Americans. Having shared cross-cultural fertilization with Asia for centuries, the sorts of epidemics suffered in Europe and Asia would have been similar, and the people would have been more resistant to such. On the other hand, the native American population, which (for the most part) did not have the large cities of Europe never had a chance to develop these same sorts of wide-scale diseases (and subsequent resistances). I'm probably not explaining it very well, though. Maybe someone else can do a better job here.

On a similar note, why was Africa protected from European and Asian invasion in large part by indigeonous diseases, but not the Americas?

The climatic differences, primarily, as I understand things. I don't recall specifics, though, so again- hopefully others can clarify.

Another factor that I can think of offhand is that at least some African diseases are endemic- they can survive in areas were populations are widespread and small because they don't kill their hosts. Whereas the most well known diseases of Europe (like the Black Plague) were epidemics- virulent diseases that cause the death of the host, and thrive in areas which are crowded and populous. They can afford to kill the host because there are plenty of other hosts that they can reproduce and infect. Epidemics are very quick and violent, but don't last long term. The survivors are (by nature) immune to that particular strain of epidemic disease.

I would think that the lack of many domesticated animals in most American cultures would lead to a less rapid evolution of disease...

Another factor was the rise of large population centers where diseases could rapidly spread and become epidemics. Europe, with all of its large cities, had these, while most of the Americas didn't. The result was that Europe had several periods of really bad epidemic diseases (the Black Plague, Bubonic, etc.) during which a lot of the population died, yes, but the survivors developed a resistance to these diseases.

On the other hand, the native Americans didn't have these immunities, and thus died out as a result of rapidly spreading epidemics. If they hadn't been pressed by other factors (notably invading conquerors) they might have been able to develop their own resistances to disease and recover their population to levels that would have better been able to stand against invaders (provided they had been able to organize, of course).

... however there must have been some diseases that the Europeans didn't come into contact with and thus may have been especially virulent. Was the fact that the Europeans were the invaders, and thus had a long trip back to Europe, allowing those infected to die before spreading the disease a factor?

There were definitely indigenous diseases. Being stationed in the Americas was often regarded as hazardous duty by soldiers even during the much later Napoleonic era- precisely because of the possibility of catching terrible diseases (not to mention the isolation, but that's beside the point).

As you point out, though, the risk of spreading these diseases back to Europe was minimal at best, because of the distances involved. Epidemics need large populations in which to thrive by their very nature. A virulent disease would likely kill its host before it ever arrived in Europe, and thus could not spread. If it were benign enough to survive in its host/carrier for the trip, it probably would not be virulent enough to create a massive death-causing plague.

 

[Cthulhudrew]

[EDIT] Are there any good books that deal specifically with the subject of diseases and culture? I'm a biochemist, so this is a bit more interesting to me than some of the more hardcore historical-political stuff.

I had an Anthro course in college- "Disease and Human Evolution" that dealt (obviously) with this subject matter. Sadly, I've largely forgotten any specifics of the course, though it was one of my favorites.

A good book (if a bit outdated- it's c. 1972) is "Disease and Human History" by Frederick Cartwright. You should be able to pick it up in the Bargain Book section of Barnes & Noble (it's one of their select published bargain books).

Can't think of any others offhand, but I agree with you that it is a fascinating subject.

 

[WmRAllen67]

I'm not an anthropologist, or a historian, so I just want to ask a question regarding this. If disease was a major factor in a take over of the Americas (and I know it was), why then wasn't Europe conquered during any number of the epidemics they picked up from Asia?

The short answer would probably be that they DID pick them up from the East-- meaning that the East was suffering from the same sort of thing at the same time...

Consider the Black Death-- it is usually traced to a merchant ship docking in Venice (IIRC) in the 1340's, but if you look further back, you can make an argument that it travelled from Asia along the Silk Road-- which was "held open" by the unified govermental systems in the Mongol Empire. So the Mongols, which in one view are a "barbarian horde poised to overrun Europe" also provided a safe environment for the increase in trade between Europe and the East-- but also allowed the spread of the bubonic plague, which not only ravaged Europe but contributed to the breakup of the centralised Mongol government and the eventual decline of the Silk Road trade (which in turn contributed to the European expansion in a search for the goods they were now missing).

On a similar note, why was Africa protected from European and Asian invasion in large part by indigeonous diseases, but not the Americas? I would think that the lack of many domesticated animals in most American cultures would lead to a less rapid evolution of disease, however there must have been some diseases that the Europeans didn't come into contact with and thus may have been especially virulent. Was the fact that the Europeans were the invaders, and thus had a long trip back to Europe, allowing those infected to die before spreading the disease a factor?

It depends on which part of Africa you mean, I think. Certainly the Western African coastline was death to Europeans, but the Eastern coasts were heavily involved in the European expansion. One of the factors, again, was the cross-pollination of trade and societies-- the influence of Islam on the African coast, the trade networks of the Indian Ocean following the monsoon winds, the East Indian trade in spices from the islands of the South Pacific, all contributed to a mix of cultures, immunities, and technologies. This is one of the reasons that the "European Dominance" of the Indian Ocean took over 300 years to achieve (from 1499 to around 1850) instead of 50 years as in the Americas.

In terms of travel time to and from Europe being a factor, most diseases that affected Europeans in the tropics killed them there-- life expectancy for a Dutchman in Batavia (on the island of Java) was approximately three years. Aside from syphilus (and the jury's still out on whether we got that from the Americas or not) the longer-lasting diseases such as malaria are not (again, IIRC) highly communicable human-to-human. (Don't quote me, though, I'm not a doctor, and don't even play one on TV.)

Heretic Apostate: He pointed out that China had sent out the "treasure fleets" about a thousand years ago, getting as far as the southeastern coast of Africa. Then, suddenly, the country went insular/isolationist, and believed that .

If the Chinese "treasure fleets" had not pulled back, we could have seen the Chinese invading Europe, instead of the other way around...

The Great Fleet of Zheng He sailed between 1405 and 1433, and were indeed cut short by a change in the Chinese government-- not only in a return to more traditional values ("everything worth doing had already been done by their ancestors") but in a reaction to the cost involved in building those immense junks. The author Gavin Menzies holds an interesting theory that they did, indeed, circumnavigate the world, discovering the Americas &c &c, but his book (1423: The year the Chinese Discovered America) is long on theory and short on actual proof, in my opinion (though it would make for an interesting Oriental Adventures/ European homebrew, which was mentioned elsewhere on these boards some time ago...)

And just to take a poke at the original question, I would say that the same factors that slowed the rise of European power in the Indian Ocean, ie the existance of long distance trading networks, the long-term social and cultural interactions (fostering both the common immunities to disease and the socio-political ferment that gave rise to technologies in Asia and Europe), the inter-rellated and inter-regional commerce and banking ties, and so forth, by their absence in pre-Colombian America, and coupled with the American's cultural "biases" ("Why build high density housing when a hermit's shack is all you want?") were responsible for the relatively slow technological development among the Native American and Meso-American cultures.

(Edit: I've GOT to learn to type faster...)

 

[fusangite]

I'm not an anthropologist, or a historian, so I just want to ask a question regarding this. If disease was a major factor in a take over of the Americas (and I know it was), why then wasn't Europe conquered during any number of the epidemics they picked up from Asia?

Because the highest death rate over a century in Europe was still only about 50% (1300-1400). In the Mexico Valley, the death rate was over 80% from 1520-1620. That's a very substantial difference. Secondly, Europe was lucky in that none of their immediate neighbours were much better off than they were. If the Ottoman Turks had had a drastically different level of immunity then, yes, they would have swept into Europe a lot further. What mattered in the Americas was one population having a 10% death rate and the other having an 80% death rate; if the difference is less, the microbes confer less of an advantage.

Another important factor was the Europe's immediate neighbours were busy fighting the Mongols who were principally to blame for the epidemic's spread. Of course, if the Mongols, as they originally intended under Batu Khan, had actually tried to invade Western Europe, they would have succeeded. But 100 years after Batu Khan's death, that dream was basically lost as the various successor khanates focused in on keeping what land they had and fighting amongst themselves.

On a similar note, why was Africa protected from European and Asian invasion in large part by indigeonous diseases, but not the Americas?

Because sub-saharan Africans domesticated fowl, cows and pigs, conferring upon them largely the same immunities Europeans had.

I would think that the lack of many domesticated animals in most American cultures would lead to a less rapid evolution of disease,

It did. In order to have immunity to diseases through exposure, constant exposure to ever-mutating germs is exactly what is necessary. As I mentioned previously, the Mexico Valley was exceptional in that nearly all food came from vegetable matter thanks to the high fat content of avocadoes.

Are there any good books that deal specifically with the subject of diseases and culture? I'm a biochemist, so this is a bit more interesting to me than some of the more hardcore historical-political stuff.

Everyone has been recommending Guns, Germs and Steel which I have not read. Unfortunately, the books I have read have been very focused on demographics and culture so I can't help you out any more than other posters to the thread have.

In the western world, writing as we know it developed to keep track of crops, write down court records, and other similar day-to-day matters.

Actually I was referring to this civilization we are living in now. Go through the ancient Greek written record: bookkeeping was absolutely not the main purpose of the written record. It was hardly used for that at all. While the rare society like the Carolingians or the Incas sees the written record functioning primarily to record financial or material transactions, most tend to use the written record for more elevated purposes.

 

[fusangite]

Who would have conquered them? The Chinese were very insular and had little to no contact with the western world for the most part.

Wrong on both fronts. China maintained Vietnam and Korea as colonies on and off. By the Middle Ages, they were running zoos full of exotics from Africa, India and Indonesia. Starting in the 8th century, they were in regular contact with the Caliphate which is considered to be one of the ways that the West received a jump-start in alchemical knowledge. Also by the 8th century, there were Christian advisors in the imperial court. The archaeological record shows that in the medieval period, Chinese porcelain was in use from present-day Mozambique to Java.

India I can't say very much about, but from what I recall, they were largely concerned with internal politics as well,

And that wasn't the main preoccupation of 15th century Europeans? Christopher Columbus was an Italian. Are you really telling me that India's kingdoms were smaller and less unified than those in Italy?

Primarily, that they were in a better position to treat such diseases than the native Americans.

Nope. Everyone's treatment was basically useless. It was not until the 18th century that China developed a smallpox vaccine and even then, it was all about immunity not treatment. Being the filthiest and most animal-dependent people in the world -- that was our advantage.

Another factor that I can think of offhand is that at least some African diseases are endemic- they can survive in areas were populations are widespread and small because they don't kill their hosts. Whereas the most well known diseases of Europe (like the Black Plague) were epidemics- virulent diseases that cause the death of the host, and thrive in areas which are crowded and populous.

Every endemic disease starts as an epidemic. Smallpox was endemic. Tuberculosis was endemic and, by the 16th century, so was the plague to an extent.

If they hadn't been pressed by other factors (notably invading conquerors) they might have been able to develop their own resistances to disease and recover their population to levels that would have better been able to stand against invaders (provided they had been able to organize, of course).

In some places they have. Many Latin American states teeter on the brink of mestizos and aboriginals comprising the majority. Guatemala is approaching an aboriginal majority. Saskatchewan is forecast to have an aboriginal majority sometime this century and, of course, the far north never lost its native majority.

There were definitely indigenous diseases. Being stationed in the Americas was often regarded as hazardous duty by soldiers even during the much later Napoleonic era- precisely because of the possibility of catching terrible diseases (not to mention the isolation, but that's beside the point).

While syphilus is has drawn a lot of attention and is indigenous, many of the diseases people feared in the colonies were African diseases brought by the slaves rather than indigenous American diseases.

EDIT: Sorry I forgot to address your statement that Europe's population centres were larger than those in the Americas. Remember that Tenochtitlan was the largest city in the world when Europeans arrived there. With respect to overall population densities, California, the Andes, the Mexico Valley, parts of the Pacific Northwest and the southern portion of the Northeastern woodlands all had comparable population densities to Europe.

 

[Heretic Apostate]

In one of the GURPS Alternate Worlds books, there is suggested a world in which the Chinese never gave up their treasure fleets. Some English pirates raided China, and the Emperor instructed his admirals to find their home ports. Cut to the invasion of Europe (at least, the Atlantic/Channel ports) by China, and the toppling of the major European kingdoms before they had a chance to consolidate.

Interesting "what-if" scenario.

 

[Buzzardo]

I'd put the biggest setback down to no written language,

Bing.

For me, this is the lynch-pin issue on advancement on all technology. I truly beleive that language becomes the aquarium in which we swim. No language is perfect, and all end up imposing hidden barriers in thought patterns.

For example, compare german to spanish. These are very different languages and affect the way native speakers of both languages can think.

German is a componentized language, where you can create new words on the fly allowing a freedom of thought that many other languages can't cope with. (The germanic elements of english allow this too to a large degree. A new concept has evloved so we make compound words that become the new official words. I.E.... we have a new room in the house with a bath in it. It is the "bath room". It is the bathroom. A new company has started selling large peices of paper with the latest news and current events printed on it. It is a paper with news. It is a "news paper". It is a newspaper.

Spanish by comparison doesn't allow that same on-the-fly adaptability. Each year some offcial institute in Spain issues the official new words that are needed by spanish speakers. Typically they issue about a thousand new words. Much pressure is on the spanish language because of this agonizing wait for the "official" new words, contributes to the bastardization of spanish. New english technological words like "email", "mouse", "World Wide Web", and thousands of others develop too fast for spanish to "officially" assimilate.

I don't speak french, but I assume it is a similar situation, given anglicized words are illegal in certain settings in french.

Don't get me wrong here either. I am NOT knocking the romance languages at all. They have their own powerful strengths. But the purpose of this discussion is how language affects technological development, and the fact is that the germanic languages are much more conducive to technologically innovative thought. Spanish is more a spiritual and emotional language IMHO, which has a different set of benefits to a society.

Back to Painandgreed's original point. The lack of a written language to a society is definately the KEY stumbling block. Without that, the printing press could never be invented, and without the printing press... Nothing else really can follow to any extent. The printing press if you really think about it is unquestionably the most important development to unlocking the industrial revolution.

Final capstone point: What language was spoken by the man who invented the printing press? There you go.

 

[fusangite]

Bing.

So how do you integrate the fact that the Mexica had a written language comprising over 500 codices by 1517? That the Mayan written language was recently translated? Or that the Inca Quipu may also have been a written language but too many were incinerated before they could be deciphered?

Secondly, if the main purpose of language is to describe technology, why were so virtually all of the world's crucial pre-1492 technological advancements discovered and widely disseminated centuries before anyone wrote down any information about them? The various advances in metalsmithing, that enabled new weapons and agricultural practices had a lag of centuries (and, in the case of early smithing developments millennia) prior to people writing down instructions for doing them.

Similarly, if Romance languages are inferior to Germanic, how do you deal with the fact that the language in which scientific and technological information was written in Europe was Latin until the middle of the 17th century? Regardless of the writer's spoken language, the author of any major treatise penned the document in Latin.

Final capstone point: What language was spoken by the man who invented the printing press? There you go.

Well, of course the correct answer is Chinese. Have a nice day.

 

[Buzzardo]

So how do you integrate the fact that the Mexica had a written language comprising over 500 codices by 1517?

Doesn't that make the point? The ancient american civilizations that had written languages acheived great heights in development, learning and technology. Those that didn't....

Secondly, if the main purpose of language is to describe technology,

My point was not that the main purpose of language is describing technology, nor was it to knock the romance languages. The point is that some languages are more ideally suited for certain purposes. Charlamagne understood this, when he said "I speak french to women, spanish to god, and german to my horse".

Well, of course the correct answer is Chinese. Have a nice day.

Touche. Too bad they didn't capitalize on it like Mr. Guttenberg.

Here is a thought question... Could the chinese language have ever allowed the developement of modern computers? If not, why not?

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

For that matter, it's not even necessarily an ideal step. Yes, it allowed for the larger population growth that led to the development of fields of specialization (and thus, technological development), but it also a) allowed for the development and spread of wide-scale, epidemic diseases, and b) created a lifestyle in which there is actually less leisure time than in a hunting-gathering society- not to mention it requires more energy and effort to support an agricultural society. Among other things.

Definitely. For generalities regarding the issues, I think it rocks. For specifics, you would do well to look elsewhere, though.

Not just technology- disease was a major factor in the conquest of the New World. Over half the NW population was devastated by diseases the natives had no resistance to before they were even encountered by the conquerors (in North America, and to a lesser extent in South and Central America).

Thank-you for this awesome post.

One thing to keep in mind, however, is that the diseases that actually hurt the population in a big way didn't hit meso-America until a generation after the Spanish conquest.

Just attended a seminar on this amazing hybrid culture that was developing in the area. Beautiful buildings, amazing culture, an advanced style of art and organization that combined the best of both worlds, the missionaries and law that were at the forefront of the movement, and then the plagues that wiped it all out.

The plagues may have been 'fortunate', however, in that they hit while people were still really happy about the fall of the Aztecs and not yet terribly unhappy about the Spanish.

Certainly, the Spanish took out the Incas without the aid of disease.

Now, everyone else's colonization depended on disease wiping people out first. The Pilgrim's justification for coming here included an entire legal/theological argument on the recently emptied land. To be fair to them, when they began dying of similar diseases they were honest enough to turn a similar eye on their behavior and right to be there.