• pomegranatefern@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    15 days ago

    I’m honestly convinced that the Americas would have eventually repelled the European invaders if the introduced (and intentionally spread) diseases weren’t so devastating. Guns and metal armor are pretty good in warfare and all, but the size of the army required to subjugate millions of people across varied terrain where the invaders are wildly unfamiliar with the land and how to live in it while the defenders have been present for thousands of years, are very familiar with the land, have established warfare traditions, quickly adapt to introduced technologies, and have allied with historic enemies to repel invaders? Does not tend to go well for the invaders.

    • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      15 days ago

      That wouldn’t surprise me, though there’s both supporting and opposing historic examples for that.

      Like the colonization of Africa. While some areas like Ethiopia held out longer than others, Europe took most of Africa without disease. India was also subjugated, as well as Malaysia. I’m not really sure what the story was for Australia, though suspect it might have been more like the Americas.

      Or there’s China and Japan where Europe had the upper hand in dealings but weren’t able to essentially make China or Japan colonies under their control.

      • pomegranatefern@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        15 days ago

        There were definitely long term colonies in a lot of places, but most of those places are no longer under settler control. The damage to be repaired is huge, and there’s still economic control from a distance going on, but it’s miles different from what happened in the Americas, especially North America, I’d say.