Another response to Was Native Defeat Inevitable?:

I and others answered most of this in other messages. But wheeled cars? I assume you mean wheeled carts. Actually, the Maya knew of the wheel. Given the motive (European invasion) and opportunity (lack of disease), I suspect Native people would've adopted horses and carts even faster than they did.

And ships? You don't need ocean-going vessels to defend a land mass. Europeans spend a small fortune to send a shipload of colonists over; Indians sink ship with one fire arrow. Enough of that and the Indians wouldn't have needed much else.

>> Did I miss something at school? <<

You missed having all these intelligent Internet posters to provoke your thinking. <g>

>> Another example to defend my point of view: During the Mexican-American War the USA had the money, the weapons and the technology, we the mexicans were more but we were defeated and lost all our northern territories. <<

I don't know that the Americans had better technology or fewer numbers than the Mexicans. Let's put it this way: The two sides were arguably more equal than unequal by the 1840s. When Columbus arrived, the distinctions were much more clear. Indians: Millions of people to the Europeans' handful. Europeans: Gunpowder, steel, and disease.

Rob:
>> And ships? You don't need ocean-going vessels to defend a land mass. <<

Doug:
>> Um, that's news to military strategists the world over. <<

Have these so-called strategists heard of any warfare before 1500 or so? The Crusades...the Mongol conquest of most of Eurasia...the Viking and Roman conquests of Europe...Alexander's conquest of the Middle East...in each case the defenders didn't need ocean-going vessels to defend their land.

For that matter, sea power played no major role in the US-Mexican War, the Civil War, or the Indian Wars as they actually unfolded. Again, a naval force wasn't necessary to attack or defend.

Rob:
>> Europeans spend a small fortune to send a shipload of colonists over; Indians sink ship with one fire arrow. <<

Doug:
>> Are you assuming that there's an Indian every 100 feet or so along the entire Eastern Seaboard? <<

Are you assuming there's a ship every 100 feet or so along the Eastern Seaboard? Sending ships over was an extremely expensive proposition. Look how hard it was for Columbus to get funding for a mere three ships. A transatlantic "fleet" larger than that would've been almost impossible to muster.

Besides, the natural harbors along the coast probably number in the hundreds, not the hundreds of thousands. Most probably were inhabited already precisely because they were good harbors—they offered protection from the elements for local fishing. So the Native would've only had to maintain watch where they already maintained watch—at their home harbors—and perhaps a few dozen places more. Not an unmanageable task at all.

>> Since the ship will be hundreds of yards off-shore, you'll have to meet the ship in a canoe. I see it something like this:

"Sir, the lookout reports a small boat coming towards us...some native craft." <<

Ever hear of something called darkness? Do you think Europeans illuminated their ships with searchlights at night? Hardly. Whatever lamps they used had limited candlepower, literally. If they had lit big watch-fires, they would've risked setting their own ships on fire.

>> "They appear to be using a small brazier to light arrows. <<

If so, it would've been a small, covered brazier. Wearing dark clothes, the Indians would've been almost invisible at night. The ploy worked well at the Boston Tea Party. It would've worked just as well everywhere because it was indefensible.

>> Enough of this and the Europeans won't need much else. <<

Even if the Indians had given the Europeans a free pass to land, the Europeans would've been in dire straits. Fighting on unknown ground, with weapons that failed whenever it was wet, no reliable reinforcements, no supply lines whatsoever...they didn't stand a chance. If the Indians had made a concerted effort at full strength, they could've wiped out the Europeans well before the Europeans achieved a significant presence.

Need more evidence? In Lies My Teacher Told Me, James Loewen wrote:

The Natives also drove off or killed all the Norse settlers before Columbus. And they drove the Spanish out of the Southwest (Pope's rebellion). So much for the so-called inevitability of defeat.

>> It is strongly argued that, in fact, the North's navel ability is what actually one the Civil War. <<

"It is strongly argued"...by whom? If it's strongly argued by somebody, it's probably strongly argued against by somebody else.

I don't know enough about the Civil War to argue whether naval power was decisive, so that may be a bad example. But the two sides fought crucial battles like Gettysburg without naval participation. And you didn't challenge my other examples, which suggests naval power isn't necessary to defend a territory.

>> It would have been pretty much impossible for Native Americans to hold any particular piece of shore in the face of a concerted effort by Europeans. <<

Maybe, but my counterargument is that it would've been pretty much impossible for the Europeans to make a concerted effort.

>> 100 ships could not do much to take the entire Atlantic seaboard, but it could take any particular spot. <<

The Spanish Armada consisted of 130 ships. That was the sum total of naval resources Spain was able to muster to invade (not conquer) the relatively small island of Britain. The Armada failed badly and Spain fell into disarray for years.

Now consider what Spain or any European country would've needed to invade America. Let's make up some plausible hypotheticals:

The distance to America is maybe 3-5 times greater, so that would've required 3-5 times the resources. America's coastline is maybe 10 or 20 times greater, so that would've required 10-20 times the resources. Multiply the figures and you're talking 30-100 times the resources of the greatest fleet in the world at the time. A fleet that nevertheless wasn't enough to conquer, invade, or even touch a small, neighboring island kingdom.

A European conquest of America in the face of a concerted Native defense unhampered by disease? I'm happy to declare it would've been impossible.

>> And taking a harbor is not the same as holding a harbor. As I said above, people have to eat and drink. A fort needs land for food and sources of water. And that can't be defended with the same kind of overwhelming force needed to take the spot in the first place.

All the more reason the Europeans couldn't and wouldn't have defeated the Natives. Which was the premise of my original message.

Join our Native/pop culture blog and comment   Sign up to receive our FREE newsletter via e-mail   See the latest Native American stereotypes in the media   Political and social developments ripped from the headlines

. . .