Continental marines own in that game.Cheez wrote:
Yup! You ever played the Americans?doctastrangelove1964 wrote:
Anyone here ever play Rise of Nations?
Americans vs Anyone = Americans Win. GG. Very balanced.
Pages: 1 2
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- What was most responsible for the fall of the Native Americans?
Not a large population.
Sparse.
Sparse.
Well yeah... Natives were just as human as Europeans, but I'd argue the peaceful tribes represented a better way of life than the Europeans. The Aztecs and others like them represented very negative and barbaric ways of life, however....unnamednewbie13 wrote:
1And the fact that due to their inability to retain order, they were (for the most part) not able to maintain a cohesive, (somewhat) unified society.Turquoise wrote:
Well, the main reason why the Indians didn't form large monolithic cultures in most cases was because of the sparse numbers of natives and how far spread out they were from each other.1 Europe was jampacked full of people constantly at each other's throats for hundreds of years. This forced them to invent new ways of killing each other.2 Indians had less reason to develop this way, and instead, they focused on things like agriculture and hunting.3
In the cases where the tribes did form large sophisticated societies (like the Aztecs), they still could not survive the onset of diseases the colonists brought, and they did not have the technology necessary to militarily defeat the colonists in the end.4
I guess what I'm trying to say is that the Aztecs are a good example of where infighting was not an issue, and they still failed to defeat the Europeans.5
2The historical threat of the East and the interaction with the occasional Imperial power is largely responsible for whipping Europe into some kind of shape.
3...and robbery and torture and rape and murder. I'm sure you realize the truth, but there are some people out there who really believe that all Indians did was roll around in flowery fields with raccoons and twirl atop beatific cliffs while birds chirp merrily by.
4,5Agreed, in part.
Order and military might aren't everything. Those two things definitely aid in dominance and survival against aggressive cultures, but compassion and peace are ultimately more fulfilling on a cultural level.
In some sense the rile did help defeat the Native Americans. In other sense the bow and arrow acutally assisted them. If the Spainish were wearing chain mail, for hand to hand combat, an arrow could very easily get through the chain mail. (Same thing happens with sand bags.) Also, the Natives also knew how to make a camp fire that did not create a smoke. I know that there are stories where Natives, would kill European settlers because they did not know how to make a smokeless fire. That was a "technology" that helped the Natives.Parker wrote:
u know i wrote a paper for my history class a long time ago and had a bad mark put on it regarding the tech issue......so i wrote that the indians were at a marked disadvantage because for awhile they had no rifles to fight with....the bad mark was there because the teacher said that rifles were not a tech advantage....now, i know that bows and tomahawks are very formidable and that the indians back then were some of the best fighters on the planet. but a rifle is just better....anyone feel differently?unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I believe that disease and technology played their part because of the infighting among the tribes. That was the spirit of my argument. On the matter of peaceful tribes, I don't deny that they existed, but they were swallowed all the same by the leviathan of European and European-descended power.Turquoise wrote:
In another thread, unnamednewbie and I were having a discussion about Native Americans and why they fell to the European colonists.
My personal argument is that, while some tribes could be described as savage in their bellicose tendencies, I would argue that at least an equal number of if not more tribes were peaceful and tended to themselves.
Infighting among tribes was a significant factor in the fall of the Native Americans, but I still believe disease and technology played much bigger parts.
What do you guys think?
"What was most responsible for the fall of the Native Americans?"
Their trust of the "white" man.
Think about it. These guys could have wiped out the plymouth rock (early colonial) settlers. Actually, I think it happened at the lost colony of Ronoak (sp?). But no... They taught the white man how to survive over in here. They were amused by his beads and trinkets. They [Whitey] only wants a little land. There is more than enough land to go around. You can't even own land! Silly white man...
Nah... I love America and what it is and stands for. However, we did the Indians wrong. But wait! think back. What did other civilizations do to people it conqured? The Mongols raped/murdered and plundered. The Romans did likewise. The Nazis killed millions after taking over. All I'm typing here is: this wasn't anything new to the world.
It sucks that these cool tribes were "relocated" (exteriminated)... EH... I dunno where I'm going with this.... I've got some torn feelings about it.
A. Indians are cool
B. The new US government is cool
C. It could have been done differently
Anyways, I digress. The trust of the Indians towards the "white man" was their downfall (IMO).
Their trust of the "white" man.
Think about it. These guys could have wiped out the plymouth rock (early colonial) settlers. Actually, I think it happened at the lost colony of Ronoak (sp?). But no... They taught the white man how to survive over in here. They were amused by his beads and trinkets. They [Whitey] only wants a little land. There is more than enough land to go around. You can't even own land! Silly white man...
Nah... I love America and what it is and stands for. However, we did the Indians wrong. But wait! think back. What did other civilizations do to people it conqured? The Mongols raped/murdered and plundered. The Romans did likewise. The Nazis killed millions after taking over. All I'm typing here is: this wasn't anything new to the world.
It sucks that these cool tribes were "relocated" (exteriminated)... EH... I dunno where I'm going with this.... I've got some torn feelings about it.
A. Indians are cool
B. The new US government is cool
C. It could have been done differently
Anyways, I digress. The trust of the Indians towards the "white man" was their downfall (IMO).
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
I recall it was the before the arrival of Europeans that millions died of rampant disease. Then Spanish in South/Central America who caused the largest single population decline, by imported disease in the 1600s. Secondarily by direct combat and pitting tribes against each other which the British and French also did in the North. After 1790s US Expansion started hacking away at the scattered tribes of middle and western north america.
The final destruction was the casinos, that did most of the rest in, assimilating many of them into the capitalist tribes.
The final destruction was the casinos, that did most of the rest in, assimilating many of them into the capitalist tribes.
Pages: 1 2
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- What was most responsible for the fall of the Native Americans?