[Theory] Fortifying the American West

[Old Toby]

I'm marking this as "[Theory]" because it's more about how
ATLs might develop in general than a particular TL's history.

The basic gist is to examine how North America would have developed
if settled with less unity, and maybe a lower technological level.
Specifically, I've been thinking about a "Japan settles the West
Coast" TL, and about using North America as the base map for a
D&D world (a bit off topic for this group, I know), but let's
focus on the generics without getting bogged down in the details.

Basic scenario: You have a west coast settled by an overseas
civilization with medieval-to-enlightenment level technology.
This civilization gets at least a century to develop on its
own before it starts banging into other civs of a similar
level. There's another civ in Mexico, possibly expanding
northward, and a third in the Mississippi valley, all three
of them have similar tech levels. In between, you have
nomadic bands (possibly, but not necessarily technologically
inferior) occupying the deserts, mountains, high plains,
and subarctic forests. All three civs seek to fortify
their frontiers to guard against nomads, regulate trade,
and prevent the advance of the other civs. My question
is "what are the key points to fortify, the "inevitable"
sites of forts and castles?

Also, how "civilizable" is the American West without
industrial technology. OTL the intensive settlement
of the American west was highly dependent on the railroads,
barbed wire, deep drilled wells, etc, this means we
can't rely on history to show the potential of earlier
technologies for settling this terrain (since, with
the possible exception of New Mexico, none of the
land near the area in question was close to "fully settled"
at the time industrial technology really started changing
things.

So without this tech, how much of the area could be settled
given a mature civilization reaching its limit in that area?
Could the Pacific Civ successfully settle the Central Valley
of California and the "Inland Empire" of Washington? What
about settlements in the Rockies? How much can be eked out
of the various oases and rivers in the desert regions? How
far into the plains can the "Mississippi" civ push?


Old Toby
Least Known Dog on the Net


Old Toby
Least Known Dog on the Net

[Matt Giwer]

Post by Old Toby
I'm marking this as "[Theory]" because it's more about how
ATLs might develop in general than a particular TL's history.
The basic gist is to examine how North America would have developed
if settled with less unity, and maybe a lower technological level.
Specifically, I've been thinking about a "Japan settles the West
Coast" TL, and about using North America as the base map for a
D&D world (a bit off topic for this group, I know), but let's
focus on the generics without getting bogged down in the details.

Since when has off topic bothered anyone here?

Post by Old Toby
Basic scenario: You have a west coast settled by an overseas
civilization with medieval-to-enlightenment level technology.
This civilization gets at least a century to develop on its
own before it starts banging into other civs of a similar
level. There's another civ in Mexico, possibly expanding
northward, and a third in the Mississippi valley, all three
of them have similar tech levels. In between, you have
nomadic bands (possibly, but not necessarily technologically
inferior) occupying the deserts, mountains, high plains,
and subarctic forests. All three civs seek to fortify
their frontiers to guard against nomads, regulate trade,
and prevent the advance of the other civs. My question
is "what are the key points to fortify, the "inevitable"
sites of forts and castles?
Also, how "civilizable" is the American West without
industrial technology. OTL the intensive settlement
of the American west was highly dependent on the railroads,
barbed wire, deep drilled wells, etc, this means we
can't rely on history to show the potential of earlier
technologies for settling this terrain (since, with
the possible exception of New Mexico, none of the
land near the area in question was close to "fully settled"
at the time industrial technology really started changing
things.
So without this tech, how much of the area could be settled
given a mature civilization reaching its limit in that area?
Could the Pacific Civ successfully settle the Central Valley
of California and the "Inland Empire" of Washington? What
about settlements in the Rockies? How much can be eked out
of the various oases and rivers in the desert regions? How
far into the plains can the "Mississippi" civ push?

Here is your basic problem. The Mexican American war. America won.

At that time the "Industrial Revolution" was mainly in making cotton goods and
certainly did not have that name. Some damned fool had burned a perfectly good
boat trying to put a steam engine on it but that was about the extent of it.

Clearly there was more to it that any infant industry.

In the long term what I see America had was an ability to attract Europeans and
no qualms about doing so. The difference was Spain only wanted people from Spain
in their colonies, newly freed or not. Same with Brazil, Canada, Australia, and
Israel. (Got to get a dig in there.) America's ability to attract people was by
offering something completely different at a time when Europe was getting pissed
at monarchies they could either stay and fight or leave their monarchies.

If you put Japanese on the west coast then there are only going to be Japanese
on the west coast. Same if you pick any other Asian country. The only hope is
China at that time AND a willingness of China to allow people to leave if they
were dissatisfied. But they would also have to relinquish governance or they
would have to rebel and gain it.

Please Santa Ana, call yourself an emperor and I can raise ten armies from
Europeans who hate emperors. Unlike Europe these folks see a chance to win the
fight they ran from in Europe.

Because of the Mexican American war it was not technology. It was armies of
volunteers from all over Europe not technology that won.

You can see the same thing with the Indians. If they has united against the
Europeans they could have fought to a stalemate at least at the Mississippi if
not further east. They could have stolen the rifles, bought them from Mexico and
Canada, whatever. They would have been on the short end of it but just barely.

On the American side they would not have been able to pick off the tribes one
at a time with the help of other tribes.

So if you start with a Japanese west coast and you can even grant a Samurai
ethic to the Shogun or Emperor depending on your timing you still have all the
Indian tribes not giving a damn who they side with and you know the Japanese are
going to piss off the Indians even more than the Europeans. Indians say tea is
for squaws and can't hold their Sake.

One of the good things about Europeans in meeting Indians is in the US they
learned to put up with each other so Indians were not as great a stretch as it
would have been for Japanese.

[Aaron Kuperman]

Old Toby (***@earthlink.net) wrote:
: I'm marking this as "[Theory]" because it's more about how
: ATLs might develop in general than a particular TL's history.

: The basic gist is to examine how North America would have developed
: if settled with less unity, and maybe a lower technological level.
: Specifically, I've been thinking about a "Japan settles the West
: Coast" TL, and about using North America as the base map for a
: D&D world (a bit off topic for this group, I know), but let's
: focus on the generics without getting bogged down in the details.
[...]

In addition to the Indians (Native Americans, First Nations, etc.),
America was "settled" by people from England, Scotland, Russia, France,
Sweden, Netherlands, Spain, Portugal and Greenland - and that only counts
"settlers" sent by their own government. As it was, only England, Spain
and Portugal lasted long enough to to chased out by the descendants of
their own colonists (not counting the French who were chased out by the
slaves they brought, and the Greenlanders who were chased out by the
Indians). You have more groups in America, it will probably result in more
groups being conquered or forced to withdraw due to competition, rather
than more survivors.

If you have the old world "settlement" (genocide/conquest) earlier in
time, and less technologically advanced, the easier it will be for the
existing civilizations to adapt. The Scandanavians fighting with medieval
weapons lost. If the Spanish in the 16th century didn't have gunpowder,
how well would they have done.

[Alfred Montestruc]

Post by Aaron Kuperman
: I'm marking this as "[Theory]" because it's more about how
: ATLs might develop in general than a particular TL's history.
: The basic gist is to examine how North America would have developed
: if settled with less unity, and maybe a lower technological level.
: Specifically, I've been thinking about a "Japan settles the West
: Coast" TL, and about using North America as the base map for a
: D&D world (a bit off topic for this group, I know), but let's
: focus on the generics without getting bogged down in the details.
[...]
In addition to the Indians (Native Americans, First Nations, etc.),
America was "settled" by people from England, Scotland, Russia, France,
Sweden, Netherlands, Spain, Portugal and Greenland - and that only counts
"settlers" sent by their own government. As it was, only England, Spain
and Portugal lasted long enough to to chased out by the descendants of
their own colonists (not counting the French who were chased out by the
slaves they brought, and the Greenlanders who were chased out by the
Indians). You have more groups in America, it will probably result in more
groups being conquered or forced to withdraw due to competition, rather
than more survivors.
If you have the old world "settlement" (genocide/conquest) earlier in
time, and less technologically advanced, the easier it will be for the
existing civilizations to adapt. The Scandanavians fighting with medieval
weapons lost. If the Spanish in the 16th century didn't have gunpowder,
how well would they have done.

The gunpowder was not an issue. Firearms were not very useful against
the native people as they were slow to load and hand held guns were at
that time only in military use as being anti-armor weapons. The
natives had no very effective armor. Bows or crossbows were much
better as distance weapons against unarmored men.

The big issue was smallpox, the Viking Greenlanders did not have a
large enough population to have it.

After that is was iron armor and weapons which the Vikings had, but
not enough of, nor enough numbers.

Without smallpox the small Spanish parties that did the conquest of
Mexico or Peru would have been killed.

[BernardZ]

Post by Alfred Montestruc
The big issue was smallpox, the Viking Greenlanders did not have a
large enough population to have it.

The group was large enough. The Indians were lucky that none of the
Viking Greenlanders had it or if they did have it that none of them
spread it to them.

[Monte Davis]

Post by BernardZ
The group was large enough. The Indians were lucky that none of the
Viking Greenlanders had it or if they did have it that none of them
spread it to them.

We don't know that. Both the historical record and our (limited)
theoretical understanding of epidemiology in "virgin soil" populations
suggest that there were many waves of many diseases over several
centuries.

Say that a Skraeling took something nasty home from an encounter at
l'Anse aux Meadows, and 20% of everyone west to the Great Lakes and
down to the Chesapeake died in the next 10 years. Would you expect
that specific signal to have been detectible to European settlers c.
1600 -- or for that matter to be detectible today? Barring some very
lucky archeological find, I wouldn't.

[Alfred Montestruc]

Post by Monte Davis

Post by BernardZ
The group was large enough. The Indians were lucky that none of the
Viking Greenlanders had it or if they did have it that none of them
spread it to them.

We don't know that. Both the historical record and our (limited)
theoretical understanding of epidemiology in "virgin soil" populations
suggest that there were many waves of many diseases over several
centuries.
Say that a Skraeling took something nasty home from an encounter at
l'Anse aux Meadows, and 20% of everyone west to the Great Lakes and
down to the Chesapeake died in the next 10 years. Would you expect
that specific signal to have been detectible to European settlers c.
1600 -- or for that matter to be detectible today? Barring some very
lucky archeological find, I wouldn't.

Once smallpox got loose in the New World it would spread all over
North and South America and ~ 5 centuries later the Spanish would
bring mutated smallpox back to Europe and the effect would have been
two sided, and much more mild to the native Americans.

The massive increase of immunity to smallpox of Native Americans would
indeed have made a big difference. I doubt that the Spanish would
have been able to take Mexico or Peru.

[Phil McGregor]

On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 19:28:38 -0000, Alfred Montestruc

Post by Alfred Montestruc

Post by Monte Davis

Post by BernardZ
The group was large enough. The Indians were lucky that none of the
Viking Greenlanders had it or if they did have it that none of them
spread it to them.

We don't know that. Both the historical record and our (limited)
theoretical understanding of epidemiology in "virgin soil" populations
suggest that there were many waves of many diseases over several
centuries.
Say that a Skraeling took something nasty home from an encounter at
l'Anse aux Meadows, and 20% of everyone west to the Great Lakes and
down to the Chesapeake died in the next 10 years. Would you expect
that specific signal to have been detectible to European settlers c.
1600 -- or for that matter to be detectible today? Barring some very
lucky archeological find, I wouldn't.

Once smallpox got loose in the New World it would spread all over
North and South America and ~ 5 centuries later the Spanish would
bring mutated smallpox back to Europe and the effect would have been
two sided, and much more mild to the native Americans.

Possibly not. Smallpox needs large *concentrations* of population (aka
"cities" to become endemic, like (almost, if not) all epidemic
diseases.

You would have to guarantee, therefore, that it would reach the dense
urban sites of mesoamerica from L'anse to have a chance of becoming
endemic in the Americas. I wouldn't like to guarantee it from one
instance occurring once.

As for it mutating. Well, there are two strains (minor, @ ~1%
mortality and major, @ 3-3.5% mortality), but apart from that no
evidence that it has mutated harmfully in Eurasia any time since it
first appeared, quite some time ago.

It *has*, evidently, crossed with cowpox and horsepox to the extent
that it is now, evidently, genetically impossible to tell for certain
what the ancestrals strain(s) of the latter were like (if, indeed,
they were separate diseases and not mutations).

However, Smallpox itself seems to be the only "mutation" from any
ancestral form in at least a couple of thousand years that is
particularly lethal.

I wouldn't place a high chance on some weird mutation occurring just
because it is transferred to the Americas ... especially as it seems
to be a mutation, in itself, of a disease of large domesticated
herding ungulates (cattle, horses) of which there are ... none ... in
the Americas of the time.

YMMV.

Phil

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: ***@pacific.net.au

[bernardz]

Post by Phil McGregor
Possibly not. Smallpox needs large *concentrations* of population (aka
"cities" to become endemic, like (almost, if not) all epidemic
diseases.
You would have to guarantee, therefore, that it would reach the dense
urban sites of mesoamerica from L'anse to have a chance of becoming
endemic in the Americas. I wouldn't like to guarantee it from one
instance occurring once.

I remember this is what happened to the Comanche Indians as they were
in small groups they suffered less from smallpox.

On a similar point in relation to white men diseases.

Years ago I remember reading a study of US Indians for the first time
infected with the flue in a mining town. The disease itself was not
that deadly to them but....


What the writer stated was that those Indians that were close to the
mining town did okay as the white people in the town looked after them
while they were sick.
On the other hand those further from the town suffered more as the
whole tribe got sick together. So there was no one to look after them
while they were sick as a result many dead in this group.

[Phil McGregor]

Post by bernardz

Post by Phil McGregor
Possibly not. Smallpox needs large *concentrations* of population (aka
"cities" to become endemic, like (almost, if not) all epidemic
diseases.
You would have to guarantee, therefore, that it would reach the dense
urban sites of mesoamerica from L'anse to have a chance of becoming
endemic in the Americas. I wouldn't like to guarantee it from one
instance occurring once.

I remember this is what happened to the Comanche Indians as they were
in small groups they suffered less from smallpox.
On a similar point in relation to white men diseases.
Years ago I remember reading a study of US Indians for the first time
infected with the flue in a mining town. The disease itself was not
that deadly to them but....
What the writer stated was that those Indians that were close to the
mining town did okay as the white people in the town looked after them
while they were sick.
On the other hand those further from the town suffered more as the
whole tribe got sick together. So there was no one to look after them
while they were sick as a result many dead in this group.

Indeed, you are quite correct in your memories.

In fact, this is a well known factor with disease lethality,
especially (but not only, of course!) in "virgin field" epidemics when
flight by the (seemingly) still healthy is a considered and common
response.

In such situations, mortality rates rise *considerably* because those
who are ill are generally not able to take basic care of themselves
... no-one to get water, cook food, toilet etc ... and this increases
their vulnerability.

I haven't seen specific figures for the survival difference, but it is
a commonly mentioned factor in increased survival rates.

MacNeills "Plagues and Peoples" has more on it, and it is has recently
been reprinted for the first time since, IIRC, the early-mid 1970s and
is worth tracking down.

Phil

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: ***@pacific.net.au

[Alfred Montestruc]

Post by Phil McGregor
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 19:28:38 -0000, Alfred Montestruc

Post by Alfred Montestruc

Post by Monte Davis

Post by BernardZ
The group was large enough. The Indians were lucky that none of the
Viking Greenlanders had it or if they did have it that none of them
spread it to them.

We don't know that. Both the historical record and our (limited)
theoretical understanding of epidemiology in "virgin soil" populations
suggest that there were many waves of many diseases over several
centuries.
Say that a Skraeling took something nasty home from an encounter at
l'Anse aux Meadows, and 20% of everyone west to the Great Lakes and
down to the Chesapeake died in the next 10 years. Would you expect
that specific signal to have been detectible to European settlers c.
1600 -- or for that matter to be detectible today? Barring some very
lucky archeological find, I wouldn't.

Once smallpox got loose in the New World it would spread all over
North and South America and ~ 5 centuries later the Spanish would
bring mutated smallpox back to Europe and the effect would have been
two sided, and much more mild to the native Americans.

Possibly not. Smallpox needs large *concentrations* of population (aka
"cities" to become endemic, like (almost, if not) all epidemic
diseases.
You would have to guarantee, therefore, that it would reach the dense
urban sites of mesoamerica from L'anse to have a chance of becoming
endemic in the Americas. I wouldn't like to guarantee it from one
instance occurring once.

First off the native American population of North America at that time
was probably much higher than in the aftermath of the Spanish
introduced smallpox epademic. Note that a agricultural civilization
existed in the Mississippi valley in that era (Mound Builder) which
traded on the river and even out into the Gulf of Mexico islands that
was reduced to small village agriculture by the smallpox.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mound_Builders#Mississippian_culture

So you may be underestimating the population density at the start, and
the rate at which regular trade will spread the pox.

Also my original point was that the Viking population of Iceland was
to small to sustain smallpox. As in they either had it as major
crisis, or they did not have it at all. If they had it as a crisis
then the probability of spread to Native Americans was high, and if
you get a base infected population numbering in the 10s +, then I
think the probability is it will jump to a major village and then to a
city and then throughout the mound builder civilization and then by
trade routes to Mezo-Ameican and then to Peru by trade.

Yes sparsely populated areas of North or South America may not get it,
so what?

Post by Phil McGregor
evidence that it has mutated harmfully in Eurasia any time since it
first appeared, quite some time ago.

My understanding is that the mutation rate of a virus can be quite
high, especially in a virgin field.

Post by Phil McGregor
It *has*, evidently, crossed with cowpox and horsepox to the extent
that it is now, evidently, genetically impossible to tell for certain
what the ancestrals strain(s) of the latter were like (if, indeed,
they were separate diseases and not mutations).
However, Smallpox itself seems to be the only "mutation" from any
ancestral form in at least a couple of thousand years that is
particularly lethal.
I wouldn't place a high chance on some weird mutation occurring just
because it is transferred to the Americas ... especially as it seems
to be a mutation, in itself, of a disease of large domesticated
herding ungulates (cattle, horses) of which there are ... none ... in
the Americas of the time.
YMMV.
Phil
Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
- Show quoted text -

[Phil McGregor]

On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 08:04:36 -0700, Alfred Montestruc

Post by Alfred Montestruc

Post by Phil McGregor
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 19:28:38 -0000, Alfred Montestruc

Post by Alfred Montestruc

Post by Monte Davis

Post by BernardZ
The group was large enough. The Indians were lucky that none of the
Viking Greenlanders had it or if they did have it that none of them
spread it to them.

We don't know that. Both the historical record and our (limited)
theoretical understanding of epidemiology in "virgin soil" populations
suggest that there were many waves of many diseases over several
centuries.
Say that a Skraeling took something nasty home from an encounter at
l'Anse aux Meadows, and 20% of everyone west to the Great Lakes and
down to the Chesapeake died in the next 10 years. Would you expect
that specific signal to have been detectible to European settlers c.
1600 -- or for that matter to be detectible today? Barring some very
lucky archeological find, I wouldn't.

Once smallpox got loose in the New World it would spread all over
North and South America and ~ 5 centuries later the Spanish would
bring mutated smallpox back to Europe and the effect would have been
two sided, and much more mild to the native Americans.

Possibly not. Smallpox needs large *concentrations* of population (aka
"cities" to become endemic, like (almost, if not) all epidemic
diseases.
You would have to guarantee, therefore, that it would reach the dense
urban sites of mesoamerica from L'anse to have a chance of becoming
endemic in the Americas. I wouldn't like to guarantee it from one
instance occurring once.

First off the native American population of North America at that time
was probably much higher than in the aftermath of the Spanish
introduced smallpox epademic.

Indeed it was. And if the Norse had landed in Mesoamerica there could
have been a problem. Of course, they would probably have ended up on a
pyramid having their hearts ripped out, so maybe not as big a one as
existed with the Spanish.

In North America there were no major cities/urban areas ... certainly
not in the area around where the Norse landed.

As for the Mound Builders, they had large "towns" ... as I understand
it, probably of several thousand people and probably more like Mayan
"cities" which actually had quite low population densities, it seems
...

... see the problem?

Not big enough or dense enough to support an epidemic disease becoming
*internally* endemic

Post by Alfred Montestruc
Note that a agricultural civilization
existed in the Mississippi valley in that era (Mound Builder) which
traded on the river and even out into the Gulf of Mexico islands that
was reduced to small village agriculture by the smallpox.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mound_Builders#Mississippian_culture

Note that this cite does not provide a single statement that suggests
that the mound builders had cities or towns of any size.

Neolithic peoples in Eurasia who also did not have cities or towns
also built barrows and mounds of similar size without ever being
urbanised.

Please provide cites for the probable size and population density of
mound builder "cities".

Post by Alfred Montestruc
So you may be underestimating the population density at the start, and
the rate at which regular trade will spread the pox.

I am always happy to be corrected. Please provide cites that actually
suggest that mound builder cities existed and what their population
and population density were.

Unless there are cities, my point stands unchallenged, in effect.

Post by Alfred Montestruc
Also my original point was that the Viking population of Iceland was
to small to sustain smallpox. As in they either had it as major
crisis, or they did not have it at all. If they had it as a crisis
then the probability of spread to Native Americans was high, and if
you get a base infected population numbering in the 10s +, then I
think the probability is it will jump to a major village and then to a
city and then throughout the mound builder civilization and then by
trade routes to Mezo-Ameican and then to Peru by trade.

These nonexistent cities in North America. Yes?

Post by Alfred Montestruc
Yes sparsely populated areas of North or South America may not get it,
so what?

So what? Well, L'anse Aux Meadows is such a "sparsely populated area"
and the chance of the disease spreading from there is ... extremely
low.

If you suggest that the Vikings sailed, directly or indirectly, to
Mesoamerica and settled there (probably ending in the cookpot, but,
let's assume), then that might be different ... except for the fact
that you have just radically increased voyage time from Iceland and
there is considerable evidence to suggest that this will make it less
likely that anyone who has had Smallpox on the boat will still be
infectious when they reach Mesoamerica.

Which was my point as well.

Post by Alfred Montestruc

Post by Phil McGregor
evidence that it has mutated harmfully in Eurasia any time since it
first appeared, quite some time ago.

My understanding is that the mutation rate of a virus can be quite
high, especially in a virgin field.

Which is at odds with the experience of real smallpox in the real
Eurasian world ... or, indeed, anywhere else it has appeared through
spread *from* the Eurasian world.

There are, still, only two strains, after at least a couple of
thousand years, including areas where it was a virgin field.

So it would seem your understanding is ... faulty.

Or the hypothesis on which it is based is.

YMMV.

Phil

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: ***@pacific.net.au

[Jack Linthicum]

Post by Phil McGregor
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 08:04:36 -0700, Alfred Montestruc

Post by Alfred Montestruc

Post by Phil McGregor
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 19:28:38 -0000, Alfred Montestruc

Post by Alfred Montestruc

Post by Monte Davis

Post by BernardZ
The group was large enough. The Indians were lucky that none of the
Viking Greenlanders had it or if they did have it that none of them
spread it to them.

We don't know that. Both the historical record and our (limited)
theoretical understanding of epidemiology in "virgin soil" populations
suggest that there were many waves of many diseases over several
centuries.
Say that a Skraeling took something nasty home from an encounter at
l'Anse aux Meadows, and 20% of everyone west to the Great Lakes and
down to the Chesapeake died in the next 10 years. Would you expect
that specific signal to have been detectible to European settlers c.
1600 -- or for that matter to be detectible today? Barring some very
lucky archeological find, I wouldn't.

Once smallpox got loose in the New World it would spread all over
North and South America and ~ 5 centuries later the Spanish would
bring mutated smallpox back to Europe and the effect would have been
two sided, and much more mild to the native Americans.

Possibly not. Smallpox needs large *concentrations* of population (aka
"cities" to become endemic, like (almost, if not) all epidemic
diseases.
You would have to guarantee, therefore, that it would reach the dense
urban sites of mesoamerica from L'anse to have a chance of becoming
endemic in the Americas. I wouldn't like to guarantee it from one
instance occurring once.

First off the native American population of North America at that time
was probably much higher than in the aftermath of the Spanish
introduced smallpox epademic.

Indeed it was. And if the Norse had landed in Mesoamerica there could
have been a problem. Of course, they would probably have ended up on a
pyramid having their hearts ripped out, so maybe not as big a one as
existed with the Spanish.
In North America there were no major cities/urban areas ... certainly
not in the area around where the Norse landed.
As for the Mound Builders, they had large "towns" ... as I understand
it, probably of several thousand people and probably more like Mayan
"cities" which actually had quite low population densities, it seems
...
... see the problem?
Not big enough or dense enough to support an epidemic disease becoming
*internally* endemic

Post by Alfred Montestruc
Note that a agricultural civilization
existed in the Mississippi valley in that era (Mound Builder) which
traded on the river and even out into the Gulf of Mexico islands that
was reduced to small village agriculture by the smallpox.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mound_Builders#Mississippian_culture

Note that this cite does not provide a single statement that suggests
that the mound builders had cities or towns of any size.
Neolithic peoples in Eurasia who also did not have cities or towns
also built barrows and mounds of similar size without ever being
urbanised.
Please provide cites for the probable size and population density of
mound builder "cities".

Post by Alfred Montestruc
So you may be underestimating the population density at the start, and
the rate at which regular trade will spread the pox.

I am always happy to be corrected. Please provide cites that actually
suggest that mound builder cities existed and what their population
and population density were.
Unless there are cities, my point stands unchallenged, in effect.

Post by Alfred Montestruc
Also my original point was that the Viking population of Iceland was
to small to sustain smallpox. As in they either had it as major
crisis, or they did not have it at all. If they had it as a crisis
then the probability of spread to Native Americans was high, and if
you get a base infected population numbering in the 10s +, then I
think the probability is it will jump to a major village and then to a
city and then throughout the mound builder civilization and then by
trade routes to Mezo-Ameican and then to Peru by trade.

These nonexistent cities in North America. Yes?

Post by Alfred Montestruc
Yes sparsely populated areas of North or South America may not get it,
so what?

So what? Well, L'anse Aux Meadows is such a "sparsely populated area"
and the chance of the disease spreading from there is ... extremely
low.
If you suggest that the Vikings sailed, directly or indirectly, to
Mesoamerica and settled there (probably ending in the cookpot, but,
let's assume), then that might be different ... except for the fact
that you have just radically increased voyage time from Iceland and
there is considerable evidence to suggest that this will make it less
likely that anyone who has had Smallpox on the boat will still be
infectious when they reach Mesoamerica.
Which was my point as well.

Post by Alfred Montestruc

Post by Phil McGregor
evidence that it has mutated harmfully in Eurasia any time since it
first appeared, quite some time ago.

My understanding is that the mutation rate of a virus can be quite
high, especially in a virgin field.

Which is at odds with the experience of real smallpox in the real
Eurasian world ... or, indeed, anywhere else it has appeared through
spread *from* the Eurasian world.
There are, still, only two strains, after at least a couple of
thousand years, including areas where it was a virgin field.
So it would seem your understanding is ... faulty.
Or the hypothesis on which it is based is.
YMMV.
Phil
Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

30,000 is enough

Massive earthen mounds of varying size and function dominated the
great Mississippian landscape. At Cahokia, a 13th century population
of approximately 30,000 inhabitants built flat top mounds for
buildings and other mounds for burials and boundary markers. The
largest Cahokian mound, Monks Mound, has two terraces and a massive
base measuring 739,224 square feet making it one quarter larger than
the base of the Great Pyramid of Giza. Atop Monks Mound was the
residence of the leading chief known as the Great Sun whose duty it
was to keep the forces of nature in balance and thereby ensure
continued prosperity for his people. Cahokia's population was greater
than any contemporary European city of the day, and it wasn't until
the late 18th century that a North American City, Philadelphia,
finally had population that eclipsed that of 13th Century Cahokia.
http://www.mississippian-artifacts.com/

[bernardz]

Post by Jack Linthicum

Post by Phil McGregor
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 08:04:36 -0700, Alfred Montestruc

Post by Alfred Montestruc

Post by Phil McGregor
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 19:28:38 -0000, Alfred Montestruc

Post by Alfred Montestruc

Post by Monte Davis

Post by BernardZ
The group was large enough. The Indians were lucky that none of the
Viking Greenlanders had it or if they did have it that none of them
spread it to them.

We don't know that. Both the historical record and our (limited)
theoretical understanding of epidemiology in "virgin soil" populations
suggest that there were many waves of many diseases over several
centuries.
Say that a Skraeling took something nasty home from an encounter at
l'Anse aux Meadows, and 20% of everyone west to the Great Lakes and
down to the Chesapeake died in the next 10 years. Would you expect
that specific signal to have been detectible to European settlers c.
1600 -- or for that matter to be detectible today? Barring some very
lucky archeological find, I wouldn't.

Once smallpox got loose in the New World it would spread all over
North and South America and ~ 5 centuries later the Spanish would
bring mutated smallpox back to Europe and the effect would have been
two sided, and much more mild to the native Americans.

Possibly not. Smallpox needs large *concentrations* of population (aka
"cities" to become endemic, like (almost, if not) all epidemic
diseases.
You would have to guarantee, therefore, that it would reach the dense
urban sites of mesoamerica from L'anse to have a chance of becoming
endemic in the Americas. I wouldn't like to guarantee it from one
instance occurring once.

First off the native American population of North America at that time
was probably much higher than in the aftermath of the Spanish
introduced smallpox epademic.

Indeed it was. And if the Norse had landed in Mesoamerica there could
have been a problem. Of course, they would probably have ended up on a
pyramid having their hearts ripped out, so maybe not as big a one as
existed with the Spanish.
In North America there were no major cities/urban areas ... certainly
not in the area around where the Norse landed.
As for the Mound Builders, they had large "towns" ... as I understand
it, probably of several thousand people and probably more like Mayan
"cities" which actually had quite low population densities, it seems
...
... see the problem?
Not big enough or dense enough to support an epidemic disease becoming
*internally* endemic

Post by Alfred Montestruc
Note that a agricultural civilization
existed in the Mississippi valley in that era (Mound Builder) which
traded on the river and even out into the Gulf of Mexico islands that
was reduced to small village agriculture by the smallpox.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mound_Builders#Mississippian_culture

Note that this cite does not provide a single statement that suggests
that the mound builders had cities or towns of any size.
Neolithic peoples in Eurasia who also did not have cities or towns
also built barrows and mounds of similar size without ever being
urbanised.
Please provide cites for the probable size and population density of
mound builder "cities".

Post by Alfred Montestruc
So you may be underestimating the population density at the start, and
the rate at which regular trade will spread the pox.

I am always happy to be corrected. Please provide cites that actually
suggest that mound builder cities existed and what their population
and population density were.
Unless there are cities, my point stands unchallenged, in effect.

Post by Alfred Montestruc
Also my original point was that the Viking population of Iceland was
to small to sustain smallpox. As in they either had it as major
crisis, or they did not have it at all. If they had it as a crisis
then the probability of spread to Native Americans was high, and if
you get a base infected population numbering in the 10s +, then I
think the probability is it will jump to a major village and then to a
city and then throughout the mound builder civilization and then by
trade routes to Mezo-Ameican and then to Peru by trade.

These nonexistent cities in North America. Yes?

Post by Alfred Montestruc
Yes sparsely populated areas of North or South America may not get it,
so what?

So what? Well, L'anse Aux Meadows is such a "sparsely populated area"
and the chance of the disease spreading from there is ... extremely
low.
If you suggest that the Vikings sailed, directly or indirectly, to
Mesoamerica and settled there (probably ending in the cookpot, but,
let's assume), then that might be different ... except for the fact
that you have just radically increased voyage time from Iceland and
there is considerable evidence to suggest that this will make it less
likely that anyone who has had Smallpox on the boat will still be
infectious when they reach Mesoamerica.
Which was my point as well.

Post by Alfred Montestruc

Post by Phil McGregor
evidence that it has mutated harmfully in Eurasia any time since it
first appeared, quite some time ago.

My understanding is that the mutation rate of a virus can be quite
high, especially in a virgin field.

Which is at odds with the experience of real smallpox in the real
Eurasian world ... or, indeed, anywhere else it has appeared through
spread *from* the Eurasian world.
There are, still, only two strains, after at least a couple of
thousand years, including areas where it was a virgin field.
So it would seem your understanding is ... faulty.
Or the hypothesis on which it is based is.
YMMV.
Phil
Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

30,000 is enough
Massive earthen mounds of varying size and function dominated the
great Mississippian landscape. At Cahokia, a 13th century population
of approximately 30,000 inhabitants built flat top mounds for
buildings and other mounds for burials and boundary markers. The
largest Cahokian mound, Monks Mound, has two terraces and a massive
base measuring 739,224 square feet making it one quarter larger than
the base of the Great Pyramid of Giza. Atop Monks Mound was the
residence of the leading chief known as the Great Sun whose duty it
was to keep the forces of nature in balance and thereby ensure
continued prosperity for his people. Cahokia's population was greater
than any contemporary European city of the day, and it wasn't until
the late 18th century that a North American City, Philadelphia,
finally had population that eclipsed that of 13th Century Cahokia.http://www.mississippian-artifacts.com/

I think these population figures are dubious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cahokia

Archaeologists estimate the city's population at between 8,000 and
40,000 at its peak, with more people living in outlying farming
villages that supplied the main urban center.

Apparently there seems to be a great variation in estimates.

[Phil McGregor]

Post by bernardz

Post by Jack Linthicum
great Mississippian landscape. At Cahokia, a 13th century population
of approximately 30,000 inhabitants built flat top mounds for

I think these population figures are dubious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cahokia
Archaeologists estimate the city's population at between 8,000 and
40,000 at its peak, with more people living in outlying farming
villages that supplied the main urban center.
Apparently there seems to be a great variation in estimates.

How have the mighty fallen.

Jack *used* to be a fairly good, solid, poster ... but over the last
couple of years he's gone off the rails and, in almost any instance,
where he's made assertions, and been called on them, he's been shown
to be spouting bullshit.

Sad, really.

Phil

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: ***@pacific.net.au

[Phil McGregor]

On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 15:37:29 -0700, Jack Linthicum

Post by Jack Linthicum

Post by Phil McGregor
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 08:04:36 -0700, Alfred Montestruc

30,000 is enough

Not in isolation.

In any case, as usual, your claims are ... misleading.

Post by Jack Linthicum
Massive earthen mounds of varying size and function dominated the
great Mississippian landscape. At Cahokia, a 13th century population
of approximately 30,000 inhabitants built flat top mounds for

Not according to ...

http://anthropik.com/2005/10/the-fall-of-great-cahokia/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/daily/march/12/cahokia.htm

... which suggests 15,000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cahokia

... suggests "between 8000 and 40000"

And in ...

http://www.legendsofamerica.com/IL-Cahokia.html

... it states ...

"At its peak from 1,100 to 1,200 A.D., the city covered nearly six
square miles and boasted a population of as many as 20,000 people.
Houses were arranged in rows around open plazas. Agricultural fields
and a number of smaller villages surrounded and supplied the city.
The Cahokians were known to have traded with other tribes as far away
as Minnesota."

... which, is a population density of around 5 people per acre.
Typical medieval european cities had a density of at least 50-60
people per acre.

As I said, these figures are more in line with what is suspected are
the figures for the Mayan "cities" ... they were really very small
urban centers with large rural areas around them.

Your usual sloppy "research" no doubt ... being charitable and
assuming that you aren't being deliberately obfuscatory as is your
proven wont.

Phil

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: ***@pacific.net.au

[Monte Davis]

Post by Alfred Montestruc
Once smallpox got loose in the New World it would spread all over
North and South America...

As Phil also points out, disease simply isn't the all-or-nothing
phenomenon you seem to envision. Even in immunologically naive
populations, not every outbreak is an epidemic and not every epidemic
is a pandemic.

[BernardZ]

Post by Monte Davis

Post by Alfred Montestruc
Once smallpox got loose in the New World it would spread all over
North and South America...

As Phil also points out, disease simply isn't the all-or-nothing
phenomenon you seem to envision. Even in immunologically naive
populations, not every outbreak is an epidemic and not every epidemic
is a pandemic.

Yes but a disease that spreads slowly can still be a killer.

Overall Alfred Montestruc is right. What say in a small isolated
community can happen is not like in prewhiteman America. In a small
isolated community what can stop it from getting critical is it can
quickly kill all the infected people. Since the infected people are
dead, the disease has no hosts and so dies out. That is why on small
Islands sometimes dangerous diseases get quickly eliminated.

However in something like the Americas, as there were more Indians
available for infection it lives and spreads. Later these new infected
people bring it back. That is why Comanches got hit by waves of
smallpox. New hosts come along.

Please read up on smallpox among the plain Indians of North America in
the late 1830s.

http://www.thefurtrapper.com/indian_smallpox.htm

Note the other issue is that it is a matter of degree. White people are
badly affected by these same diseases too - cholera, dysentery, typhus,
plague and smallpox are dangerous to them too. Would you go to someone
who was infected? Doing a net search, I discovered that smallpox could
kill up to 40 percent of Europeans.

[Phil McGregor]

On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 00:06:32 +1000, BernardZ

Post by BernardZ

Post by Monte Davis

Post by Alfred Montestruc
Once smallpox got loose in the New World it would spread all over
North and South America...

As Phil also points out, disease simply isn't the all-or-nothing
phenomenon you seem to envision. Even in immunologically naive
populations, not every outbreak is an epidemic and not every epidemic
is a pandemic.

Yes but a disease that spreads slowly can still be a killer.
Overall Alfred Montestruc is right. What say in a small isolated
community can happen is not like in prewhiteman America. In a small
isolated community what can stop it from getting critical is it can
quickly kill all the infected people. Since the infected people are
dead, the disease has no hosts and so dies out. That is why on small
Islands sometimes dangerous diseases get quickly eliminated.
However in something like the Americas, as there were more Indians
available for infection it lives and spreads. Later these new infected
people bring it back. That is why Comanches got hit by waves of
smallpox. New hosts come along.

However, where the introduction is done on a one time, one case,
basis, there is no "replenishment" of the disease.

Your example of the Comanches is misleading, or you misunderstand it,
I am not sure which.

Why? Simply because the "waves" of smallpox were not *internally
generated* ... the Comanche (and Plains Indian) populations were too
small and population densities too low for the disease to become
endemic, they were simply regularly reintroduced from *outside*
(white, basically) populations where the numbers and densities *were*
high enough for the disease to be endemic.

The classic case is of measles (? one of the 'childhood' diseases,
anyway) where it has been demonstrated statistically that a minimum
population of c. 250,000 is required at a high (urban) density for the
disease to become endemic. Small rural communities remain free of the
disease until, semi-regularly, it is (re)introduced from outside and
rages through the locals who have not been exposed since the last
outbreak ... it then "dies out" because the population is too small
and/or not dense enough ... only to be reintroduced some time later
when conditions (chance, basically) means there are a) enough
uninfected to *be* infected and b) when a carrier passes through.

Post by BernardZ
Please read up on smallpox among the plain Indians of North America in
the late 1830s.
http://www.thefurtrapper.com/indian_smallpox.htm
Note the other issue is that it is a matter of degree. White people are
badly affected by these same diseases too - cholera, dysentery, typhus,

But not *as* badly. In the case of childhood diseases, they are not
... yet when previously unexposed populations are exposed to such for
the first time the mortality rates are high. Part of the reason is
that such diseases tend to be much more serious when they affect
*adults* as opposed to children and the other part is that there is
evidence that breast fed babies get some of their mothers antibodies
passed on in the first several weeks after birth, providing limited
immunity to the degree where childhood diseases become ... less than
life threatening.

There is some evidence, IIRC, that similar minimal immunity may be
passed on even for diseases such as Smallpox.

Post by BernardZ
plague and smallpox are dangerous to them too. Would you go to someone
who was infected? Doing a net search, I discovered that smallpox could
kill up to 40 percent of Europeans.

"could" is a key word. Outbreaks of influenza and childhood diseases
on isolated pacific islands after visits by whites led to mortality
rates ... of those who contracted the diseases ... of "up to" 90%,
depending on the circumstances. Which is *not* the same as "90% of the
populace died" ... only 90% of those who caught the disease ... which
is usually, almost always in fact, far far less.

Weasel words are deliberately used for this reason.

Phil

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: ***@pacific.net.au

[bernardz]

Post by Phil McGregor

Post by BernardZ

Post by Monte Davis

Post by Alfred Montestruc
Once smallpox got loose in the New World it would spread all over
North and South America...

As Phil also points out, disease simply isn't the all-or-nothing
phenomenon you seem to envision. Even in immunologically naive
populations, not every outbreak is an epidemic and not every epidemic
is a pandemic.

Yes but a disease that spreads slowly can still be a killer.
Overall Alfred Montestruc is right. What say in a small isolated
community can happen is not like in prewhiteman America. In a small
isolated community what can stop it from getting critical is it can
quickly kill all the infected people. Since the infected people are
dead, the disease has no hosts and so dies out. That is why on small
Islands sometimes dangerous diseases get quickly eliminated.
However in something like the Americas, as there were more Indians
available for infection it lives and spreads. Later these new infected
people bring it back. That is why Comanches got hit by waves of
smallpox. New hosts come along.

However, where the introduction is done on a one time, one case,
basis, there is no "replenishment" of the disease.

Hod that thought!

Post by Phil McGregor
Your example of the Comanches is misleading, or you misunderstand it,
I am not sure which.

I may not understand but I don't mislead.

Post by Phil McGregor
Why? Simply because the "waves" of smallpox were not *internally
generated* ... the Comanche (and Plains Indian) populations were too
small and population densities too low for the disease to become
endemic, they were simply regularly reintroduced from *outside*
(white, basically) populations where the numbers and densities *were*
high enough for the disease to be endemic.
The classic case is of measles (? one of the 'childhood' diseases,
anyway) where it has been demonstrated statistically that a minimum
population of c. 250,000 is required at a high (urban) density for the
disease to become endemic.

Well the American Indians were well over that figure.

Post by Phil McGregor
Small rural communities remain free of the
disease until, semi-regularly, it is (re)introduced from outside and
rages through the locals who have not been exposed since the last
outbreak ... it then "dies out" because the population is too small
and/or not dense enough ... only to be reintroduced some time later
when conditions (chance, basically) means there are a) enough
uninfected to *be* infected and b) when a carrier passes through.

This is true. Put it into the situation in the prewhiteman Americas
overtime as the smallpox spreads .

(tribe a) to (tribe b) to (tribe c) to (tribe d) etc etc to (tribe
z)

When it hits (tribe z), in (tribe a) it has died out and a sick person
in (tribe z) will be able to reinfect (tribe a) and (tribe z) becomes
the carrier

Post by Phil McGregor

Post by BernardZ
Please read up on smallpox among the plain Indians of North America in
the late 1830s.
http://www.thefurtrapper.com/indian_smallpox.htm
Note the other issue is that it is a matter of degree. White people are
badly affected by these same diseases too - cholera, dysentery, typhus,

But not *as* badly. In the case of childhood diseases, they are not
... yet when previously unexposed populations are exposed to such for
the first time the mortality rates are high. Part of the reason is
that such diseases tend to be much more serious when they affect
*adults* as opposed to children and the other part is that there is
evidence that breast fed babies get some of their mothers antibodies
passed on in the first several weeks after birth, providing limited
immunity to the degree where childhood diseases become ... less than
life threatening.

An example would be one of my uncles who was a soldier in the army,
went to hospital because of German measles. Boy did we make fun of
him.

Post by Phil McGregor
There is some evidence, IIRC, that similar minimal immunity may be
passed on even for diseases such as Smallpox.

Post by BernardZ
plague and smallpox are dangerous to them too. Would you go to someone
who was infected? Doing a net search, I discovered that smallpox could
kill up to 40 percent of Europeans.

"could" is a key word. Outbreaks of influenza and childhood diseases
on isolated pacific islands after visits by whites led to mortality
rates ... of those who contracted the diseases ... of "up to" 90%,
depending on the circumstances. Which is *not* the same as "90% of the
populace died" ... only 90% of those who caught the disease ... which
is usually, almost always in fact, far far less.

Agreed. The reason why the scattered tribes of the Comanches were
fewer affected then other Indians as they had less contact with other
Indians and even there own tribes.

The other point that we discussed earlier in a previous post is the
disease in a subsistence economy if it affects almost everyone at once
is extremely deadly.
If I am sick and no-one is around to give me food and water, I will
get worse. Another example might be in hunting or fishing economy, if
no-one can fish or hunt we have no-food. In an agricultural society,
if no-one can collect the harvest in time, people will starve.

Post by Phil McGregor
Weasel words are deliberately used for this reason.

No weasel words were deliberately used.

Post by Phil McGregor
Phil
Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[Phil McGregor]

Post by bernardz

Post by Phil McGregor

Post by BernardZ

Post by Monte Davis

Post by Alfred Montestruc
Once smallpox got loose in the New World it would spread all over
North and South America...

As Phil also points out, disease simply isn't the all-or-nothing
phenomenon you seem to envision. Even in immunologically naive
populations, not every outbreak is an epidemic and not every epidemic
is a pandemic.

Yes but a disease that spreads slowly can still be a killer.
Overall Alfred Montestruc is right. What say in a small isolated
community can happen is not like in prewhiteman America. In a small
isolated community what can stop it from getting critical is it can
quickly kill all the infected people. Since the infected people are
dead, the disease has no hosts and so dies out. That is why on small
Islands sometimes dangerous diseases get quickly eliminated.
However in something like the Americas, as there were more Indians
available for infection it lives and spreads. Later these new infected
people bring it back. That is why Comanches got hit by waves of
smallpox. New hosts come along.

However, where the introduction is done on a one time, one case,
basis, there is no "replenishment" of the disease.

Hod that thought!

What has a brick holder got to do with the matter?

Post by bernardz

Post by Phil McGregor
Your example of the Comanches is misleading, or you misunderstand it,
I am not sure which.

I may not understand but I don't mislead.

I'm not suggesting *you* were misleading *us* but that the idea you
presented seems to have misled *you* ...

Post by bernardz

Post by Phil McGregor
Why? Simply because the "waves" of smallpox were not *internally
generated* ... the Comanche (and Plains Indian) populations were too
small and population densities too low for the disease to become
endemic, they were simply regularly reintroduced from *outside*
(white, basically) populations where the numbers and densities *were*
high enough for the disease to be endemic.
The classic case is of measles (? one of the 'childhood' diseases,
anyway) where it has been demonstrated statistically that a minimum
population of c. 250,000 is required at a high (urban) density for the
disease to become endemic.

Well the American Indians were well over that figure.

Indeed?

Could you please name the "American Indian" conurbation with a
population of c. 250,000 from pre-Colombian or, indeed, 19th century,
America.

I was not aware that the "American Indians" *had* cities of that size.

Your input in identifying its name and location would be edifying.

Post by bernardz

Post by Phil McGregor
Small rural communities remain free of the
disease until, semi-regularly, it is (re)introduced from outside and
rages through the locals who have not been exposed since the last
outbreak ... it then "dies out" because the population is too small
and/or not dense enough ... only to be reintroduced some time later
when conditions (chance, basically) means there are a) enough
uninfected to *be* infected and b) when a carrier passes through.

This is true. Put it into the situation in the prewhiteman Americas
overtime as the smallpox spreads .
(tribe a) to (tribe b) to (tribe c) to (tribe d) etc etc to (tribe
z)
When it hits (tribe z), in (tribe a) it has died out and a sick person
in (tribe z) will be able to reinfect (tribe a) and (tribe z) becomes
the carrier

This may apply in modern times with jet aircraft, or even in
pre-modern times with (relatively) fast sea travel (cf the spread of
Cholera from India to Europe) *however*, the spread of epidemic
diseases by land at foot or horse rates of transport (and, since there
are no horses in pre-Colombian america, we're talking entirely foot)
is much much slower ... and the population density of hunter gatherer
economies are low enough so that the disease is likely to kill all
those susceptible in Tribe (a) before it can spread to Tribe (b).

Indeed, there is some evidence to *strongly* suggest that the
relatively late arrival of Smallpox in Europe (or, indeed, of the
Bubonic Plague) was to do with these factors ... slow transmission
speeds and intervening areas of low population density.

Only when one or both of these factors changed *enough* (quite late,
historically) was it statistically likely for the diseases to spread
beyond their initial East Asian or Central Asian origins.

Pre-Colombian america has none of the factors that changed this enough
for it to happen in Eurasia.

Post by bernardz

Post by Phil McGregor

Post by BernardZ
Please read up on smallpox among the plain Indians of North America in
the late 1830s.
http://www.thefurtrapper.com/indian_smallpox.htm
Note the other issue is that it is a matter of degree. White people are
badly affected by these same diseases too - cholera, dysentery, typhus,

But not *as* badly. In the case of childhood diseases, they are not
... yet when previously unexposed populations are exposed to such for
the first time the mortality rates are high. Part of the reason is
that such diseases tend to be much more serious when they affect
*adults* as opposed to children and the other part is that there is
evidence that breast fed babies get some of their mothers antibodies
passed on in the first several weeks after birth, providing limited
immunity to the degree where childhood diseases become ... less than
life threatening.

An example would be one of my uncles who was a soldier in the army,
went to hospital because of German measles. Boy did we make fun of
him.

Indeed. A common occurrence in the big wars of the 19th and 20th
centuries.

Country boy, I take it?

Post by bernardz

Post by Phil McGregor
There is some evidence, IIRC, that similar minimal immunity may be
passed on even for diseases such as Smallpox.

Post by BernardZ
plague and smallpox are dangerous to them too. Would you go to someone
who was infected? Doing a net search, I discovered that smallpox could
kill up to 40 percent of Europeans.

"could" is a key word. Outbreaks of influenza and childhood diseases
on isolated pacific islands after visits by whites led to mortality
rates ... of those who contracted the diseases ... of "up to" 90%,
depending on the circumstances. Which is *not* the same as "90% of the
populace died" ... only 90% of those who caught the disease ... which
is usually, almost always in fact, far far less.

Agreed. The reason why the scattered tribes of the Comanches were
fewer affected then other Indians as they had less contact with other
Indians and even there own tribes.

Indeed.

Post by bernardz
The other point that we discussed earlier in a previous post is the
disease in a subsistence economy if it affects almost everyone at once
is extremely deadly.

And all pre-modern economies are close to subsistence. Which is why,
forex, the plagues of the 3rd Century had such a negative impact on
the Roman Empire.

Post by bernardz
If I am sick and no-one is around to give me food and water, I will
get worse. Another example might be in hunting or fishing economy, if
no-one can fish or hunt we have no-food. In an agricultural society,
if no-one can collect the harvest in time, people will starve.

Less so than you imagine in an agricultural society ... even the first
time an epidemic disease occurs it doesn't have much of an impact on
the survivors. So many die that even the reduced productivity means
that the survivors can harvest enough to be comfortably off, food
wise.

In fact, this was the case during the aftermath of the Black Death.

What is a real problem, as I initially noted, is that on an
*individual* level if you don't get basic care you are more vulnerable
and, as your family and friends flee in fear (or abandon you for fear)
you don't get that care.

This has been suggested as one of the reasons why Christianity made
such huge strides ... Christians *didn't* flee, as they "knew" that
caring for the sick was a "good work" that would get them into heaven
if they died doing it and, of course, those who were saved by their
ministrations were a hell of a lot more impressed by them than by
their fellow pagans who mostly fled. Sauve qui peut.

Post by bernardz

Post by Phil McGregor
Weasel words are deliberately used for this reason.

No weasel words were deliberately used.

Bernardz, don't be so sensitive. If I was attacking you, you'd *know*
it.

What I was saying was that the *sources* we are *both* using use
weasel words *for a reason* ... and I believe you are not taking
proper cognizance of them or grasping fully the reasons *behind* their
use.

I am *not* saying you are making a false argument, merely that you
have not fully grasped some of the implications of the language in the
sources.

In fact, apart from the *misinterpretations* I have noted, your
material is good.

Happy?

Phil

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: ***@pacific.net.au

[BernardZ]

Post by Phil McGregor

Post by bernardz

Post by Phil McGregor
Why? Simply because the "waves" of smallpox were not *internally
generated* ... the Comanche (and Plains Indian) populations were too
small and population densities too low for the disease to become
endemic, they were simply regularly reintroduced from *outside*
(white, basically) populations where the numbers and densities *were*
high enough for the disease to be endemic.
The classic case is of measles (? one of the 'childhood' diseases,
anyway) where it has been demonstrated statistically that a minimum
population of c. 250,000 is required at a high (urban) density for the
disease to become endemic.

Well the American Indians were well over that figure.

Indeed?
Could you please name the "American Indian" conurbation with a
population of c. 250,000 from pre-Colombian or, indeed, 19th century,
America.
I was not aware that the "American Indians" *had* cities of that size.
Your input in identifying its name and location would be edifying.

What is important is not a city but a community for example few cities
in medieval Europe had 250,000 population.

Post by Phil McGregor

Post by bernardz

Post by Phil McGregor
Small rural communities remain free of the
disease until, semi-regularly, it is (re)introduced from outside and
rages through the locals who have not been exposed since the last
outbreak ... it then "dies out" because the population is too small
and/or not dense enough ... only to be reintroduced some time later
when conditions (chance, basically) means there are a) enough
uninfected to *be* infected and b) when a carrier passes through.

This is true. Put it into the situation in the prewhiteman Americas
overtime as the smallpox spreads .
(tribe a) to (tribe b) to (tribe c) to (tribe d) etc etc to (tribe
z)
When it hits (tribe z), in (tribe a) it has died out and a sick person
in (tribe z) will be able to reinfect (tribe a) and (tribe z) becomes
the carrier

This may apply in modern times with jet aircraft, or even in
pre-modern times with (relatively) fast sea travel (cf the spread of
Cholera from India to Europe) *however*, the spread of epidemic
diseases by land at foot or horse rates of transport (and, since there
are no horses in pre-Colombian america, we're talking entirely foot)
is much much slower ... and the population density of hunter gatherer
economies are low enough so that the disease is likely to kill all
those susceptible in Tribe (a) before it can spread to Tribe (b).
Indeed, there is some evidence to *strongly* suggest that the
relatively late arrival of Smallpox in Europe (or, indeed, of the
Bubonic Plague) was to do with these factors ... slow transmission
speeds and intervening areas of low population density.
Only when one or both of these factors changed *enough* (quite late,
historically) was it statistically likely for the diseases to spread
beyond their initial East Asian or Central Asian origins.
Pre-Colombian america has none of the factors that changed this enough
for it to happen in Eurasia.

I think you are right about North America. It is interesting that
smallpox existed in Africa but only came to South Africa when it was
brought in by Indians or Europeans.

However empires with their centralized administrations like the Inca and
Aztecs in South and central America would have kept smallpox going.


<snip>

Post by Phil McGregor

Post by bernardz
If I am sick and no-one is around to give me food and water, I will
get worse. Another example might be in hunting or fishing economy, if
no-one can fish or hunt we have no-food. In an agricultural society,
if no-one can collect the harvest in time, people will starve.

Less so than you imagine in an agricultural society ... even the first
time an epidemic disease occurs it doesn't have much of an impact on
the survivors. So many die that even the reduced productivity means
that the survivors can harvest enough to be comfortably off, food
wise.
In fact, this was the case during the aftermath of the Black Death.

I can accept that.

Post by Phil McGregor
What is a real problem, as I initially noted, is that on an
*individual* level if you don't get basic care you are more vulnerable
and, as your family and friends flee in fear (or abandon you for fear)
you don't get that care.
This has been suggested as one of the reasons why Christianity made
such huge strides ... Christians *didn't* flee, as they "knew" that
caring for the sick was a "good work" that would get them into heaven
if they died doing it and, of course, those who were saved by their
ministrations were a hell of a lot more impressed by them than by
their fellow pagans who mostly fled. Sauve qui peut.

It is psychological, when I was down on my luck many years ago the
Salvos helped me. I have always remembered it.

[Phil McGregor]

On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 01:50:42 +1000, BernardZ

Post by BernardZ

Post by Phil McGregor

Post by bernardz

Post by Phil McGregor
Why? Simply because the "waves" of smallpox were not *internally
generated* ... the Comanche (and Plains Indian) populations were too
small and population densities too low for the disease to become
endemic, they were simply regularly reintroduced from *outside*
(white, basically) populations where the numbers and densities *were*
high enough for the disease to be endemic.
The classic case is of measles (? one of the 'childhood' diseases,
anyway) where it has been demonstrated statistically that a minimum
population of c. 250,000 is required at a high (urban) density for the
disease to become endemic.

Well the American Indians were well over that figure.

Indeed?
Could you please name the "American Indian" conurbation with a
population of c. 250,000 from pre-Colombian or, indeed, 19th century,
America.
I was not aware that the "American Indians" *had* cities of that size.
Your input in identifying its name and location would be edifying.

What is important is not a city but a community for example few cities
in medieval Europe had 250,000 population.

Indeed. And there is some suggestion that concentrations of the levels
achieved in western Europe and Asia Minor of that level had the same
effect, allowing for travel times ...

Please provide a cite for any *American Indian" culture that had large
cities and associated dense farming communities surrounding them on
the level achieved in Western Europe and/or the Middle East/Asia
Minor.

Note: "American Indians" generally do not include *mesoamerica*, but
if you really do mean the latter, please clarify.

Post by BernardZ

Post by Phil McGregor

Post by bernardz
When it hits (tribe z), in (tribe a) it has died out and a sick person
in (tribe z) will be able to reinfect (tribe a) and (tribe z) becomes
the carrier

This may apply in modern times with jet aircraft, or even in
pre-modern times with (relatively) fast sea travel (cf the spread of
Cholera from India to Europe) *however*, the spread of epidemic
diseases by land at foot or horse rates of transport (and, since there
are no horses in pre-Colombian america, we're talking entirely foot)
is much much slower ... and the population density of hunter gatherer
economies are low enough so that the disease is likely to kill all
those susceptible in Tribe (a) before it can spread to Tribe (b).
Indeed, there is some evidence to *strongly* suggest that the
relatively late arrival of Smallpox in Europe (or, indeed, of the
Bubonic Plague) was to do with these factors ... slow transmission
speeds and intervening areas of low population density.
Only when one or both of these factors changed *enough* (quite late,
historically) was it statistically likely for the diseases to spread
beyond their initial East Asian or Central Asian origins.
Pre-Colombian america has none of the factors that changed this enough
for it to happen in Eurasia.

I think you are right about North America. It is interesting that
smallpox existed in Africa but only came to South Africa when it was
brought in by Indians or Europeans.

Travel times. Indeed.

Post by BernardZ
However empires with their centralized administrations like the Inca and
Aztecs in South and central America would have kept smallpox going.

Indeed. But it has to get there first, and my point is that landings
by the Norse in L'anse Aux Meadows won't likely do it.

Post by BernardZ

Post by Phil McGregor

Post by bernardz
If I am sick and no-one is around to give me food and water, I will
get worse. Another example might be in hunting or fishing economy, if
no-one can fish or hunt we have no-food. In an agricultural society,
if no-one can collect the harvest in time, people will starve.

Less so than you imagine in an agricultural society ... even the first
time an epidemic disease occurs it doesn't have much of an impact on
the survivors. So many die that even the reduced productivity means
that the survivors can harvest enough to be comfortably off, food
wise.
In fact, this was the case during the aftermath of the Black Death.

I can accept that.

Post by Phil McGregor
What is a real problem, as I initially noted, is that on an
*individual* level if you don't get basic care you are more vulnerable
and, as your family and friends flee in fear (or abandon you for fear)
you don't get that care.
This has been suggested as one of the reasons why Christianity made
such huge strides ... Christians *didn't* flee, as they "knew" that
caring for the sick was a "good work" that would get them into heaven
if they died doing it and, of course, those who were saved by their
ministrations were a hell of a lot more impressed by them than by
their fellow pagans who mostly fled. Sauve qui peut.

It is psychological, when I was down on my luck many years ago the
Salvos helped me. I have always remembered it.

It is a theory that has been presented, and it seems reasonable. It
certainly would, as you suggest, have a strong impact on people. Even
if you didn't convert, you'd be more sympathetic when the Imperial
Authorities came around questioning you about whether your neighbours
were Christians and, therefore, suitable as Lion Food, or not!

Phil

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: ***@pacific.net.au

[Jack Linthicum]

Post by Phil McGregor
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 01:50:42 +1000, BernardZ

Post by BernardZ

Post by Phil McGregor

Post by bernardz

Post by Phil McGregor
Why? Simply because the "waves" of smallpox were not *internally
generated* ... the Comanche (and Plains Indian) populations were too
small and population densities too low for the disease to become
endemic, they were simply regularly reintroduced from *outside*
(white, basically) populations where the numbers and densities *were*
high enough for the disease to be endemic.
The classic case is of measles (? one of the 'childhood' diseases,
anyway) where it has been demonstrated statistically that a minimum
population of c. 250,000 is required at a high (urban) density for the
disease to become endemic.

Well the American Indians were well over that figure.

Indeed?
Could you please name the "American Indian" conurbation with a
population of c. 250,000 from pre-Colombian or, indeed, 19th century,
America.
I was not aware that the "American Indians" *had* cities of that size.
Your input in identifying its name and location would be edifying.

What is important is not a city but a community for example few cities
in medieval Europe had 250,000 population.

Indeed. And there is some suggestion that concentrations of the levels
achieved in western Europe and Asia Minor of that level had the same
effect, allowing for travel times ...
Please provide a cite for any *American Indian" culture that had large
cities and associated dense farming communities surrounding them on
the level achieved in Western Europe and/or the Middle East/Asia
Minor.
Note: "American Indians" generally do not include *mesoamerica*, but
if you really do mean the latter, please clarify.

Post by BernardZ

Post by Phil McGregor

Post by bernardz
When it hits (tribe z), in (tribe a) it has died out and a sick person
in (tribe z) will be able to reinfect (tribe a) and (tribe z) becomes
the carrier

This may apply in modern times with jet aircraft, or even in
pre-modern times with (relatively) fast sea travel (cf the spread of
Cholera from India to Europe) *however*, the spread of epidemic
diseases by land at foot or horse rates of transport (and, since there
are no horses in pre-Colombian america, we're talking entirely foot)
is much much slower ... and the population density of hunter gatherer
economies are low enough so that the disease is likely to kill all
those susceptible in Tribe (a) before it can spread to Tribe (b).
Indeed, there is some evidence to *strongly* suggest that the
relatively late arrival of Smallpox in Europe (or, indeed, of the
Bubonic Plague) was to do with these factors ... slow transmission
speeds and intervening areas of low population density.
Only when one or both of these factors changed *enough* (quite late,
historically) was it statistically likely for the diseases to spread
beyond their initial East Asian or Central Asian origins.
Pre-Colombian america has none of the factors that changed this enough
for it to happen in Eurasia.

I think you are right about North America. It is interesting that
smallpox existed in Africa but only came to South Africa when it was
brought in by Indians or Europeans.

Travel times. Indeed.

Post by BernardZ
However empires with their centralized administrations like the Inca and
Aztecs in South and central America would have kept smallpox going.

Indeed. But it has to get there first, and my point is that landings
by the Norse in L'anse Aux Meadows won't likely do it.

Post by BernardZ

Post by Phil McGregor

Post by bernardz
If I am sick and no-one is around to give me food and water, I will
get worse. Another example might be in hunting or fishing economy, if
no-one can fish or hunt we have no-food. In an agricultural society,
if no-one can collect the harvest in time, people will starve.

Less so than you imagine in an agricultural society ... even the first
time an epidemic disease occurs it doesn't have much of an impact on
the survivors. So many die that even the reduced productivity means
that the survivors can harvest enough to be comfortably off, food
wise.
In fact, this was the case during the aftermath of the Black Death.

I can accept that.

Post by Phil McGregor
What is a real problem, as I initially noted, is that on an
*individual* level if you don't get basic care you are more vulnerable
and, as your family and friends flee in fear (or abandon you for fear)
you don't get that care.
This has been suggested as one of the reasons why Christianity made
such huge strides ... Christians *didn't* flee, as they "knew" that
caring for the sick was a "good work" that would get them into heaven
if they died doing it and, of course, those who were saved by their
ministrations were a hell of a lot more impressed by them than by
their fellow pagans who mostly fled. Sauve qui peut.

It is psychological, when I was down on my luck many years ago the
Salvos helped me. I have always remembered it.

It is a theory that has been presented, and it seems reasonable. It
certainly would, as you suggest, have a strong impact on people. Even
if you didn't convert, you'd be more sympathetic when the Imperial
Authorities came around questioning you about whether your neighbours
were Christians and, therefore, suitable as Lion Food, or not!
Phil
Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.mississippian-artifacts.com/

Massive earthen mounds of varying size and function dominated the
great Mississippian landscape. At Cahokia, a 13th century population
of approximately 30,000 inhabitants built flat top mounds for
buildings and other mounds for burials and boundary markers. The
largest Cahokian mound, Monks Mound, has two terraces and a massive
base measuring 739,224 square feet making it one quarter larger than
the base of the Great Pyramid of Giza. Atop Monks Mound was the
residence of the leading chief known as the Great Sun whose duty it
was to keep the forces of nature in balance and thereby ensure
continued prosperity for his people. Cahokia's population was greater
than any contemporary European city of the day, and it wasn't until
the late 18th century that a North American City, Philadelphia,
finally had population that eclipsed that of 13th Century Cahokia.

[Phil McGregor]

On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 15:38:30 -0700, Jack Linthicum

Post by Jack Linthicum

Post by Phil McGregor
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 01:50:42 +1000, BernardZ

Not in isolation.

In any case, as usual, your claims are ... misleading.

Post by Jack Linthicum
Massive earthen mounds of varying size and function dominated the
great Mississippian landscape. At Cahokia, a 13th century population
of approximately 30,000 inhabitants built flat top mounds for

Not according to ...

http://anthropik.com/2005/10/the-fall-of-great-cahokia/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/daily/march/12/cahokia.htm

... which suggests 15,000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cahokia

... suggests "between 8000 and 40000"

And in ...

http://www.legendsofamerica.com/IL-Cahokia.html

... it states ...

"At its peak from 1,100 to 1,200 A.D., the city covered nearly six
square miles and boasted a population of as many as 20,000 people.
Houses were arranged in rows around open plazas. Agricultural fields
and a number of smaller villages surrounded and supplied the city.
The Cahokians were known to have traded with other tribes as far away
as Minnesota."

... which, is a population density of around 5 people per acre.
Typical medieval european cities had a density of at least 50-60
people per acre.

As I said, these figures are more in line with what is suspected are
the figures for the Mayan "cities" ... they were really very small
urban centers with large rural areas around them.

Your usual sloppy "research" no doubt ... being charitable and
assuming that you aren't being deliberately obfuscatory as is your
proven wont.

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: ***@pacific.net.au

[Jack Linthicum]

Post by Phil McGregor
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 15:38:30 -0700, Jack Linthicum

Post by Jack Linthicum

Post by Phil McGregor
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 01:50:42 +1000, BernardZ

Not in isolation.
In any case, as usual, your claims are ... misleading.

Post by Jack Linthicum
Massive earthen mounds of varying size and function dominated the
great Mississippian landscape. At Cahokia, a 13th century population
of approximately 30,000 inhabitants built flat top mounds for

Not according to ...
http://anthropik.com/2005/10/the-fall-of-great-cahokia/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/daily/march/12/cahokia.htm
... which suggests 15,000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cahokia
... suggests "between 8000 and 40000"
And in ...
http://www.legendsofamerica.com/IL-Cahokia.html
... it states ...
"At its peak from 1,100 to 1,200 A.D., the city covered nearly six
square miles and boasted a population of as many as 20,000 people.
Houses were arranged in rows around open plazas. Agricultural fields
and a number of smaller villages surrounded and supplied the city.
The Cahokians were known to have traded with other tribes as far away
as Minnesota."
... which, is a population density of around 5 people per acre.
Typical medieval european cities had a density of at least 50-60
people per acre.
As I said, these figures are more in line with what is suspected are
the figures for the Mayan "cities" ... they were really very small
urban centers with large rural areas around them.
Your usual sloppy "research" no doubt ... being charitable and
assuming that you aren't being deliberately obfuscatory as is your
proven wont.
Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe the question was "Please provide a cite for any *American
Indian" culture that had large
cities and associated dense farming communities surrounding them on
the level achieved in Western Europe and/or the Middle East/Asia
Minor."

Not validate it, but just give a cite. Phrase your questions better
next time.

[Phil McGregor]

On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 02:51:25 -0700, Jack Linthicum

Post by Jack Linthicum

Post by Phil McGregor
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 15:38:30 -0700, Jack Linthicum

Post by Jack Linthicum

Post by Phil McGregor
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 01:50:42 +1000, BernardZ

Not in isolation.
In any case, as usual, your claims are ... misleading.

Post by Jack Linthicum
Massive earthen mounds of varying size and function dominated the
great Mississippian landscape. At Cahokia, a 13th century population
of approximately 30,000 inhabitants built flat top mounds for

Not according to ...
http://anthropik.com/2005/10/the-fall-of-great-cahokia/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/daily/march/12/cahokia.htm
... which suggests 15,000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cahokia
... suggests "between 8000 and 40000"
And in ...
http://www.legendsofamerica.com/IL-Cahokia.html
... it states ...
"At its peak from 1,100 to 1,200 A.D., the city covered nearly six
square miles and boasted a population of as many as 20,000 people.
Houses were arranged in rows around open plazas. Agricultural fields
and a number of smaller villages surrounded and supplied the city.
The Cahokians were known to have traded with other tribes as far away
as Minnesota."
... which, is a population density of around 5 people per acre.
Typical medieval european cities had a density of at least 50-60
people per acre.
As I said, these figures are more in line with what is suspected are
the figures for the Mayan "cities" ... they were really very small
urban centers with large rural areas around them.
Your usual sloppy "research" no doubt ... being charitable and
assuming that you aren't being deliberately obfuscatory as is your
proven wont.

I believe the question was "Please provide a cite for any *American
Indian" culture that had large
cities and associated dense farming communities surrounding them on
the level achieved in Western Europe and/or the Middle East/Asia
Minor."

Indeed it was.

And you didn't.

Your cites were ... misleading.

Deliberately or because your research was ... sloppy.

Lets be charitable and assume the latter.

Post by Jack Linthicum
Not validate it, but just give a cite. Phrase your questions better
next time.

The question was fine. Your understanding was flawed ... and your
"research" was worse than useless as you didn't do any worth spit and
didn't understand either the question or the information your flawed
lack of research turned up.

Feel free to continue to proclaim your ... incompetence.

Phil

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: ***@pacific.net.au

[BernardZ]

Post by Jack Linthicum

Post by Phil McGregor
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 15:38:30 -0700, Jack Linthicum

Post by Jack Linthicum

Post by Phil McGregor
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 01:50:42 +1000, BernardZ

Not in isolation.
In any case, as usual, your claims are ... misleading.

Post by Jack Linthicum
Massive earthen mounds of varying size and function dominated the
great Mississippian landscape. At Cahokia, a 13th century population
of approximately 30,000 inhabitants built flat top mounds for

Not according to ...
http://anthropik.com/2005/10/the-fall-of-great-cahokia/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/daily/march/12/cahokia.htm
... which suggests 15,000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cahokia
... suggests "between 8000 and 40000"
And in ...
http://www.legendsofamerica.com/IL-Cahokia.html
... it states ...
"At its peak from 1,100 to 1,200 A.D., the city covered nearly six
square miles and boasted a population of as many as 20,000 people.
Houses were arranged in rows around open plazas. Agricultural fields
and a number of smaller villages surrounded and supplied the city.
The Cahokians were known to have traded with other tribes as far away
as Minnesota."
... which, is a population density of around 5 people per acre.
Typical medieval european cities had a density of at least 50-60
people per acre.
As I said, these figures are more in line with what is suspected are
the figures for the Mayan "cities" ... they were really very small
urban centers with large rural areas around them.
Your usual sloppy "research" no doubt ... being charitable and
assuming that you aren't being deliberately obfuscatory as is your
proven wont.
Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe the question was "Please provide a cite for any *American
Indian" culture that had large
cities and associated dense farming communities surrounding them on
the level achieved in Western Europe and/or the Middle East/Asia
Minor."
Not validate it, but just give a cite. Phrase your questions better
next time.

We are a history group with all the responsibility it incurs.

Anyway you may want to read this article.

http://www.irows.ucr.edu/research/citemp/estcit/estcit.htm

Which starts off that "the accuracy of estimating the total number of
residents for an urban area remains highly questionable and
problematic"?

Still according to the wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cahokia

Cahokia maintained trade links with communities as far away as the Great
Lakes to the north and the Gulf Coast to the south. Pottery and stone
tools in the Cahokian style were found at the Silvernail site near Red
Wing, Minnesota.

In other words, if Cahokia was infected by smallpox they might have been
able to take it to the larger cities of Central America.

[Jack Linthicum]

Post by BernardZ

Post by Jack Linthicum

Post by Phil McGregor
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 15:38:30 -0700, Jack Linthicum

Post by Jack Linthicum

Post by Phil McGregor
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 01:50:42 +1000, BernardZ

Not in isolation.
In any case, as usual, your claims are ... misleading.

Post by Jack Linthicum
Massive earthen mounds of varying size and function dominated the
great Mississippian landscape. At Cahokia, a 13th century population
of approximately 30,000 inhabitants built flat top mounds for

Not according to ...
http://anthropik.com/2005/10/the-fall-of-great-cahokia/http://www.was...
... which suggests 15,000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cahokia
... suggests "between 8000 and 40000"
And in ...
http://www.legendsofamerica.com/IL-Cahokia.html
... it states ...
"At its peak from 1,100 to 1,200 A.D., the city covered nearly six
square miles and boasted a population of as many as 20,000 people.
Houses were arranged in rows around open plazas. Agricultural fields
and a number of smaller villages surrounded and supplied the city.
The Cahokians were known to have traded with other tribes as far away
as Minnesota."
... which, is a population density of around 5 people per acre.
Typical medieval european cities had a density of at least 50-60
people per acre.
As I said, these figures are more in line with what is suspected are
the figures for the Mayan "cities" ... they were really very small
urban centers with large rural areas around them.
Your usual sloppy "research" no doubt ... being charitable and
assuming that you aren't being deliberately obfuscatory as is your
proven wont.
Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe the question was "Please provide a cite for any *American
Indian" culture that had large
cities and associated dense farming communities surrounding them on
the level achieved in Western Europe and/or the Middle East/Asia
Minor."
Not validate it, but just give a cite. Phrase your questions better
next time.

We are a history group with all the responsibility it incurs.
Anyway you may want to read this article.
http://www.irows.ucr.edu/research/citemp/estcit/estcit.htm
Which starts off that "the accuracy of estimating the total number of
residents for an urban area remains highly questionable and
problematic"?
Still according to the wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cahokia
Cahokia maintained trade links with communities as far away as the Great
Lakes to the north and the Gulf Coast to the south. Pottery and stone
tools in the Cahokian style were found at the Silvernail site near Red
Wing, Minnesota.
In other words, if Cahokia was infected by smallpox they might have been
able to take it to the larger cities of Central America.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Better than Wiki is real scholarship, done by many who show their
work. I can't get a JSTOR article but the last paragraph says enough.

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-7316%28198604%2951%3A2%3C227%3AMPPDIA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-F&size=LARGE&origin=JSTOR-enlargePage

[Phil McGregor]

On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 06:20:49 -0700, Jack Linthicum

Post by Jack Linthicum

Post by BernardZ

Post by Jack Linthicum

Post by Phil McGregor
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 15:38:30 -0700, Jack Linthicum

Post by Jack Linthicum

Post by Phil McGregor
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 01:50:42 +1000, BernardZ

Not in isolation.
In any case, as usual, your claims are ... misleading.

Post by Jack Linthicum
Massive earthen mounds of varying size and function dominated the
great Mississippian landscape. At Cahokia, a 13th century population
of approximately 30,000 inhabitants built flat top mounds for

Not according to ...
http://anthropik.com/2005/10/the-fall-of-great-cahokia/http://www.was...
... which suggests 15,000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cahokia
... suggests "between 8000 and 40000"
And in ...
http://www.legendsofamerica.com/IL-Cahokia.html
... it states ...
"At its peak from 1,100 to 1,200 A.D., the city covered nearly six
square miles and boasted a population of as many as 20,000 people.
Houses were arranged in rows around open plazas. Agricultural fields
and a number of smaller villages surrounded and supplied the city.
The Cahokians were known to have traded with other tribes as far away
as Minnesota."
... which, is a population density of around 5 people per acre.
Typical medieval european cities had a density of at least 50-60
people per acre.
As I said, these figures are more in line with what is suspected are
the figures for the Mayan "cities" ... they were really very small
urban centers with large rural areas around them.
Your usual sloppy "research" no doubt ... being charitable and
assuming that you aren't being deliberately obfuscatory as is your
proven wont.
Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe the question was "Please provide a cite for any *American
Indian" culture that had large
cities and associated dense farming communities surrounding them on
the level achieved in Western Europe and/or the Middle East/Asia
Minor."
Not validate it, but just give a cite. Phrase your questions better
next time.

We are a history group with all the responsibility it incurs.
Anyway you may want to read this article.
http://www.irows.ucr.edu/research/citemp/estcit/estcit.htm
Which starts off that "the accuracy of estimating the total number of
residents for an urban area remains highly questionable and
problematic"?
Still according to the wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cahokia
Cahokia maintained trade links with communities as far away as the Great
Lakes to the north and the Gulf Coast to the south. Pottery and stone
tools in the Cahokian style were found at the Silvernail site near Red
Wing, Minnesota.
In other words, if Cahokia was infected by smallpox they might have been
able to take it to the larger cities of Central America.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Better than Wiki is real scholarship, done by many who show their
work. I can't get a JSTOR article but the last paragraph says enough.
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-7316%28198604%2951%3A2%3C227%3AMPPDIA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-F&size=LARGE&origin=JSTOR-enlargePage

Sonny jim, *anyones* research has been better than yours for the last
several years.

And citing one paragraph of an article you haven't read!

Well, like I said ... keep displaying your incompetence, at least
you're providing us with a good belly-laugh!

Phil

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: ***@pacific.net.au

[k***@cix.compulink.co.uk]

Post by BernardZ
What is important is not a city but a community for example few
cities in medieval Europe had 250,000 population.

I have not looked the figures up but probably none. However the
important points are a: transit times and b: population density. A
nomadic hunter gatherer life style does not support high population
densities though given enough land total population can be high.

Generally speaking European cities were constrained in urban sprawl by
various factors. For example for most of it's history London consisted
of the City and Southwark. It was the 19th century when Greater London
spread to take in places like Wembly and Windsor.

To take transit time into account, a disease carrier must be able to
travel far enough to infect someone else before either dying or
recovering. It may have been the Mongol conquest that spread the Black
Death to Europe. One result was far easier communications with the East.

Ken Young

[Jack Linthicum]

Post by k***@cix.compulink.co.uk

Post by BernardZ
What is important is not a city but a community for example few
cities in medieval Europe had 250,000 population.

I have not looked the figures up but probably none. However the
important points are a: transit times and b: population density. A
nomadic hunter gatherer life style does not support high population
densities though given enough land total population can be high.
Generally speaking European cities were constrained in urban sprawl by
various factors. For example for most of it's history London consisted
of the City and Southwark. It was the 19th century when Greater London
spread to take in places like Wembly and Windsor.
To take transit time into account, a disease carrier must be able to
travel far enough to infect someone else before either dying or
recovering. It may have been the Mongol conquest that spread the Black
Death to Europe. One result was far easier communications with the East.
Ken Young

How about non-nomadic hunter gatherer societies? Have just seen two
different TV bits on the Indians of the Northwest Coast of the United
States and Canada. Gather acorns, camas, etc. Do the salmon when it
runs, dolphins, seals, etc.

[k***@cix.compulink.co.uk]

Post by Jack Linthicum
How about non-nomadic hunter gatherer societies?

Still not comparable to the densities agriculture and a political
system that could support food storage could manage. The Pueblo culture
might be a better bet though I do not claim to be an expert just what I
picked up.

One other factor I have not seen mentioned is when there is a secondary
carrier. Yellow Fever and Malaria remained endemic regardless of
population because of mosquitoes.

Ken Young

[Phil McGregor]

Post by k***@cix.compulink.co.uk

Post by Jack Linthicum
How about non-nomadic hunter gatherer societies?

Still not comparable to the densities agriculture and a political
system that could support food storage could manage. The Pueblo culture
might be a better bet though I do not claim to be an expert just what I
picked up.
One other factor I have not seen mentioned is when there is a secondary
carrier. Yellow Fever and Malaria remained endemic regardless of
population because of mosquitoes.

No large domesticated herding ungulates in the Americas (Smallpox is
thought with reasonable certainty to be a disease of such ... probably
from cows, possibly horses).

Phil

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: ***@pacific.net.au

[Jack Linthicum]

Post by k***@cix.compulink.co.uk

Post by Jack Linthicum
How about non-nomadic hunter gatherer societies?

Still not comparable to the densities agriculture and a political
system that could support food storage could manage. The Pueblo culture
might be a better bet though I do not claim to be an expert just what I
picked up.
One other factor I have not seen mentioned is when there is a secondary
carrier. Yellow Fever and Malaria remained endemic regardless of
population because of mosquitoes.
Ken Young

The Pacific Northwest Indians are estimated at half a million, built
timber framed houses, large ocean-going boats, had land ownership, and
conducted lavish giveaways called potlach feasts. Seals, salmon,
otters, deer, elk and bear for the hunting and berries, acorns and
hazelnurs as well as camas were the gatherings. They traded along
with the potlach feasting as a means of exchanging populations.

It is these people that the Asiatic colonists will encounter when they
reach Southeast Alaska, British Columbia and the Northwest coast of
America.

I must have missed something. How did the large 16th, 17th and 18th
Century small pox pandemics kill so much of the population without
domesticated herding ungulates? In this ATL, since the original
"foreign" population comes from Asia the method of fighting small pox
evolved there might be practiced generally with all populations.

"The first written account of variolation describes a Buddhist nun
practicing around 1022 to 1063 AD. She would grind up scabs taken from
a person infected with smallpox into a powder, and then blow it into
the nostrils of a non-immune person."

[Phil McGregor]

On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 11:13:57 -0700, Jack Linthicum

Post by Jack Linthicum

Post by k***@cix.compulink.co.uk

Post by Jack Linthicum
How about non-nomadic hunter gatherer societies?

Still not comparable to the densities agriculture and a political
system that could support food storage could manage. The Pueblo culture
might be a better bet though I do not claim to be an expert just what I
picked up.
One other factor I have not seen mentioned is when there is a secondary
carrier. Yellow Fever and Malaria remained endemic regardless of
population because of mosquitoes.
Ken Young

The Pacific Northwest Indians are estimated at half a million, built

Note that Jack carefully provides no cite for this claim.

And, of course, provides no estimate of their actual population
density, which is of paramount importance.

Of course, there is a *reason* Jack does neither of these things ...
is it because he is genuinely clewless? Or because he *knows* that the
figures would show his claims to be ... deliberately misleading.

Let's just assume that he's genuinely clewless, though since this
state has persisted for the last several years on almost every topic
he has posted on, it's wearing a bit thin as an excuse for his
actions.

Post by Jack Linthicum
I must have missed something. How did the large 16th, 17th and 18th

Probably a brain when they were handing them out.

Post by Jack Linthicum
Century small pox pandemics kill so much of the population without
domesticated herding ungulates? In this ATL, since the original

Because the disease came in repeated waves from *external* sources,
you poor clewless one.

The proposition we are discussing is the arrival of one instance of
smallpox *once*. Which would require a local pool ... the instances
you present are, therefore, irrelevant.

Like I said, is Jack merely a complete clewless maroon or is he being
deliberately disingenuous.

Assuming the former is becoming harder and harder to believe.

Phil

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: ***@pacific.net.au

[Jack Linthicum]

Post by Phil McGregor
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 11:13:57 -0700, Jack Linthicum

Post by Jack Linthicum

Post by k***@cix.compulink.co.uk

Post by Jack Linthicum
How about non-nomadic hunter gatherer societies?

Still not comparable to the densities agriculture and a political
system that could support food storage could manage. The Pueblo culture
might be a better bet though I do not claim to be an expert just what I
picked up.
One other factor I have not seen mentioned is when there is a secondary
carrier. Yellow Fever and Malaria remained endemic regardless of
population because of mosquitoes.
Ken Young

The Pacific Northwest Indians are estimated at half a million, built

Note that Jack carefully provides no cite for this claim.
And, of course, provides no estimate of their actual population
density, which is of paramount importance.
Of course, there is a *reason* Jack does neither of these things ...
is it because he is genuinely clewless? Or because he *knows* that the
figures would show his claims to be ... deliberately misleading.
Let's just assume that he's genuinely clewless, though since this
state has persisted for the last several years on almost every topic
he has posted on, it's wearing a bit thin as an excuse for his
actions.

Post by Jack Linthicum
I must have missed something. How did the large 16th, 17th and 18th

Probably a brain when they were handing them out.

Post by Jack Linthicum
Century small pox pandemics kill so much of the population without
domesticated herding ungulates? In this ATL, since the original

Because the disease came in repeated waves from *external* sources,
you poor clewless one.
The proposition we are discussing is the arrival of one instance of
smallpox *once*. Which would require a local pool ... the instances
you present are, therefore, irrelevant.
Like I said, is Jack merely a complete clewless maroon or is he being
deliberately disingenuous.
Assuming the former is becoming harder and harder to believe.
Phil
Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Though there is a great deal of dispute about precontact Native
populations, it seems fair to say that the Indian population of the
Pacific Northwest (including present-day Alaska, British Columbia,
Washington, and Oregon) fell from over 500,000 in 1750 to somewhere
around 100,000 by 1850. By way of comparison, the 14th-century Black
Plague in Europe and Asia claimed the lives of one-third of the
population there. Smallpox and other diseases did kill some Europeans
in the Pacific Northwest, but not nearly at the same rate as the
illnesses decimated Native populations. In addition, the Europeans who
died were replaced by a growing stream of travelers and traders from
Europe and the United States.
http://www.washington.edu/uwired/outreach/cspn/Website/Resources/Curriculum/Natives%20Contact/Section%202.html

Since smallpox originated in Asia and I cited an attempt to cure it in
the 11th century we should be able to assume that some of the body of
people sufficient to establish an Asian colony in America will be
smallpox carriers.

[Phil McGregor]

On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 15:30:48 -0700, Jack Linthicum

Post by Jack Linthicum

Post by Phil McGregor
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 11:13:57 -0700, Jack Linthicum

Post by Jack Linthicum

Post by k***@cix.compulink.co.uk

Post by Jack Linthicum
How about non-nomadic hunter gatherer societies?

Still not comparable to the densities agriculture and a political
system that could support food storage could manage. The Pueblo culture
might be a better bet though I do not claim to be an expert just what I
picked up.
One other factor I have not seen mentioned is when there is a secondary
carrier. Yellow Fever and Malaria remained endemic regardless of
population because of mosquitoes.
Ken Young

The Pacific Northwest Indians are estimated at half a million, built

Note that Jack carefully provides no cite for this claim.
And, of course, provides no estimate of their actual population
density, which is of paramount importance.
Of course, there is a *reason* Jack does neither of these things ...
is it because he is genuinely clewless? Or because he *knows* that the
figures would show his claims to be ... deliberately misleading.
Let's just assume that he's genuinely clewless, though since this
state has persisted for the last several years on almost every topic
he has posted on, it's wearing a bit thin as an excuse for his
actions.

Post by Jack Linthicum
I must have missed something. How did the large 16th, 17th and 18th

Probably a brain when they were handing them out.

Post by Jack Linthicum
Century small pox pandemics kill so much of the population without
domesticated herding ungulates? In this ATL, since the original

Because the disease came in repeated waves from *external* sources,
you poor clewless one.
The proposition we are discussing is the arrival of one instance of
smallpox *once*. Which would require a local pool ... the instances
you present are, therefore, irrelevant.
Like I said, is Jack merely a complete clewless maroon or is he being
deliberately disingenuous.
Assuming the former is becoming harder and harder to believe.
Phil
Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Though there is a great deal of dispute about precontact Native
populations, it seems fair to say that the Indian population of the
Pacific Northwest (including present-day Alaska, British Columbia,
Washington, and Oregon) fell from over 500,000 in 1750 to somewhere
around 100,000 by 1850. By way of comparison, the 14th-century Black
Plague in Europe and Asia claimed the lives of one-third of the
population there. Smallpox and other diseases did kill some Europeans
in the Pacific Northwest, but not nearly at the same rate as the
illnesses decimated Native populations. In addition, the Europeans who
died were replaced by a growing stream of travelers and traders from
Europe and the United States.

http://www.washington.edu/uwired/outreach/cspn/Website/Resources/Curriculum/Natives%20Contact/Section%202.html

Note that Jack's response merely reinforces his clewlessness.

He provides no information on the all important population *density*
figures.

And note what his source actually *doesn't* say ... "the Pacific
Northwest indians are estimated at half a million" ... Jack's claim.

It actually says "it seems fair to say" ... hardly definitive.

Note also that clewless Jack doesn't grasp that the comparison between
the century wide effects of the Black Death on the whole of Europe
are, well, not to put too fine a point on it ... misleading in the
extreme. There were some parts of Europe that suffered no outbreak of
the Plaque at all ... and in some parts the 100 year population
reduction was probably on a par with the Pacific Northwest.

Apples and Apples, Jack, not Apples and Cucumber Sandwiches.

Post by Jack Linthicum
Since smallpox originated in Asia and I cited an attempt to cure it in
the 11th century we should be able to assume that some of the body of
people sufficient to establish an Asian colony in America will be
smallpox carriers.

And the proposition being argued was introduction by the Norse through
the failed Vinland colony ... making your argument irrelevant and,
indeed, your continual flogging of the deceased equine obviously
dishonest.

Phil

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: ***@pacific.net.au

[Jack Linthicum]

Post by Phil McGregor
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 15:30:48 -0700, Jack Linthicum

Post by Phil McGregor

Post by k***@cix.compulink.co.uk

Post by Jack Linthicum
How about non-nomadic hunter gatherer societies?

Still not comparable to the densities agriculture and a political
system that could support food storage could manage. The Pueblo culture
might be a better bet though I do not claim to be an expert just what I
picked up.

And, of course, provides no estimate of their actual population
density, which is of paramount importance.

He provides no information on the all important population *density*
figures.

You have mentioned something called "population density figures"
several times. Would please describe what you are citing, perhaps with
some references, and some examples of cultures that meet, met or did
not meet this magic number? It's called "showing your work".

[Phil McGregor]

On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 02:48:21 -0700, Jack Linthicum

Post by Jack Linthicum

Post by Phil McGregor
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 15:30:48 -0700, Jack Linthicum

Post by Phil McGregor

Post by k***@cix.compulink.co.uk

Post by Jack Linthicum
How about non-nomadic hunter gatherer societies?

Still not comparable to the densities agriculture and a political
system that could support food storage could manage. The Pueblo culture
might be a better bet though I do not claim to be an expert just what I
picked up.

And, of course, provides no estimate of their actual population
density, which is of paramount importance.

He provides no information on the all important population *density*
figures.

You have mentioned something called "population density figures"
several times. Would please describe what you are citing, perhaps with
some references, and some examples of cultures that meet, met or did
not meet this magic number? It's called "showing your work".

<***@news.individual.net>

You really are a clewless fool.

Not only don't you do any research worth spit, you don't even read the
posts that show up your stupidity.

But, hey, feel free to keep showing that you're a moron.

Phil

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: ***@pacific.net.au

[Jack Linthicum]

Post by Phil McGregor
On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 02:48:21 -0700, Jack Linthicum

Post by Jack Linthicum

Post by Phil McGregor
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 15:30:48 -0700, Jack Linthicum

Post by Phil McGregor

Post by k***@cix.compulink.co.uk

Post by Jack Linthicum
How about non-nomadic hunter gatherer societies?

Still not comparable to the densities agriculture and a political
system that could support food storage could manage. The Pueblo culture
might be a better bet though I do not claim to be an expert just what I
picked up.

And, of course, provides no estimate of their actual population
density, which is of paramount importance.

He provides no information on the all important population *density*
figures.

You have mentioned something called "population density figures"
several times. Would please describe what you are citing, perhaps with
some references, and some examples of cultures that meet, met or did
not meet this magic number? It's called "showing your work".

You really are a clewless fool.
Not only don't you do any research worth spit, you don't even read the
posts that show up your stupidity.
But, hey, feel free to keep showing that you're a moron.
Phil
Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I get the picture, you don't have anything so you decide to insult.

[Phil McGregor]

On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 04:44:00 -0700, Jack Linthicum

Post by Jack Linthicum

Post by Phil McGregor
On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 02:48:21 -0700, Jack Linthicum

Post by Jack Linthicum

Post by Phil McGregor
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 15:30:48 -0700, Jack Linthicum

Post by Phil McGregor

Post by k***@cix.compulink.co.uk

Post by Jack Linthicum
How about non-nomadic hunter gatherer societies?

Still not comparable to the densities agriculture and a political
system that could support food storage could manage. The Pueblo culture
might be a better bet though I do not claim to be an expert just what I
picked up.

And, of course, provides no estimate of their actual population
density, which is of paramount importance.

He provides no information on the all important population *density*
figures.

You have mentioned something called "population density figures"
several times. Would please describe what you are citing, perhaps with
some references, and some examples of cultures that meet, met or did
not meet this magic number? It's called "showing your work".

You really are a clewless fool.
Not only don't you do any research worth spit, you don't even read the
posts that show up your stupidity.
But, hey, feel free to keep showing that you're a moron.

I get the picture, you don't have anything so you decide to insult.

No, fool, you don't have the slightest glimmering of anything
resembling a clew.

<***@news.individual.net>

Is a message ID that provides the information you mendaciously claim
not to have noticed.

Moron or purveyor of deliberate falsehoods?

I'm sure everyone else is drawing their own conclusions.

But, hey, if you want to hammer home your downright stupendous level
of clewlessness, feel free.

Phil

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: ***@pacific.net.au

[Jack Linthicum]

Post by Phil McGregor
On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 04:44:00 -0700, Jack Linthicum

Post by Jack Linthicum

Post by Phil McGregor
On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 02:48:21 -0700, Jack Linthicum

Post by Jack Linthicum

Post by Phil McGregor
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 15:30:48 -0700, Jack Linthicum

Post by Phil McGregor

Post by k***@cix.compulink.co.uk

Post by Jack Linthicum
How about non-nomadic hunter gatherer societies?

Still not comparable to the densities agriculture and a political
system that could support food storage could manage. The Pueblo culture
might be a better bet though I do not claim to be an expert just what I
picked up.

And, of course, provides no estimate of their actual population
density, which is of paramount importance.

He provides no information on the all important population *density*
figures.

You have mentioned something called "population density figures"
several times. Would please describe what you are citing, perhaps with
some references, and some examples of cultures that meet, met or did
not meet this magic number? It's called "showing your work".

You really are a clewless fool.
Not only don't you do any research worth spit, you don't even read the
posts that show up your stupidity.
But, hey, feel free to keep showing that you're a moron.

I get the picture, you don't have anything so you decide to insult.

No, fool, you don't have the slightest glimmering of anything
resembling a clew.
Is a message ID that provides the information you mendaciously claim
not to have noticed.
Moron or purveyor of deliberate falsehoods?
I'm sure everyone else is drawing their own conclusions.
But, hey, if you want to hammer home your downright stupendous level
of clewlessness, feel free.
Phil
Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I think anyone else can duplicate my search for that
<***@news.individual.net>
on the newsgroups and find the only occurrence is this message I am
replying to.

[Phil McGregor]

On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 07:12:50 -0700, Jack Linthicum

Post by Jack Linthicum

Post by Phil McGregor
On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 04:44:00 -0700, Jack Linthicum

Post by Jack Linthicum

Post by Phil McGregor
On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 02:48:21 -0700, Jack Linthicum

Post by Jack Linthicum

Post by Phil McGregor
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 15:30:48 -0700, Jack Linthicum

Post by Phil McGregor

Post by k***@cix.compulink.co.uk

Post by Jack Linthicum
How about non-nomadic hunter gatherer societies?

Still not comparable to the densities agriculture and a political
system that could support food storage could manage. The Pueblo culture
might be a better bet though I do not claim to be an expert just what I
picked up.

And, of course, provides no estimate of their actual population
density, which is of paramount importance.

He provides no information on the all important population *density*
figures.

You have mentioned something called "population density figures"
several times. Would please describe what you are citing, perhaps with
some references, and some examples of cultures that meet, met or did
not meet this magic number? It's called "showing your work".

You really are a clewless fool.
Not only don't you do any research worth spit, you don't even read the
posts that show up your stupidity.
But, hey, feel free to keep showing that you're a moron.

I get the picture, you don't have anything so you decide to insult.

No, fool, you don't have the slightest glimmering of anything
resembling a clew.
Is a message ID that provides the information you mendaciously claim
not to have noticed.
Moron or purveyor of deliberate falsehoods?
I'm sure everyone else is drawing their own conclusions.
But, hey, if you want to hammer home your downright stupendous level
of clewlessness, feel free.

I think anyone else can duplicate my search for that
on the newsgroups and find the only occurrence is this message I am
replying to.

That's because mendacious sack of shit that you are, you inserted
three dots in the message ID that I posted, so no one could actually
follow it.

The message ID posted was, and remains ...

***@news.individual.net

NOT your mendaciously altered ...

***@news.individual.net

And, indeed, the Message with the *correct* message ID actually
answers your question.

The fact that you are now resorting to deliberate falsification to
pretend that you are, in fact, not a clewless maroon when, in fact, it
is obvious that you are is merely a sign of your desperation.

Phil

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: ***@pacific.net.au

[Jack Linthicum]

Post by Phil McGregor
On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 07:12:50 -0700, Jack Linthicum

Post by Jack Linthicum

Post by Phil McGregor
On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 04:44:00 -0700, Jack Linthicum

Post by Jack Linthicum

Post by Phil McGregor
On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 02:48:21 -0700, Jack Linthicum

Post by Jack Linthicum

Post by Phil McGregor
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 15:30:48 -0700, Jack Linthicum

Post by Phil McGregor

Post by k***@cix.compulink.co.uk

Post by Jack Linthicum
How about non-nomadic hunter gatherer societies?

Still not comparable to the densities agriculture and a political
system that could support food storage could manage. The Pueblo culture
might be a better bet though I do not claim to be an expert just what I
picked up.

And, of course, provides no estimate of their actual population
density, which is of paramount importance.

He provides no information on the all important population *density*
figures.

You have mentioned something called "population density figures"
several times. Would please describe what you are citing, perhaps with
some references, and some examples of cultures that meet, met or did
not meet this magic number? It's called "showing your work".

You really are a clewless fool.
Not only don't you do any research worth spit, you don't even read the
posts that show up your stupidity.
But, hey, feel free to keep showing that you're a moron.

I get the picture, you don't have anything so you decide to insult.

No, fool, you don't have the slightest glimmering of anything
resembling a clew.
Is a message ID that provides the information you mendaciously claim
not to have noticed.
Moron or purveyor of deliberate falsehoods?
I'm sure everyone else is drawing their own conclusions.
But, hey, if you want to hammer home your downright stupendous level
of clewlessness, feel free.

I think anyone else can duplicate my search for that
on the newsgroups and find the only occurrence is this message I am
replying to.

That's because mendacious sack of shit that you are, you inserted
three dots in the message ID that I posted, so no one could actually
follow it.
The message ID posted was, and remains ...
NOT your mendaciously altered ...
And, indeed, the Message with the *correct* message ID actually
answers your question.
The fact that you are now resorting to deliberate falsification to
pretend that you are, in fact, not a clewless maroon when, in fact, it
is obvious that you are is merely a sign of your desperation.
Phil
Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

So, you even lie to yourself?

On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 02:48:21 -0700, Jack Linthicum

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Post by Phil McGregor

Post by Jack Linthicum
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 15:30:48 -0700, Jack Linthicum

Post by Phil McGregor

Post by Jack Linthicum

Post by Phil McGregor

Post by Jack Linthicum

Post by Phil McGregor
How about non-nomadic hunter gatherer societies?

Still not comparable to the densities agriculture and a political
system that could support food storage could manage. The Pueblo culture
might be a better bet though I do not claim to be an expert just what I
picked up.

And, of course, provides no estimate of their actual population
density, which is of paramount importance.

He provides no information on the all important population *density*
figures.

You have mentioned something called "population density figures"
several times. Would please describe what you are citing, perhaps with
some references, and some examples of cultures that meet, met or did
not meet this magic number? It's called "showing your work".

<***@news.individual.net>

You really are a clewless fool.

Not only don't you do any research worth spit, you don't even read the
posts that show up your stupidity.

But, hey, feel free to keep showing that you're a moron.

Phil

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: ***@pacific.net.au

[Phil McGregor]

On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 02:56:49 -0700, Jack Linthicum

Post by Jack Linthicum

Post by Phil McGregor
On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 07:12:50 -0700, Jack Linthicum

Post by Jack Linthicum

Post by Phil McGregor
On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 04:44:00 -0700, Jack Linthicum

Post by Jack Linthicum

Post by Phil McGregor
On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 02:48:21 -0700, Jack Linthicum

Post by Jack Linthicum

Post by Phil McGregor
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 15:30:48 -0700, Jack Linthicum

Post by Phil McGregor

Post by k***@cix.compulink.co.uk

Post by Jack Linthicum
How about non-nomadic hunter gatherer societies?

Still not comparable to the densities agriculture and a political
system that could support food storage could manage. The Pueblo culture
might be a better bet though I do not claim to be an expert just what I
picked up.

And, of course, provides no estimate of their actual population
density, which is of paramount importance.

He provides no information on the all important population *density*
figures.

You have mentioned something called "population density figures"
several times. Would please describe what you are citing, perhaps with
some references, and some examples of cultures that meet, met or did
not meet this magic number? It's called "showing your work".

You really are a clewless fool.
Not only don't you do any research worth spit, you don't even read the
posts that show up your stupidity.
But, hey, feel free to keep showing that you're a moron.

I get the picture, you don't have anything so you decide to insult.

No, fool, you don't have the slightest glimmering of anything
resembling a clew.
Is a message ID that provides the information you mendaciously claim
not to have noticed.
Moron or purveyor of deliberate falsehoods?
I'm sure everyone else is drawing their own conclusions.
But, hey, if you want to hammer home your downright stupendous level
of clewlessness, feel free.

I think anyone else can duplicate my search for that
on the newsgroups and find the only occurrence is this message I am
replying to.

That's because mendacious sack of shit that you are, you inserted
three dots in the message ID that I posted, so no one could actually
follow it.
The message ID posted was, and remains ...
NOT your mendaciously altered ...
And, indeed, the Message with the *correct* message ID actually
answers your question.
The fact that you are now resorting to deliberate falsification to
pretend that you are, in fact, not a clewless maroon when, in fact, it
is obvious that you are is merely a sign of your desperation.
Phil
Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

So, you even lie to yourself?
On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 02:48:21 -0700, Jack Linthicum
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Post by Phil McGregor

Post by Jack Linthicum
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 15:30:48 -0700, Jack Linthicum

Post by Phil McGregor

Post by Jack Linthicum

Post by Phil McGregor

Post by Jack Linthicum

Post by Phil McGregor
How about non-nomadic hunter gatherer societies?

Still not comparable to the densities agriculture and a political
system that could support food storage could manage. The Pueblo culture
might be a better bet though I do not claim to be an expert just what I
picked up.

And, of course, provides no estimate of their actual population
density, which is of paramount importance.

He provides no information on the all important population *density*
figures.

You have mentioned something called "population density figures"
several times. Would please describe what you are citing, perhaps with
some references, and some examples of cultures that meet, met or did
not meet this magic number? It's called "showing your work".

You really are a clewless fool.
Not only don't you do any research worth spit, you don't even read the
posts that show up your stupidity.
But, hey, feel free to keep showing that you're a moron.
Phil
Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

It's really good to see you quoting my opinion of you.

For the first time you're getting a clew.

But your still mendaciously deleting core parts of all the addresses
in ghu knows what sort of attempt to prove that you're a bigger
clewless maroon that anyone has considered to date.

Consider it Resolved: Jacky-poo is the biggest moron on shwi.

Phil

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: ***@pacific.net.au

[Invid Fan]

Post by Phil McGregor
It's really good to see you quoting my opinion of you.
For the first time you're getting a clew.
But your still mendaciously deleting core parts of all the addresses
in ghu knows what sort of attempt to prove that you're a bigger
clewless maroon that anyone has considered to date.

Hate to jump into the middle of your fun, but the extra dots were in

Post by Phil McGregor
No, fool, you don't have the slightest glimmering of anything
resembling a clew.
Is a message ID that provides the information you mendaciously claim
not to have noticed.
You really are a clewless fool.

So, while he may be clewless, he has you making mistakes out of
frustration.

[Phil McGregor]

Post by Invid Fan

Post by Phil McGregor
It's really good to see you quoting my opinion of you.
For the first time you're getting a clew.
But your still mendaciously deleting core parts of all the addresses
in ghu knows what sort of attempt to prove that you're a bigger
clewless maroon that anyone has considered to date.

Hate to jump into the middle of your fun, but the extra dots were in

Post by Phil McGregor
No, fool, you don't have the slightest glimmering of anything
resembling a clew.
Is a message ID that provides the information you mendaciously claim
not to have noticed.
You really are a clewless fool.

So, while he may be clewless, he has you making mistakes out of
frustration.

Nope. If you look carefully, you'll find that that was me quoting him
quoting me.

Or me giving an example of his dishonet methods.

Phil

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: ***@pacific.net.au

[Invid Fan]

Post by Phil McGregor

Post by Invid Fan

Post by Phil McGregor
It's really good to see you quoting my opinion of you.
For the first time you're getting a clew.
But your still mendaciously deleting core parts of all the addresses
in ghu knows what sort of attempt to prove that you're a bigger
clewless maroon that anyone has considered to date.

Hate to jump into the middle of your fun, but the extra dots were in

Post by Phil McGregor
No, fool, you don't have the slightest glimmering of anything
resembling a clew.
Is a message ID that provides the information you mendaciously claim
not to have noticed.
You really are a clewless fool.

So, while he may be clewless, he has you making mistakes out of
frustration.

Nope. If you look carefully, you'll find that that was me quoting him
quoting me.
Or me giving an example of his dishonet methods.

I have no cat in this fight, so whatever :)

[Phil McGregor]

Post by Invid Fan

Post by Phil McGregor

Post by Invid Fan

Post by Phil McGregor
It's really good to see you quoting my opinion of you.
For the first time you're getting a clew.
But your still mendaciously deleting core parts of all the addresses
in ghu knows what sort of attempt to prove that you're a bigger
clewless maroon that anyone has considered to date.

Hate to jump into the middle of your fun, but the extra dots were in

Post by Phil McGregor
No, fool, you don't have the slightest glimmering of anything
resembling a clew.
Is a message ID that provides the information you mendaciously claim
not to have noticed.
You really are a clewless fool.

So, while he may be clewless, he has you making mistakes out of
frustration.

Nope. If you look carefully, you'll find that that was me quoting him
quoting me.
Or me giving an example of his dishonet methods.

I have no cat in this fight, so whatever :)

Not saying you do!

Phil

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: ***@pacific.net.au

[Phil McGregor]

Post by k***@cix.compulink.co.uk

Post by BernardZ
What is important is not a city but a community for example few
cities in medieval Europe had 250,000 population.

Depending on what you call Medieval, probably Constantinople for at
least some of the period (say 800-1450 AD).

Post by k***@cix.compulink.co.uk
I have not looked the figures up but probably none. However the
important points are a: transit times and b: population density. A
nomadic hunter gatherer life style does not support high population
densities though given enough land total population can be high.

Indeed. Quite so.

Post by k***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Generally speaking European cities were constrained in urban sprawl by
various factors. For example for most of it's history London consisted
of the City and Southwark. It was the 19th century when Greater London
spread to take in places like Wembly and Windsor.

Quite correct.

City walls were an issue. Expensive to build, so make 'em as short as
possible.

Post by k***@cix.compulink.co.uk
To take transit time into account, a disease carrier must be able to
travel far enough to infect someone else before either dying or
recovering. It may have been the Mongol conquest that spread the Black
Death to Europe. One result was far easier communications with the East.

Indeed.

Phil

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: ***@pacific.net.au

[Crown-Horned Snorkack]

Post by ErrolC
<snip>

Post by Phil McGregor

Post by bernardz
If I am sick and no-one is around to give me food and water, I will
get worse. Another example might be in hunting or fishing economy, if
no-one can fish or hunt we have no-food. In an agricultural society,
if no-one can collect the harvest in time, people will starve.

Less so than you imagine in an agricultural society ... even the first
time an epidemic disease occurs it doesn't have much of an impact on
the survivors. So many die that even the reduced productivity means
that the survivors can harvest enough to be comfortably off, food
wise.
In fact, this was the case during the aftermath of the Black Death.

I can accept that.

That would depend on the seasonality, no?

If an epidemy occurs in autumn slack season, when harvest has been
collected and all the work essential for survival is fetching food
from granaries and cooking it, which can be done by the few healthy
persons around, then after the epidemy the survivors wind up with
stores collected by and for a large number people who have died.

But if the epidemy happens on high season, like harvest time or
ploughing time, so that large number of people are ill and unable to
work, but then recover, they will find that they do not have the food
stocks till the next harvest...

[Phil McGregor]

On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 23:49:13 -0700, Crown-Horned Snorkack

Post by Crown-Horned Snorkack

Post by ErrolC
<snip>

Post by Phil McGregor

Post by bernardz
If I am sick and no-one is around to give me food and water, I will
get worse. Another example might be in hunting or fishing economy, if
no-one can fish or hunt we have no-food. In an agricultural society,
if no-one can collect the harvest in time, people will starve.

Less so than you imagine in an agricultural society ... even the first
time an epidemic disease occurs it doesn't have much of an impact on
the survivors. So many die that even the reduced productivity means
that the survivors can harvest enough to be comfortably off, food
wise.
In fact, this was the case during the aftermath of the Black Death.

I can accept that.

That would depend on the seasonality, no?
If an epidemy occurs in autumn slack season, when harvest has been
collected and all the work essential for survival is fetching food
from granaries and cooking it, which can be done by the few healthy
persons around, then after the epidemy the survivors wind up with
stores collected by and for a large number people who have died.
But if the epidemy happens on high season, like harvest time or
ploughing time, so that large number of people are ill and unable to
work, but then recover, they will find that they do not have the food
stocks till the next harvest...

Actually, no.

The Black Death occurred at a time when the population of many parts
of Europe were pushing the carrying capacity possible with the
agricultural and transport technology of the time. One of the reasons
the initial die backs were so bad was because malnutrition and general
lack of food weakens the immune systems (and, as well, the generation
reaching adulthood in the mid 14th century had already had their
immune systems compromised in childhood due to the Great Famine of the
the early 13teens, making things worse ... which is neither here nor
there).

So, yes, if sowing has already been done, the survivors can *probably*
reap more than enough to have more than enough ... though lack of
labour becomes a problem, some crops will certainly rot in the fields,
some land will revert to "bush" (in the Australian vernacular).

However, even if it is the ploughing/sowing season, things are
(relatively) rosy for the survivors. With all the dead, they can farm
the most fertile land and reap the greatest possible yields (and,
indeed, this is what evidently happened ... marginal lands were
abandoned and rich lands remained in cultivation) ... and those doing
so won't necessarily be the original owners.

Also, consider this ... the Plague kills *people*, not animals ... so
there will be plenty of meat and dairy products in the diet of the
survivors, and, of course, they can use the best surviving draught
animals to plough the best farmland.

When population levels were pushing the malthusian limits of medieval
tech the typical peasant often had to pull the plough with a single
milk cow and his wife and children hitched to it rather than the 5-6
Oxen recommended. So, in the aftermath of a plague, they can use
bigger teams for the simple reason that the owners aren't going to
complain ... being very, very, dead.

So it really doesn't make any difference what the season is.

Phil

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: ***@pacific.net.au

[Les]

On Jun 27, 4:46 am, ***@pacific.net.au (Phil McGregor) wrote:

(stuff deleted)

Post by Phil McGregor
Also, consider this ... the Plague kills *people*, not animals ... so
there will be plenty of meat and dairy products in the diet of the
survivors, and, of course, they can use the best surviving draught
animals to plough the best farmland.

(rest of post deleted)

The following is according to a documentary I half-remember, so any
book you cite will trump it.

The Black Death (Bubonic Plague) is still in existance, at least in
portions of rural New Mexico. The documentary described how it
infects the fleas, then infects the animals, who can possibly infect
the humans before they die. One example was how a dying cat bit its
owner, giving her a bubonic plague. The documentary also showed
disease workers checking out dead rodents for signs of the plague.

Now, rodents are different from cattle and livestock, so they may have
an immunity to the disease. I just have not heard how.

[Jack Linthicum]

Post by Les
(stuff deleted)

Post by Phil McGregor
Also, consider this ... the Plague kills *people*, not animals ... so
there will be plenty of meat and dairy products in the diet of the
survivors, and, of course, they can use the best surviving draught
animals to plough the best farmland.

(rest of post deleted)
The following is according to a documentary I half-remember, so any
book you cite will trump it.
The Black Death (Bubonic Plague) is still in existance, at least in
portions of rural New Mexico. The documentary described how it
infects the fleas, then infects the animals, who can possibly infect
the humans before they die. One example was how a dying cat bit its
owner, giving her a bubonic plague. The documentary also showed
disease workers checking out dead rodents for signs of the plague.
Now, rodents are different from cattle and livestock, so they may have
an immunity to the disease. I just have not heard how.

The various rodents have usually acquired immunity from the flea bites
and the accompanying bacterium.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvbid/plague/

CDC Plague Home Page
Picture of male oriental rat flea engorged with blood
Male Xenopsylla cheopis (oriental rat flea) engorged with blood. This
flea is the primary vector of plague in most large plague epidemics in
Asia, Africa, and South America. Both male and female fleas can
transmit the infection.
View enlarged image.

Introduction: Plague is an infectious disease of animals and humans
caused by a bacterium named Yersinia pestis.

People usually get plague from being bitten by a rodent flea that is
carrying the plague bacterium or by handling an infected animal.
Millions of people in Europe died from plague in the Middle Ages, when
human homes and places of work were inhabited by flea-infested rats.
Today, modern antibiotics are effective against plague, but if an
infected person is not treated promptly, the disease is likely to
cause illness or death.



World distribution of plague, 1998

Risk: Wild rodents in certain areas around the world are infected with
plague. Outbreaks in people still occur in rural communities or in
cities. They are usually associated with infected rats and rat fleas
that live in the home. In the United States, the last urban plague
epidemic occurred in Los Angeles in 1924-25. Since then, human plague
in the United States has occurred as mostly scattered cases in rural
areas (an average of 10 to 15 persons each year). Globally, the World
Health Organization reports 1,000 to 3,000 cases of plague every year.
In North America, plague is found in certain animals and their fleas
from the Pacific Coast to the Great Plains, and from southwestern
Canada to Mexico. Most human cases in the United States occur in two
regions: 1) northern New Mexico, northern Arizona, and southern
Colorado; and 2) California, southern Oregon, and far western Nevada.
Plague also exists in Africa, Asia, and South America (see map).

References:

Gage KL. Plague. In: Colliers L, Balows A, Sussman M, Hausles WJ, eds.
Topley and Wilson's microbiology and microbiological infections, vol
3. London: Edward Arnold Press, 1998:885-903.

Campbell GL, Dennis DT. Plague and other Yersinia infections. In:
Kasper DL, et al; eds. Harrison's principles of internal medicine.
14th ed. New York: McGraw Hill, 1998:975-83.

Bahmanyar M, Cavanaugh DC. Plague Manual. Geneva: World Health
Organization, 1976.

Perry RD, Fetherston JD. Yersinia pestis--etiologic agent of plague.
Clin Microbiol Rev, 1997;10:35-66.

Butler T. Plague and other Yersinia infections. New York, Plenum
Press, 1983.


What killed the Native American population when the Europeans came was
measles and smallpox. These came in advance of the actual Europeans.

Plague came to the Americas late, probably as a result of the Third
Wave in Asia. In 1894 a few cases of plague were documented in Canton,
and from there it spread to Hong Kong. Although the initial outbreak
was relatively small, the disease was quickly carried to many parts of
the world by ocean-going vessels. In its westward course, the plague
reached India, and then Africa and Europe (especially Spain, Portugal,
Italy, and Great Britain). It also spread eastward to the Philippines,
Australia, Japan, Hawaii, and the Pacific coasts of North and South
America.

One of the real hot spots, and the scene of the last outbreak in the
United States, are the eastern suburbs of Los Angeles. There was an
outbreak in 1924-5 but the entirety of Southern California seems to be
wall-to-wall housing now and the chances of an outbreak are considered
small.

[David Johnson]

Jack Linthicum <***@earthlink.net> wrote in news:***@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:

[snip]

Post by Jack Linthicum
One of the real hot spots, and the scene of the last outbreak in the
United States, are the eastern suburbs of Los Angeles. There was an
outbreak in 1924-5 but the entirety of Southern California seems to be
wall-to-wall housing now and the chances of an outbreak are considered
small.

I wonder about that.

True, Southern California is massively developed, but there still is a
lot of "wild" area fringing and winding through all the developed areas
(as all the people whose homes are lost in wildfires around here know)
and interactions between wildlife and urban/suburban dwellers seems to be
increasing yearly.

(heck, coyotes, raccoons and skunks _regularly_ swing by my place and I'm
a good two miles from any "wild" area - namely, Eaton Canyon. And once I
even saw a pair of bobcats a further two miles away from the "wild." They
seem to use the storm drains as wildlife freeways...)

And a large chunk of that wildlife is, of course, rodents - larger than
ever, what with the loss of so many predators. All it would take is one
good (big) wildfire or long drought to shove a lot of potentially plague-
infected rodentia into suburbia* - which is nicely filled with pets able
to further transmit fleas.

Now that I come to think of it, it actually surprises me that we
_haven't_ had any sort of outbreak. The plague reservoir must be very
small.

David

* Oh, darn...that's what's happening this year, isn't it...
--
_______________________________________________________________________
David Johnson home.earthlink.net/~trolleyfan

"So many of you come time and time again to watch this final end of
everything which I think is really wonderful and then to return home to
your own eras and raise families and strive for new and better societies
and fight terrible wars for what you know is right, it gives one real
hope for the whole future of lifekind...

...Except of course we know it hasn't got one."

[Jack Linthicum]

Post by David Johnson
[snip]

Post by Jack Linthicum
One of the real hot spots, and the scene of the last outbreak in the
United States, are the eastern suburbs of Los Angeles. There was an
outbreak in 1924-5 but the entirety of Southern California seems to be
wall-to-wall housing now and the chances of an outbreak are considered
small.

I wonder about that.
True, Southern California is massively developed, but there still is a
lot of "wild" area fringing and winding through all the developed areas
(as all the people whose homes are lost in wildfires around here know)
and interactions between wildlife and urban/suburban dwellers seems to be
increasing yearly.
(heck, coyotes, raccoons and skunks _regularly_ swing by my place and I'm
a good two miles from any "wild" area - namely, Eaton Canyon. And once I
even saw a pair of bobcats a further two miles away from the "wild." They
seem to use the storm drains as wildlife freeways...)
And a large chunk of that wildlife is, of course, rodents - larger than
ever, what with the loss of so many predators. All it would take is one
good (big) wildfire or long drought to shove a lot of potentially plague-
infected rodentia into suburbia* - which is nicely filled with pets able
to further transmit fleas.
Now that I come to think of it, it actually surprises me that we
_haven't_ had any sort of outbreak. The plague reservoir must be very
small.
David
* Oh, darn...that's what's happening this year, isn't it...
--
_______________________________________________________________________
David Johnson home.earthlink.net/~trolleyfan
"So many of you come time and time again to watch this final end of
everything which I think is really wonderful and then to return home to
your own eras and raise families and strive for new and better societies
and fight terrible wars for what you know is right, it gives one real
hope for the whole future of lifekind...
...Except of course we know it hasn't got one."

You should also remember that the 1924 LA outbreak was unusual in that
included a human to human transmission of the disease. IIRC it was
ground squirrels that had the stuff, in what is now east LA,
Montebello area.

[Phil McGregor]

On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 08:02:44 -0700, Jack Linthicum

Post by Jack Linthicum

Post by Les
(stuff deleted)

Post by Phil McGregor
Also, consider this ... the Plague kills *people*, not animals ... so
there will be plenty of meat and dairy products in the diet of the
survivors, and, of course, they can use the best surviving draught
animals to plough the best farmland.

(rest of post deleted)
The following is according to a documentary I half-remember, so any
book you cite will trump it.
The Black Death (Bubonic Plague) is still in existance, at least in
portions of rural New Mexico. The documentary described how it
infects the fleas, then infects the animals, who can possibly infect
the humans before they die. One example was how a dying cat bit its
owner, giving her a bubonic plague. The documentary also showed
disease workers checking out dead rodents for signs of the plague.
Now, rodents are different from cattle and livestock, so they may have
an immunity to the disease. I just have not heard how.

The various rodents have usually acquired immunity from the flea bites
and the accompanying bacterium.
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvbid/plague/
CDC Plague Home Page
Picture of male oriental rat flea engorged with blood
Male Xenopsylla cheopis (oriental rat flea) engorged with blood. This
flea is the primary vector of plague in most large plague epidemics in
Asia, Africa, and South America. Both male and female fleas can
transmit the infection.
View enlarged image.
Introduction: Plague is an infectious disease of animals and humans
caused by a bacterium named Yersinia pestis.
People usually get plague from being bitten by a rodent flea that is
carrying the plague bacterium or by handling an infected animal.
Millions of people in Europe died from plague in the Middle Ages, when
human homes and places of work were inhabited by flea-infested rats.
Today, modern antibiotics are effective against plague, but if an
infected person is not treated promptly, the disease is likely to
cause illness or death.
World distribution of plague, 1998
Risk: Wild rodents in certain areas around the world are infected with
plague. Outbreaks in people still occur in rural communities or in
cities. They are usually associated with infected rats and rat fleas
that live in the home. In the United States, the last urban plague
epidemic occurred in Los Angeles in 1924-25. Since then, human plague
in the United States has occurred as mostly scattered cases in rural
areas (an average of 10 to 15 persons each year). Globally, the World
Health Organization reports 1,000 to 3,000 cases of plague every year.
In North America, plague is found in certain animals and their fleas
from the Pacific Coast to the Great Plains, and from southwestern
Canada to Mexico. Most human cases in the United States occur in two
regions: 1) northern New Mexico, northern Arizona, and southern
Colorado; and 2) California, southern Oregon, and far western Nevada.
Plague also exists in Africa, Asia, and South America (see map).
Gage KL. Plague. In: Colliers L, Balows A, Sussman M, Hausles WJ, eds.
Topley and Wilson's microbiology and microbiological infections, vol
3. London: Edward Arnold Press, 1998:885-903.
Kasper DL, et al; eds. Harrison's principles of internal medicine.
14th ed. New York: McGraw Hill, 1998:975-83.
Bahmanyar M, Cavanaugh DC. Plague Manual. Geneva: World Health
Organization, 1976.
Perry RD, Fetherston JD. Yersinia pestis--etiologic agent of plague.
Clin Microbiol Rev, 1997;10:35-66.
Butler T. Plague and other Yersinia infections. New York, Plenum
Press, 1983.
What killed the Native American population when the Europeans came was
measles and smallpox. These came in advance of the actual Europeans.
Plague came to the Americas late, probably as a result of the Third
Wave in Asia. In 1894 a few cases of plague were documented in Canton,
and from there it spread to Hong Kong. Although the initial outbreak
was relatively small, the disease was quickly carried to many parts of
the world by ocean-going vessels. In its westward course, the plague
reached India, and then Africa and Europe (especially Spain, Portugal,
Italy, and Great Britain). It also spread eastward to the Philippines,
Australia, Japan, Hawaii, and the Pacific coasts of North and South
America.
One of the real hot spots, and the scene of the last outbreak in the
United States, are the eastern suburbs of Los Angeles. There was an
outbreak in 1924-5 but the entirety of Southern California seems to be
wall-to-wall housing now and the chances of an outbreak are considered
small.

Jack is correct ... irrelevant, as he ignores the underlaying question
you asked (probably didn't even notice it, as is usual for him) ...
but correct the irrelevancy even so.

Rodents are carriers and the Plague reservoir in central asia even
today.

What he hasn't clewed in on is the fact that cattle, sheep, pigs and
horses are not affected ... so the human survivors in the mid 14th
century would have had plenty of meat to supplement their diets.

Phil

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: ***@pacific.net.au

[Jack Linthicum]

Post by Phil McGregor
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 08:02:44 -0700, Jack Linthicum

Post by Jack Linthicum

Post by Les
(stuff deleted)

Post by Phil McGregor
Also, consider this ... the Plague kills *people*, not animals ... so
there will be plenty of meat and dairy products in the diet of the
survivors, and, of course, they can use the best surviving draught
animals to plough the best farmland.

(rest of post deleted)
The following is according to a documentary I half-remember, so any
book you cite will trump it.
The Black Death (Bubonic Plague) is still in existance, at least in
portions of rural New Mexico. The documentary described how it
infects the fleas, then infects the animals, who can possibly infect
the humans before they die. One example was how a dying cat bit its
owner, giving her a bubonic plague. The documentary also showed
disease workers checking out dead rodents for signs of the plague.
Now, rodents are different from cattle and livestock, so they may have
an immunity to the disease. I just have not heard how.

The various rodents have usually acquired immunity from the flea bites
and the accompanying bacterium.
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvbid/plague/
CDC Plague Home Page
Picture of male oriental rat flea engorged with blood
Male Xenopsylla cheopis (oriental rat flea) engorged with blood. This
flea is the primary vector of plague in most large plague epidemics in
Asia, Africa, and South America. Both male and female fleas can
transmit the infection.
View enlarged image.
Introduction: Plague is an infectious disease of animals and humans
caused by a bacterium named Yersinia pestis.
People usually get plague from being bitten by a rodent flea that is
carrying the plague bacterium or by handling an infected animal.
Millions of people in Europe died from plague in the Middle Ages, when
human homes and places of work were inhabited by flea-infested rats.
Today, modern antibiotics are effective against plague, but if an
infected person is not treated promptly, the disease is likely to
cause illness or death.
World distribution of plague, 1998
Risk: Wild rodents in certain areas around the world are infected with
plague. Outbreaks in people still occur in rural communities or in
cities. They are usually associated with infected rats and rat fleas
that live in the home. In the United States, the last urban plague
epidemic occurred in Los Angeles in 1924-25. Since then, human plague
in the United States has occurred as mostly scattered cases in rural
areas (an average of 10 to 15 persons each year). Globally, the World
Health Organization reports 1,000 to 3,000 cases of plague every year.
In North America, plague is found in certain animals and their fleas
from the Pacific Coast to the Great Plains, and from southwestern
Canada to Mexico. Most human cases in the United States occur in two
regions: 1) northern New Mexico, northern Arizona, and southern
Colorado; and 2) California, southern Oregon, and far western Nevada.
Plague also exists in Africa, Asia, and South America (see map).
Gage KL. Plague. In: Colliers L, Balows A, Sussman M, Hausles WJ, eds.
Topley and Wilson's microbiology and microbiological infections, vol
3. London: Edward Arnold Press, 1998:885-903.
Kasper DL, et al; eds. Harrison's principles of internal medicine.
14th ed. New York: McGraw Hill, 1998:975-83.
Bahmanyar M, Cavanaugh DC. Plague Manual. Geneva: World Health
Organization, 1976.
Perry RD, Fetherston JD. Yersinia pestis--etiologic agent of plague.
Clin Microbiol Rev, 1997;10:35-66.
Butler T. Plague and other Yersinia infections. New York, Plenum
Press, 1983.
What killed the Native American population when the Europeans came was
measles and smallpox. These came in advance of the actual Europeans.
Plague came to the Americas late, probably as a result of the Third
Wave in Asia. In 1894 a few cases of plague were documented in Canton,
and from there it spread to Hong Kong. Although the initial outbreak
was relatively small, the disease was quickly carried to many parts of
the world by ocean-going vessels. In its westward course, the plague
reached India, and then Africa and Europe (especially Spain, Portugal,
Italy, and Great Britain). It also spread eastward to the Philippines,
Australia, Japan, Hawaii, and the Pacific coasts of North and South
America.
One of the real hot spots, and the scene of the last outbreak in the
United States, are the eastern suburbs of Los Angeles. There was an
outbreak in 1924-5 but the entirety of Southern California seems to be
wall-to-wall housing now and the chances of an outbreak are considered
small.

Jack is correct ... irrelevant, as he ignores the underlaying question
you asked (probably didn't even notice it, as is usual for him) ...
but correct the irrelevancy even so.
Rodents are carriers and the Plague reservoir in central asia even
today.
What he hasn't clewed in on is the fact that cattle, sheep, pigs and
horses are not affected ... so the human survivors in the mid 14th
century would have had plenty of meat to supplement their diets.
Phil
Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Have you clued on to the fact that there was no bubonic plague in the
Americas before 1890?

[Phil McGregor]

On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:41:52 -0700, Jack Linthicum

Post by Jack Linthicum

Post by Phil McGregor
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 08:02:44 -0700, Jack Linthicum

Have you clued on to the fact that there was no bubonic plague in the
Americas before 1890?

Indeed. I have.

Have *you* clewed into the fact that the discussion is of the effects
of european pandemics breaking out in the Americas before 1492?

Or that the post you were answering was about Plague in Europe in the
mid 14th century?

I would guess not.

You aren't clewed in about *anything*

Phil

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: ***@pacific.net.au

[Jack Linthicum]

Post by Phil McGregor
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:41:52 -0700, Jack Linthicum

Post by Jack Linthicum

Post by Phil McGregor
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 08:02:44 -0700, Jack Linthicum

Have you clued on to the fact that there was no bubonic plague in the
Americas before 1890?

Indeed. I have.
Have *you* clewed into the fact that the discussion is of the effects
of european pandemics breaking out in the Americas before 1492?
Or that the post you were answering was about Plague in Europe in the
mid 14th century?
I would guess not.
You aren't clewed in about *anything*
Phil
Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Original Post

'm marking this as "[Theory]" because it's more about how
ATLs might develop in general than a particular TL's history.

The basic gist is to examine how North America would have developed
if settled with less unity, and maybe a lower technological level.
Specifically, I've been thinking about a "Japan settles the West
Coast" TL, and about using North America as the base map for a
D&D world (a bit off topic for this group, I know), but let's
focus on the generics without getting bogged down in the details.

Basic scenario: You have a west coast settled by an overseas
civilization with medieval-to-enlightenment level technology.
This civilization gets at least a century to develop on its
own before it starts banging into other civs of a similar
level. There's another civ in Mexico, possibly expanding
northward, and a third in the Mississippi valley, all three
of them have similar tech levels. In between, you have
nomadic bands (possibly, but not necessarily technologically
inferior) occupying the deserts, mountains, high plains,
and subarctic forests. All three civs seek to fortify
their frontiers to guard against nomads, regulate trade,
and prevent the advance of the other civs. My question
is "what are the key points to fortify, the "inevitable"
sites of forts and castles?

Also, how "civilizable" is the American West without
industrial technology. OTL the intensive settlement
of the American west was highly dependent on the railroads,
barbed wire, deep drilled wells, etc, this means we
can't rely on history to show the potential of earlier
technologies for settling this terrain (since, with
the possible exception of New Mexico, none of the
land near the area in question was close to "fully settled"
at the time industrial technology really started changing
things.

So without this tech, how much of the area could be settled
given a mature civilization reaching its limit in that area?
Could the Pacific Civ successfully settle the Central Valley
of California and the "Inland Empire" of Washington? What
about settlements in the Rockies? How much can be eked out
of the various oases and rivers in the desert regions? How
far into the plains can the "Mississippi" civ push?

Old Toby
Least Known Dog on the Net

[Phil McGregor]

On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 02:57:07 -0700, Jack Linthicum

Post by Jack Linthicum

Post by Phil McGregor
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:41:52 -0700, Jack Linthicum

Post by Jack Linthicum

Post by Phil McGregor
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 08:02:44 -0700, Jack Linthicum

Have you clued on to the fact that there was no bubonic plague in the
Americas before 1890?

Indeed. I have.
Have *you* clewed into the fact that the discussion is of the effects
of european pandemics breaking out in the Americas before 1492?
Or that the post you were answering was about Plague in Europe in the
mid 14th century?
I would guess not.
You aren't clewed in about *anything*

Original Post

Is, of course, like everything you post ... irrelevant or wrong.

Irrelevant, in this case, as the specific sub-thread you are replying
to, and the specific posts within that sub thread are, as I indicated,
about the the effects of european pandemics breaking out in the
Americas before 1492 and Plague in Europe in the mid 14th century.

Linthipoo: Clewless has a new name.

Phil

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: ***@pacific.net.au

[Jack Linthicum]

Post by Phil McGregor
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 02:57:07 -0700, Jack Linthicum

Post by Jack Linthicum

Post by Phil McGregor
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:41:52 -0700, Jack Linthicum

Post by Jack Linthicum

Post by Phil McGregor
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 08:02:44 -0700, Jack Linthicum

Have you clued on to the fact that there was no bubonic plague in the
Americas before 1890?

Indeed. I have.
Have *you* clewed into the fact that the discussion is of the effects
of european pandemics breaking out in the Americas before 1492?
Or that the post you were answering was about Plague in Europe in the
mid 14th century?
I would guess not.
You aren't clewed in about *anything*

Original Post

Is, of course, like everything you post ... irrelevant or wrong.
Irrelevant, in this case, as the specific sub-thread you are replying
to, and the specific posts within that sub thread are, as I indicated,
about the the effects of european pandemics breaking out in the
Americas before 1492 and Plague in Europe in the mid 14th century.
Linthipoo: Clewless has a new name.
Phil
Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

But no plague, right?

[Phil McGregor]

On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 03:42:36 -0700, Jack Linthicum

Post by Jack Linthicum

Post by Phil McGregor
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 02:57:07 -0700, Jack Linthicum

Post by Jack Linthicum

Post by Phil McGregor
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:41:52 -0700, Jack Linthicum

Post by Jack Linthicum

Post by Phil McGregor
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 08:02:44 -0700, Jack Linthicum

Have you clued on to the fact that there was no bubonic plague in the
Americas before 1890?

Indeed. I have.
Have *you* clewed into the fact that the discussion is of the effects
of european pandemics breaking out in the Americas before 1492?
Or that the post you were answering was about Plague in Europe in the
mid 14th century?
I would guess not.
You aren't clewed in about *anything*

Original Post

Is, of course, like everything you post ... irrelevant or wrong.
Irrelevant, in this case, as the specific sub-thread you are replying
to, and the specific posts within that sub thread are, as I indicated,
about the the effects of european pandemics breaking out in the
Americas before 1492 and Plague in Europe in the mid 14th century.
Linthipoo: Clewless has a new name.

But no plague, right?

You did read what I posted?

Of course not!

If you *had* you would have noted that what I said was that your
answer was *irrelevant* to what was being discussed ... which it was,
is, and will remain for all eternity ... while what you said was
technically correct.

Like a kiss from your mother as opposed to one from your girlfriend.

Which probably makes unwarranted assumptions about Linthipoo.

Phil

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: ***@pacific.net.au

[Phil McGregor]

Post by Les
(stuff deleted)

Post by Phil McGregor
Also, consider this ... the Plague kills *people*, not animals ... so
there will be plenty of meat and dairy products in the diet of the
survivors, and, of course, they can use the best surviving draught
animals to plough the best farmland.

(rest of post deleted)
The following is according to a documentary I half-remember, so any
book you cite will trump it.
The Black Death (Bubonic Plague) is still in existance, at least in
portions of rural New Mexico. The documentary described how it
infects the fleas, then infects the animals, who can possibly infect
the humans before they die. One example was how a dying cat bit its
owner, giving her a bubonic plague. The documentary also showed
disease workers checking out dead rodents for signs of the plague.
Now, rodents are different from cattle and livestock, so they may have
an immunity to the disease. I just have not heard how.

Indeed they are (different, that is), and the Bubonic Plague is
*spread* by Rodents of all sorts, which is one of the reasons for the
quick spread of the disease in the mid 14th century.

It does not, however, have any effect on horses, pigs, sheep or
cattle.

Hence there will be plenty of these to supplement the diet of the
survivors, as I noted.

Phil

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: ***@pacific.net.au

[Crown-Horned Snorkack]

Post by Phil McGregor
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 23:49:13 -0700, Crown-Horned Snorkack

Post by Crown-Horned Snorkack

Post by ErrolC
<snip>

Post by Phil McGregor

Post by bernardz
If I am sick and no-one is around to give me food and water, I will
get worse. Another example might be in hunting or fishing economy, if
no-one can fish or hunt we have no-food. In an agricultural society,
if no-one can collect the harvest in time, people will starve.

Less so than you imagine in an agricultural society ... even the first
time an epidemic disease occurs it doesn't have much of an impact on
the survivors. So many die that even the reduced productivity means
that the survivors can harvest enough to be comfortably off, food
wise.
In fact, this was the case during the aftermath of the Black Death.

I can accept that.

That would depend on the seasonality, no?
If an epidemy occurs in autumn slack season, when harvest has been
collected and all the work essential for survival is fetching food
from granaries and cooking it, which can be done by the few healthy
persons around, then after the epidemy the survivors wind up with
stores collected by and for a large number people who have died.
But if the epidemy happens on high season, like harvest time or
ploughing time, so that large number of people are ill and unable to
work, but then recover, they will find that they do not have the food
stocks till the next harvest...

Actually, no.
The Black Death occurred at a time when the population of many parts
of Europe were pushing the carrying capacity possible with the
agricultural and transport technology of the time. One of the reasons
the initial die backs were so bad was because malnutrition and general
lack of food weakens the immune systems (and, as well, the generation
reaching adulthood in the mid 14th century had already had their
immune systems compromised in childhood due to the Great Famine of the
the early 13teens, making things worse ... which is neither here nor
there).
So, yes, if sowing has already been done, the survivors can *probably*
reap more than enough to have more than enough ... though lack of
labour becomes a problem, some crops will certainly rot in the fields,
some land will revert to "bush" (in the Australian vernacular).
However, even if it is the ploughing/sowing season, things are
(relatively) rosy for the survivors. With all the dead, they can farm
the most fertile land and reap the greatest possible yields (and,
indeed, this is what evidently happened ... marginal lands were
abandoned and rich lands remained in cultivation) ... and those doing
so won't necessarily be the original owners.

Provided that all the survivors were healthy during harvest. But those
advantages start only after the first harvest where all survivors can
participate.

If there were large numbers of people who were ill and unable to work
during harvest and then recovered, they still have to be fed somehow.

[Phil McGregor]

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 00:22:03 -0700, Crown-Horned Snorkack

Post by Crown-Horned Snorkack

Post by Phil McGregor
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 23:49:13 -0700, Crown-Horned Snorkack

Post by Crown-Horned Snorkack

Post by ErrolC
<snip>

Post by Phil McGregor

Post by bernardz
If I am sick and no-one is around to give me food and water, I will
get worse. Another example might be in hunting or fishing economy, if
no-one can fish or hunt we have no-food. In an agricultural society,
if no-one can collect the harvest in time, people will starve.

Less so than you imagine in an agricultural society ... even the first
time an epidemic disease occurs it doesn't have much of an impact on
the survivors. So many die that even the reduced productivity means
that the survivors can harvest enough to be comfortably off, food
wise.
In fact, this was the case during the aftermath of the Black Death.

I can accept that.

That would depend on the seasonality, no?
If an epidemy occurs in autumn slack season, when harvest has been
collected and all the work essential for survival is fetching food
from granaries and cooking it, which can be done by the few healthy
persons around, then after the epidemy the survivors wind up with
stores collected by and for a large number people who have died.
But if the epidemy happens on high season, like harvest time or
ploughing time, so that large number of people are ill and unable to
work, but then recover, they will find that they do not have the food
stocks till the next harvest...

Actually, no.
The Black Death occurred at a time when the population of many parts
of Europe were pushing the carrying capacity possible with the
agricultural and transport technology of the time. One of the reasons
the initial die backs were so bad was because malnutrition and general
lack of food weakens the immune systems (and, as well, the generation
reaching adulthood in the mid 14th century had already had their
immune systems compromised in childhood due to the Great Famine of the
the early 13teens, making things worse ... which is neither here nor
there).
So, yes, if sowing has already been done, the survivors can *probably*
reap more than enough to have more than enough ... though lack of
labour becomes a problem, some crops will certainly rot in the fields,
some land will revert to "bush" (in the Australian vernacular).
However, even if it is the ploughing/sowing season, things are
(relatively) rosy for the survivors. With all the dead, they can farm
the most fertile land and reap the greatest possible yields (and,
indeed, this is what evidently happened ... marginal lands were
abandoned and rich lands remained in cultivation) ... and those doing
so won't necessarily be the original owners.

Provided that all the survivors were healthy during harvest. But those
advantages start only after the first harvest where all survivors can
participate.
If there were large numbers of people who were ill and unable to work
during harvest and then recovered, they still have to be fed somehow.

You generally didn't get sick from the Bubonic Plague and recover ...
you (overwhelmingly) *d*i*e*d* ...

And note that, like most epidemics, it didn't infect *everyone* ...
"only" around a 1/3 of the British population died, but even there the
mortality rates varied from place to place and some places were harder
hit while others were less hard done by or even unaffected.

On average, around 2/3 lived. And most of those were never sickened.

Phil

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: ***@pacific.net.au

[Good Habit]

Post by Old Toby
Basic scenario: You have a west coast settled by an overseas
civilization with medieval-to-enlightenment level technology.
This civilization gets at least a century to develop on its
own before it starts banging into other civs of a similar
level. There's another civ in Mexico, possibly expanding
northward, and a third in the Mississippi valley, all three
of them have similar tech levels.

Where do the other civs originate? If the Pacific Coast is settled from
Asia - and the Caribbean and the northern Gulf Coast from around the
straits of Gibraltar (Morocco or El-Andalus) this might become possible.
Both settler populations would trade with the various peoples in what
now is Mexico. Although the natives would by far outnumber the settlers,
they would be somewhat back in technology, and be affected by imported
diseases. But if this contact happens early enough, they might adapt -
recover demographically, and improve technologically. So after a few
centuries all three civs might reach a similar tech and population
level, and the prairie peoples might have adopted the horse..

But compared to China at the time of the construction of the Great Wall,
population levels of both the Pacific and the Gulf Coast Civ would
remain low, so large scale fortifications are not in the cards. And
fortifying the West from potential raids by desert nomads? They are
usually a mountain range away, and not that numerous. The Prairies would
mostly be the room for horse nomads, that might be a dangerous threat to
both the Mexican and the Gulf Civ. So my guess would be that both would
draw the borders at the rivers, the Mexicans remaining south of the Rio
Grande, and Gulfians mostly East of the Mississippi. There might be some
settlement along the coast of Texas, but that one side would fortify it?
probably not worth the effort (to large an area, to vulnerable to
warriors on horse back with similar technology...).

In between, you have

Post by Old Toby
nomadic bands (possibly, but not necessarily technologically
inferior) occupying the deserts, mountains, high plains,
and subarctic forests. All three civs seek to fortify
their frontiers to guard against nomads, regulate trade,
and prevent the advance of the other civs. My question
is "what are the key points to fortify, the "inevitable"
sites of forts and castles?

Probably none - forts and castles would spring up in the East (Kentucky,
Tennesse, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, New York, New England) if there
would be a civ at medieval level in that area, and it would be
politically fragmented (what at that level seems likely). The same might
go for the West (Washington, Oregon, North-and Central California) - but
only - again - if there is no strong central government - the forts are
built by competing warlords.

Post by Old Toby
Also, how "civilizable" is the American West without
industrial technology. OTL the intensive settlement
of the American west was highly dependent on the railroads,
barbed wire, deep drilled wells, etc, this means we
can't rely on history to show the potential of earlier
technologies for settling this terrain

Depends what you mean with 'West'. The Pacific coast certainly is
"civilizable" - the problem is - where would the civilization spring up
from - the area isn't that large and not in easy contact with other
likely areas for a major civ. The Deserts - more doubtful. The prairies?
It's not likely that the nomads would turn to large scale farming. So
they would - at least partly - have to be subdued by a more numerous
farming population. But the Russian Kosaks might find an analogue if a
farming population East of the Mississippi becomes numerous enough.

Post by Old Toby
So without this tech, how much of the area could be settled
given a mature civilization reaching its limit in that area?
Could the Pacific Civ successfully settle the Central Valley
of California and the "Inland Empire" of Washington?

What is 'mature'? Yes to the above.
What

Post by Old Toby
about settlements in the Rockies? How much can be eked out
of the various oases and rivers in the desert regions?

If there is east-west trade, their might be some caravan routes, and
oases (and mountain hold outs) might get rich from supplying provisions
and fresh pack animals. But no dense population in the Rockys, as long
as the neighborhood isn't overcrowded.

Post by Old Toby
How far into the plains can the "Mississippi" civ push?

Not that far - unless/until their population levels have risen so far
that they fairly outnumber the plains nomads.

[Jack Linthicum]

Post by Good Habit

Post by Old Toby
Basic scenario: You have a west coast settled by an overseas
civilization with medieval-to-enlightenment level technology.
This civilization gets at least a century to develop on its
own before it starts banging into other civs of a similar
level. There's another civ in Mexico, possibly expanding
northward, and a third in the Mississippi valley, all three
of them have similar tech levels.

Where do the other civs originate? If the Pacific Coast is settled from
Asia - and the Caribbean and the northern Gulf Coast from around the
straits of Gibraltar (Morocco or El-Andalus) this might become possible.
Both settler populations would trade with the various peoples in what
now is Mexico. Although the natives would by far outnumber the settlers,
they would be somewhat back in technology, and be affected by imported
diseases. But if this contact happens early enough, they might adapt -
recover demographically, and improve technologically. So after a few
centuries all three civs might reach a similar tech and population
level, and the prairie peoples might have adopted the horse..
But compared to China at the time of the construction of the Great Wall,
population levels of both the Pacific and the Gulf Coast Civ would
remain low, so large scale fortifications are not in the cards. And
fortifying the West from potential raids by desert nomads? They are
usually a mountain range away, and not that numerous. The Prairies would
mostly be the room for horse nomads, that might be a dangerous threat to
both the Mexican and the Gulf Civ. So my guess would be that both would
draw the borders at the rivers, the Mexicans remaining south of the Rio
Grande, and Gulfians mostly East of the Mississippi. There might be some
settlement along the coast of Texas, but that one side would fortify it?
probably not worth the effort (to large an area, to vulnerable to
warriors on horse back with similar technology...).
In between, you have

Post by Old Toby
nomadic bands (possibly, but not necessarily technologically
inferior) occupying the deserts, mountains, high plains,
and subarctic forests. All three civs seek to fortify
their frontiers to guard against nomads, regulate trade,
and prevent the advance of the other civs. My question
is "what are the key points to fortify, the "inevitable"
sites of forts and castles?

Probably none - forts and castles would spring up in the East (Kentucky,
Tennesse, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, New York, New England) if there
would be a civ at medieval level in that area, and it would be
politically fragmented (what at that level seems likely). The same might
go for the West (Washington, Oregon, North-and Central California) - but
only - again - if there is no strong central government - the forts are
built by competing warlords.

Post by Old Toby
Also, how "civilizable" is the American West without
industrial technology. OTL the intensive settlement
of the American west was highly dependent on the railroads,
barbed wire, deep drilled wells, etc, this means we
can't rely on history to show the potential of earlier
technologies for settling this terrain

Depends what you mean with 'West'. The Pacific coast certainly is
"civilizable" - the problem is - where would the civilization spring up
from - the area isn't that large and not in easy contact with other
likely areas for a major civ. The Deserts - more doubtful. The prairies?
It's not likely that the nomads would turn to large scale farming. So
they would - at least partly - have to be subdued by a more numerous
farming population. But the Russian Kosaks might find an analogue if a
farming population East of the Mississippi becomes numerous enough.

Post by Old Toby
So without this tech, how much of the area could be settled
given a mature civilization reaching its limit in that area?
Could the Pacific Civ successfully settle the Central Valley
of California and the "Inland Empire" of Washington?

What is 'mature'? Yes to the above.
What

Post by Old Toby
about settlements in the Rockies? How much can be eked out
of the various oases and rivers in the desert regions?

If there is east-west trade, their might be some caravan routes, and
oases (and mountain hold outs) might get rich from supplying provisions
and fresh pack animals. But no dense population in the Rockys, as long
as the neighborhood isn't overcrowded.

Post by Old Toby
How far into the plains can the "Mississippi" civ push?

Not that far - unless/until their population levels have risen so far
that they fairly outnumber the plains nomads.

But, the only fact of life in the West, west of 100 degrees that is,
is water. You do not divide at the river you divide at the drainage
basin, usually the division will be a high point like the Continental
Divide. I would imagine the creation of towns or enclosed areas in the
drainage basins and a garrison of troops, either of a king or the
local lord. Conflict will come when the protection of one drainage
area requires some intrusion into the next one, someone else's
protection area.

The Mormons proved that even really unappealing land could be farmed
if the water were made available. The Indians did too, but they are
all supposed to die or be enslaved or whatever. Mineral extraction
also usually requires water and transportation in the form of animal
trains or railroads also need it.

California's Central Valley was called the American Serengetti before
it was developed. It could fulfill its destiny or stay as the private
hunting grounds of the Emperor's representative.

[Good Habit]

sedentary

Post by Jack Linthicum

Post by Good Habit

Post by Old Toby
How far into the plains can the "Mississippi" civ push?

Not that far - unless/until their population levels have risen so far
that they fairly outnumber the plains nomads.

But, the only fact of life in the West, west of 100 degrees that is,
is water. You do not divide at the river you divide at the drainage
basin, usually the division will be a high point like the Continental
Divide. I would imagine the creation of towns or enclosed areas in the
drainage basins and a garrison of troops, either of a king or the
local lord. Conflict will come when the protection of one drainage
area requires some intrusion into the next one, someone else's
protection area.

The above would be true if sedentary live would be the dominant form of
human culture on the plains. But nomads on horseback with a similar
technological level than the valley dwellers should have a distinct
edge, unless they are clearly outnumbered. But even then, the peasant
population would need the advantage of a unified command against
competing, disunited tribes to get the upper hand. So, two centuries
after the large scale introduction of the horse, nomads on horseback
should be the dominant culture on the plains.

Post by Jack Linthicum
The Mormons proved that even really unappealing land could be farmed
if the water were made available.

Oasis cultures in deserts have advantages that valley dwellers in
prairies don't have - a) the surrounding desert can support far less
nomads than grassland can, so the chances of the oasis culture to
outnumber the desert people are comparatively better. b) Even desert
nomads need water, and might want something to trade their animals
against, thus they might try to extract tribute from the oasis, but they
have little interest in destroying them.

The Indians did too, but they are

Post by Jack Linthicum
all supposed to die or be enslaved or whatever.

I don't think that for the scenario envisaged by the OP it's a
pre-requisite that all the civ's are non-native. Or that ONE of the
civ's necessarily has to be non-native - if they somehow get horses and
learn how to produce iron tools...

As long as no farming population vastly outnumbering the plains tribes
arises east of the Mississippi, the prairie is pretty safe in the hands
of horse-nomads. If the tribes somehow unite, they could even dominate
the farming population to the east. [Think of a Sioux equivalent to
Attila or Genghis Khan]. Only if the farmers/peasants to the east
outnumber them, and have a unified command, will they be able to settle
the plains. (IOTL, of course, they also had a huge technological edge).

But there is no reason why no Indian nation could potentially establish
a peasant kingdom in the valleys of the Tennessee or the Ohio. So the
farmers to the east don't have to come from Europe.

[Jack Linthicum]

Post by Good Habit
sedentary

Post by Jack Linthicum

Post by Good Habit

Post by Old Toby
How far into the plains can the "Mississippi" civ push?

Not that far - unless/until their population levels have risen so far
that they fairly outnumber the plains nomads.

But, the only fact of life in the West, west of 100 degrees that is,
is water. You do not divide at the river you divide at the drainage
basin, usually the division will be a high point like the Continental
Divide. I would imagine the creation of towns or enclosed areas in the
drainage basins and a garrison of troops, either of a king or the
local lord. Conflict will come when the protection of one drainage
area requires some intrusion into the next one, someone else's
protection area.

The above would be true if sedentary live would be the dominant form of
human culture on the plains. But nomads on horseback with a similar
technological level than the valley dwellers should have a distinct
edge, unless they are clearly outnumbered. But even then, the peasant
population would need the advantage of a unified command against
competing, disunited tribes to get the upper hand. So, two centuries
after the large scale introduction of the horse, nomads on horseback
should be the dominant culture on the plains.

Post by Jack Linthicum
The Mormons proved that even really unappealing land could be farmed
if the water were made available.

Oasis cultures in deserts have advantages that valley dwellers in
prairies don't have - a) the surrounding desert can support far less
nomads than grassland can, so the chances of the oasis culture to
outnumber the desert people are comparatively better. b) Even desert
nomads need water, and might want something to trade their animals
against, thus they might try to extract tribute from the oasis, but they
have little interest in destroying them.
The Indians did too, but they are

Post by Jack Linthicum
all supposed to die or be enslaved or whatever.

I don't think that for the scenario envisaged by the OP it's a
pre-requisite that all the civ's are non-native. Or that ONE of the
civ's necessarily has to be non-native - if they somehow get horses and
learn how to produce iron tools...
As long as no farming population vastly outnumbering the plains tribes
arises east of the Mississippi, the prairie is pretty safe in the hands
of horse-nomads. If the tribes somehow unite, they could even dominate
the farming population to the east. [Think of a Sioux equivalent to
Attila or Genghis Khan]. Only if the farmers/peasants to the east
outnumber them, and have a unified command, will they be able to settle
the plains. (IOTL, of course, they also had a huge technological edge).
But there is no reason why no Indian nation could potentially establish
a peasant kingdom in the valleys of the Tennessee or the Ohio. So the
farmers to the east don't have to come from Europe.

We move on to my favorite millieu, the sea. We will assume that the
Japanese arrive via sea vessel or are very sturdy hikers. Any group
that comes in contact with them, we will start with the Mexico group,
will learn to sail the seas. Rome as an example with Carthage as the
schoolroom. But the Gulf of Mexico is a veritable sailors' paradise,
would the third culture, I am postulating a federation of Native
Americans, not also find ships to be a necessary mode of
transportation and extension of power. Could we not find Iroquois in
New Zealand or Cherokees in the South Pacific, they were whalers in
OTL's 19th century.

As for Europe we can assume that religion tells them not to go too far
or they are reduced by the Black Plague. Keep the original rules.

[Good Habit]

Post by Jack Linthicum

Post by Good Habit
As long as no farming population vastly outnumbering the plains tribes
arises east of the Mississippi, the prairie is pretty safe in the hands
of horse-nomads. If the tribes somehow unite, they could even dominate
the farming population to the east. [Think of a Sioux equivalent to
Attila or Genghis Khan]. Only if the farmers/peasants to the east
outnumber them, and have a unified command, will they be able to settle
the plains. (IOTL, of course, they also had a huge technological edge).
But there is no reason why no Indian nation could potentially establish
a peasant kingdom in the valleys of the Tennessee or the Ohio. So the
farmers to the east don't have to come from Europe.

We move on to my favorite millieu, the sea. We will assume that the
Japanese arrive via sea vessel or are very sturdy hikers.

Assume they come by sea, but probably more following close to the coast.

Post by Jack Linthicum
Any group that comes in contact with them, we will start with the Mexico group,
will learn to sail the seas. Rome as an example with Carthage as the
schoolroom.

There are quite a few counterexamples of land based nations that didn't
take to the sea when the were contacted by seafaring people.
But the Gulf of Mexico is a veritable sailors' paradise,

Post by Jack Linthicum
would the third culture, I am postulating a federation of Native
Americans, not also find ships to be a necessary mode of
transportation and extension of power. Could we not find Iroquois in
New Zealand or Cherokees in the South Pacific, they were whalers in
OTL's 19th century.

That's a long way to go.
But what about a rough timeline:

ca. 1150, Asian (Japanese?) sailors reach the North-West, move on to
California. They start to trade with the central American cultures.
Their sailors follow the coast, and as it's a long way across the
pacific, the establish settlements to resupply on Vancouver Island, at
the mouth of the Columbia and at San Francisco Bay. The colonist bring
with them Asian crops, cattle and horses.

Until 1300, the colonies in the north-west have grown to several 100 k
people. The central Americans trade with them horses and iron tools, and
learn the necessary technologies. Their is some disease problem, but
the locals still vastly outnumber the colonists. Horses start to spread
in to the northern plains (across Idaho and Montana).

ca. 1400. The NW-Colony is prospering, but still relatively isolated.
The central American Empires have developed large cavalry armies, they
produce iron tools themselves. Trade along the Gulf coast and to the
Islands spreads know how of crops and tools to those places. Horses have
become a common sight in the plains, and the nomadic tribes have adapted
to their use.

ca. 1500. The colonial Empire in the West, and strong Empires in Central
America are prospering. The Plains are ruled by federations of horse
nomads, sedentary live stile has become extinct in that area. Between
Mississippi, Ohio, the Gulf coast and the Allegheny's, local peoples
have adapted to more modern farming, including iron tools and weapons,
and many imported crops and animals in addition to Maize. Although their
have been some problems with epidemics, the population levels have
recovered due to better food supply. The new technologies allow better
power projection, and thus some tribal chieftains have enlarged their
domains, the are now regional Kings. The improvements in the South start
to spread to the East Coast and the Great Lakes.

16th century. Spaniards and other Europeans show up. They don't stand a
chance against the large cavalry armies of the Aztec or Maya Empires. So
they only capture minor Islands as bases for trade. As the region
between the Mississippi and the Atlantic sees a fast rise in the native
population, and the technological gap to the Europeans is only modest,
settling along the coast doesn't look very promising.

Thus, Europeans never conquer a significant part of North or Central
America.....

[ErrolC]

<snip>

Post by Good Habit

Post by Jack Linthicum
Any group that comes in contact with them, we will start with the Mexico group,
will learn to sail the seas. Rome as an example with Carthage as the
schoolroom.

There are quite a few counterexamples of land based nations that didn't
take to the sea when the were contacted by seafaring people.
But the Gulf of Mexico is a veritable sailors' paradise,

BTW, did everyone get the memo about chickens in South America? Some
researchers got lucky, found some dated-to-pre-Spanish chicken
remains, and DNA IDed them as Polynesian. As no-one has even a vaguely
plausible theory for Americans travelling back from Polynesia, this is
damn near proof that Polynesians visited the American mainland.

http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/chicken/

Errol Cavit | "We can ridicule someof those earlier
interpretations, but we need to recognise that they were commonly
regarded as the 'truth', and were backed by the most rigorous and
sophisticated scholarship of the time - claims we commonly make about
ourselves today." KR Howe, The Quest for Origins.

[Jack Linthicum]

Post by ErrolC
<snip>

Post by Good Habit

Post by Jack Linthicum
Any group that comes in contact with them, we will start with the Mexico group,
will learn to sail the seas. Rome as an example with Carthage as the
schoolroom.

There are quite a few counterexamples of land based nations that didn't
take to the sea when the were contacted by seafaring people.
But the Gulf of Mexico is a veritable sailors' paradise,

BTW, did everyone get the memo about chickens in South America? Some
researchers got lucky, found some dated-to-pre-Spanish chicken
remains, and DNA IDed them as Polynesian. As no-one has even a vaguely
plausible theory for Americans travelling back from Polynesia, this is
damn near proof that Polynesians visited the American mainland.
http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/chicken/
Errol Cavit | "We can ridicule someof those earlier
interpretations, but we need to recognise that they were commonly
regarded as the 'truth', and were backed by the most rigorous and
sophisticated scholarship of the time - claims we commonly make about
ourselves today." KR Howe, The Quest for Origins.

Yes, and if you want to watch a three-sided ping-pong game go to
soc.archaeology for the "discussion".

[Jack Linthicum]

Post by Good Habit

Post by Jack Linthicum

Post by Good Habit
As long as no farming population vastly outnumbering the plains tribes
arises east of the Mississippi, the prairie is pretty safe in the hands
of horse-nomads. If the tribes somehow unite, they could even dominate
the farming population to the east. [Think of a Sioux equivalent to
Attila or Genghis Khan]. Only if the farmers/peasants to the east
outnumber them, and have a unified command, will they be able to settle
the plains. (IOTL, of course, they also had a huge technological edge).
But there is no reason why no Indian nation could potentially establish
a peasant kingdom in the valleys of the Tennessee or the Ohio. So the
farmers to the east don't have to come from Europe.

We move on to my favorite millieu, the sea. We will assume that the
Japanese arrive via sea vessel or are very sturdy hikers.

Assume they come by sea, but probably more following close to the coast.

Post by Jack Linthicum
Any group that comes in contact with them, we will start with the Mexico group,
will learn to sail the seas. Rome as an example with Carthage as the
schoolroom.

There are quite a few counterexamples of land based nations that didn't
take to the sea when the were contacted by seafaring people.
But the Gulf of Mexico is a veritable sailors' paradise,

Post by Jack Linthicum
would the third culture, I am postulating a federation of Native
Americans, not also find ships to be a necessary mode of
transportation and extension of power. Could we not find Iroquois in
New Zealand or Cherokees in the South Pacific, they were whalers in
OTL's 19th century.

That's a long way to go.
ca. 1150, Asian (Japanese?) sailors reach the North-West, move on to
California. They start to trade with the central American cultures.
Their sailors follow the coast, and as it's a long way across the
pacific, the establish settlements to resupply on Vancouver Island, at
the mouth of the Columbia and at San Francisco Bay. The colonist bring
with them Asian crops, cattle and horses.
Until 1300, the colonies in the north-west have grown to several 100 k
people. The central Americans trade with them horses and iron tools, and
learn the necessary technologies. Their is some disease problem, but
the locals still vastly outnumber the colonists. Horses start to spread
in to the northern plains (across Idaho and Montana).
ca. 1400. The NW-Colony is prospering, but still relatively isolated.
The central American Empires have developed large cavalry armies, they
produce iron tools themselves. Trade along the Gulf coast and to the
Islands spreads know how of crops and tools to those places. Horses have
become a common sight in the plains, and the nomadic tribes have adapted
to their use.
ca. 1500. The colonial Empire in the West, and strong Empires in Central
America are prospering. The Plains are ruled by federations of horse
nomads, sedentary live stile has become extinct in that area. Between
Mississippi, Ohio, the Gulf coast and the Allegheny's, local peoples
have adapted to more modern farming, including iron tools and weapons,
and many imported crops and animals in addition to Maize. Although their
have been some problems with epidemics, the population levels have
recovered due to better food supply. The new technologies allow better
power projection, and thus some tribal chieftains have enlarged their
domains, the are now regional Kings. The improvements in the South start
to spread to the East Coast and the Great Lakes.
16th century. Spaniards and other Europeans show up. They don't stand a
chance against the large cavalry armies of the Aztec or Maya Empires. So
they only capture minor Islands as bases for trade. As the region
between the Mississippi and the Atlantic sees a fast rise in the native
population, and the technological gap to the Europeans is only modest,
settling along the coast doesn't look very promising.
Thus, Europeans never conquer a significant part of North or Central
America.....

I have some qualms about your scenario. When it was just "Japanese"
and no specific date it had imagination as its ally. But in the 12th
Century Japan had very few ships that could do anything other than
sail to Korea or Chinese ports on the North China Sea. In addition
there is almost no reason for a significant body of people to leave
the islands, the north was still frontier and traveling 3,000 to 5,000
miles to run up against more savages seems unwise.

I would offer the use of the 300 foot long ships of the Song Dynasty
in China, very dedicated Buddhists seeking to propagate the faith
(Think Christians with Cortez, etc) and being very eclectic recruiting
monks and their supporters from Korea and Japan in addition to a
Chinese management team.

Settling, perhaps, at first, in Puget Sound (San Juan Islands are
relatively free of rain, arable and defensible) and then expanding
from there. As troubles build up in home countries, dynastic rivalries
that end up with a split Imperial dynasty. Go-Daigo, instead of going
in rebellion, retreats to this Land of Sunrise and establishes a
second court there.

The Toltecs fall in the 12th century and it is 200 years before the
Aztecs begin to emerge. Their origin is suggested as Northwestern
Mexico, specifically Nayarit, a coastal state. Contact with the
Sunrise people might have taken place early (ATL) but certainly would
have occured by the time the Aztecs build their empire.

The 10th Century is also the start of the Moundbuilder culture on the
Mississippi.

[jaded]

Post by Jack Linthicum

Post by Good Habit

Post by Jack Linthicum

Post by Good Habit
As long as no farming population vastly outnumbering the plains tribes
arises east of the Mississippi, the prairie is pretty safe in the hands
of horse-nomads. If the tribes somehow unite, they could even dominate
the farming population to the east. [Think of a Sioux equivalent to
Attila or Genghis Khan]. Only if the farmers/peasants to the east
outnumber them, and have a unified command, will they be able to settle
the plains. (IOTL, of course, they also had a huge technological edge).
But there is no reason why no Indian nation could potentially establish
a peasant kingdom in the valleys of the Tennessee or the Ohio. So the
farmers to the east don't have to come from Europe.

We move on to my favorite millieu, the sea. We will assume that the
Japanese arrive via sea vessel or are very sturdy hikers.

Assume they come by sea, but probably more following close to the coast.

Post by Jack Linthicum
Any group that comes in contact with them, we will start with the Mexico group,
will learn to sail the seas. Rome as an example with Carthage as the
schoolroom.

There are quite a few counterexamples of land based nations that didn't
take to the sea when the were contacted by seafaring people.
But the Gulf of Mexico is a veritable sailors' paradise,

Post by Jack Linthicum
would the third culture, I am postulating a federation of Native
Americans, not also find ships to be a necessary mode of
transportation and extension of power. Could we not find Iroquois in
New Zealand or Cherokees in the South Pacific, they were whalers in
OTL's 19th century.

That's a long way to go.
ca. 1150, Asian (Japanese?) sailors reach the North-West, move on to
California. They start to trade with the central American cultures.
Their sailors follow the coast, and as it's a long way across the
pacific, the establish settlements to resupply on Vancouver Island, at
the mouth of the Columbia and at San Francisco Bay. The colonist bring
with them Asian crops, cattle and horses.
Until 1300, the colonies in the north-west have grown to several 100 k
people. The central Americans trade with them horses and iron tools, and
learn the necessary technologies. Their is some disease problem, but
the locals still vastly outnumber the colonists. Horses start to spread
in to the northern plains (across Idaho and Montana).
ca. 1400. The NW-Colony is prospering, but still relatively isolated.
The central American Empires have developed large cavalry armies, they
produce iron tools themselves. Trade along the Gulf coast and to the
Islands spreads know how of crops and tools to those places. Horses have
become a common sight in the plains, and the nomadic tribes have adapted
to their use.
ca. 1500. The colonial Empire in the West, and strong Empires in Central
America are prospering. The Plains are ruled by federations of horse
nomads, sedentary live stile has become extinct in that area. Between
Mississippi, Ohio, the Gulf coast and the Allegheny's, local peoples
have adapted to more modern farming, including iron tools and weapons,
and many imported crops and animals in addition to Maize. Although their
have been some problems with epidemics, the population levels have
recovered due to better food supply. The new technologies allow better
power projection, and thus some tribal chieftains have enlarged their
domains, the are now regional Kings. The improvements in the South start
to spread to the East Coast and the Great Lakes.
16th century. Spaniards and other Europeans show up. They don't stand a
chance against the large cavalry armies of the Aztec or Maya Empires. So
they only capture minor Islands as bases for trade. As the region
between the Mississippi and the Atlantic sees a fast rise in the native
population, and the technological gap to the Europeans is only modest,
settling along the coast doesn't look very promising.
Thus, Europeans never conquer a significant part of North or Central
America.....

I have some qualms about your scenario. When it was just "Japanese"
and no specific date it had imagination as its ally. But in the 12th
Century Japan had very few ships that could do anything other than
sail to Korea or Chinese ports on the North China Sea. In addition
there is almost no reason for a significant body of people to leave
the islands, the north was still frontier and traveling 3,000 to 5,000
miles to run up against more savages seems unwise.
I would offer the use of the 300 foot long ships of the Song Dynasty
in China, very dedicated Buddhists seeking to propagate the faith
(Think Christians with Cortez, etc) and being very eclectic recruiting
monks and their supporters from Korea and Japan in addition to a
Chinese management team.
Settling, perhaps, at first, in Puget Sound (San Juan Islands are
relatively free of rain, arable and defensible) and then expanding
from there. As troubles build up in home countries, dynastic rivalries
that end up with a split Imperial dynasty. Go-Daigo, instead of going
in rebellion, retreats to this Land of Sunrise and establishes a
second court there.
The Toltecs fall in the 12th century and it is 200 years before the
Aztecs begin to emerge. Their origin is suggested as Northwestern
Mexico, specifically Nayarit, a coastal state. Contact with the
Sunrise people might have taken place early (ATL) but certainly would
have occured by the time the Aztecs build their empire.
The 10th Century is also the start of the Moundbuilder culture on the
Mississippi.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

There are real examples of sudden fortifications in OTL. Throughout
the southwest a series of sighting towers were built ranging from
Flagstaff to the Rio Grande. It was a veritable Maginot line. At the
same time, Kenyatta and Anasazi built cliff dwellings and narrow
stairways. Even the moundbuilders, though lacking the terrain of the
southwest, began building pallisades around their villages. This was
at the same time that Khublai Khan ventured forth on the high seas.
Perhaps to take advantage of the Kurishiro Current and its fast track
to the Americas, he launched ill-fated invasions of Japan. The recent
excavations of Khublais fleet has revealed a much poorer level of
workmanship than on the Song ships heretofore excavated.

[Jack Linthicum]

Post by Old Toby
I'm marking this as "[Theory]" because it's more about how
ATLs might develop in general than a particular TL's history.
The basic gist is to examine how North America would have developed
if settled with less unity, and maybe a lower technological level.
Specifically, I've been thinking about a "Japan settles the West
Coast" TL, and about using North America as the base map for a
D&D world (a bit off topic for this group, I know), but let's
focus on the generics without getting bogged down in the details.
Basic scenario: You have a west coast settled by an overseas
civilization with medieval-to-enlightenment level technology.
This civilization gets at least a century to develop on its
own before it starts banging into other civs of a similar
level. There's another civ in Mexico, possibly expanding
northward, and a third in the Mississippi valley, all three
of them have similar tech levels. In between, you have
nomadic bands (possibly, but not necessarily technologically
inferior) occupying the deserts, mountains, high plains,
and subarctic forests. All three civs seek to fortify
their frontiers to guard against nomads, regulate trade,
and prevent the advance of the other civs. My question
is "what are the key points to fortify, the "inevitable"
sites of forts and castles?
Also, how "civilizable" is the American West without
industrial technology. OTL the intensive settlement
of the American west was highly dependent on the railroads,
barbed wire, deep drilled wells, etc, this means we
can't rely on history to show the potential of earlier
technologies for settling this terrain (since, with
the possible exception of New Mexico, none of the
land near the area in question was close to "fully settled"
at the time industrial technology really started changing
things.
So without this tech, how much of the area could be settled
given a mature civilization reaching its limit in that area?
Could the Pacific Civ successfully settle the Central Valley
of California and the "Inland Empire" of Washington? What
about settlements in the Rockies? How much can be eked out
of the various oases and rivers in the desert regions? How
far into the plains can the "Mississippi" civ push?
Old Toby
Least Known Dog on the Net
Old Toby
Least Known Dog on the Net

I am assuming that the three civs each have horses and probably dray
animals in the form of oxen, which implies cattle. It sounds like they
don't have firearms which makes the various bow and bow-derived
weapons, like the crossbow and the catapult, the main stream. Could
they have some form of the fire weapons the Chinese created? IIRC the
Spanish brought actual firearms to Japan in the 16th Century.

Their crops are corn and rice, with extras like vegetables dependent
upon what is brought over or selected from the wild stuff. I wonder
what either Iroquois or Five Nations would do with hot peppers,
perhaps the same with the Japanese. Chickens from wherever and other
small animals, dog perhaps cat.

How much of the old Aztec and other bloodletting religions would
survive, either as a full blown power in the state or as something
they recognized but didn't make a big deal out of. Japan has both
Shinto and Buddha sects along with Confucionism from China.

All of these things combine to make one or more of the three expansive
and aggressive. What happens to the groups in the middle? Comanche and
Apache along with the Sioux made the practice of ruling by terror a
norm, once they got the horses. Iroquois were very aggressive and
known in the early days of the fur trade for their desire to control
the supply of goods. I know much less about the Five Nations, except
they have the rep of being "civilized".

The Aztecs had civilization based on personal relationships, capturing
an enemy alive was often more profitable that killing. That would come
later. Some of the Aztec stories imply they came from the Arizona-New
Mexico area originally, would there be a "return to Israel" note to
their idea of what was theirs?

Could the Japanese create a society of expansion? They went into their
own North (Tohoku) as if entering a wild and untamed land, but one
with an indigenous population. Would taking the back lands of
California Oregon Washington and British Columbia be done in trickle
or flood? Finding gold and silver might not be as important to this
society as the turquoise (jade) sources in Central America. They also
will have the most "civilized" of the available native population,
with the caveat that they calmed down after facing the Russians.

[Old Toby]

Post by Jack Linthicum
I am assuming that the three civs each have horses and probably dray
animals in the form of oxen, which implies cattle. It sounds like they
don't have firearms which makes the various bow and bow-derived
weapons, like the crossbow and the catapult, the main stream. Could
they have some form of the fire weapons the Chinese created? IIRC the
Spanish brought actual firearms to Japan in the 16th Century.

The specific "Japanese settle America" TL I'm considering has them
doing it in the early 1600's. They are thus roughly contemporary
with the English, French, and Dutch settlements and have a population
growth dynamic as strong as the English, while showing stronger
tendencies toward land improvements and assimilating natives (but
also a stronger tendency to wage aggressive war against them).

America and Mexico remain mostly as per OTL, except in so far as
the Japanese settlement has rippled out through North America.
Japanese trade has given the natives hefty amounts of iron and
horses, and possibly some firearms. Buddhist missionaries have
also made their presence felt, and may provide a certain
organizing basis for native societies (unlike the Spanish
missions, they are not agents of the state in expanding its
zone of control).

There is also a sort of sub-rosa trade between the Japanese
and French Voyageurs, via native intermediaries. However
this is a fairly small scale thing (particularly since the
Japanese colonists aren't up to the same standards of
production that the Dutch can get from Japan). Japan in
this TL still goes into the period of exclusion, and there
will be serious efforts to prevent Europeans from infiltrating
the colony, as well as fighting the spread of Christianity
among the natives.

Japan has California in this TL, at least north of the
Tehachapi. Even if they don't settle the LA and SD
areas, they may still send raiders out to destroy any
missions or civil settlements.

Old Toby
Least Known Dog on the Net

[Rich Rostrom]

Post by Old Toby
The specific "Japanese settle America" TL I'm considering has them
doing it in the early 1600's. They are thus roughly contemporary
with the English, French, and Dutch settlements and have a population
growth dynamic as strong as the English, while showing stronger
tendencies toward land improvements and assimilating natives (but
also a stronger tendency to wage aggressive war against them).

The problem for Japan is that the part of America
they have access to is the northwest, which is
not good for much except fur-trading till one
gets to Puget Sound, and is very rugged and
difficult. (To this day, the coast from Anchorage
to Vancouver is almost entirely vacant and cut off
from the interior.)

The Russian operations in Alaska were _extremely_
thin, not really a settler colony at all.

Let me speculate a TL here:

circa 1500: some Japanese mariners from Hokkaido
discover the fur-trading possibilities of Kamchatka
and Siberia. The furs are marketed in China, which
IIRC was the main importer of furs from NW America
in the late 1700s.

1550: there are Japanese trading posts and ports
in Sakhalin, the Kuriles, Kamchatka, and at OTL
Magadan (northern coast of the Okhotsk Sea).

1570: Japanese mariners discover the seal rookeries
of the Pribilof islands - a jackpot that inspires
further exploration.

1600: Japanese mariners follow the Aleutian chain
to Alaska, and establish new trading posts as far
as Juneau.

1620: the new Tokugawa Shogun considers banning
foreign commerce as in OTL, but the revenue from
the fur trade is too juicy. Voyagers to Alaska
discover the Subarctic Current, which sweeps from
the Kuriles to British Columbia, and the California
Current which runs south to Mexico. (The Alaska
Current runs from BC to Alaska.)

1640: Russian explorers from Irkutsk and Yakutsk
clash with Japanese traders in Siberia. The Russians
a long way from home. After some pulling and hauling,
the area is divided, with the Japanese having the
coasts and everything east of the Lena valley. (The
Amur Valley is held by the Chinese Empire.) The first
Japanese traders reach the Vancouver-Seattle area and
set up trading posts.

1650: Noting the good climate and relative accessibility
of the Vancouver-Seattle area, some Japanese bring horses,
pigs, and cattle. Being Hokkaidans, they plant wheat.
Outbreaks of smallpox and measles crash the native
population over the next 50 years. Also, some pigs go feral,
and disrupt the ecology, causing further hardship.[1]

1675: The Vancouver-Seattle "colony" has about 2,000
residents. Explorers have found the Columbia, and
put trading posts up to the mouth of the Snake River.
Others have gone up the Fraser River.

1700: The total "settled" population of Japanese
America is about 5,000; there are another 5,000
or so migrant traders and trappers, including their
native mates and mixblood offspring. There are
trading posts as far inland as the crest of the
Rockies. Exploring ships have cruised down the
coast as far as San Francisco Bay.

Here we start encountering possible Euro reactions.
OTL, New Spain spread slowly to the NW: the mission
stations were only at the Arizona border in 1700.
No effort was made to settle California till 1769,
in reaction to Russian activity.

It's possible that Spain would be moved to act
earlier by Japanese expansion. Both sides
would want the Bay; neither would have much
strength to seize it. Either side would dominate
if strongly backed from the homeland. It's beyond
me to say whether either homeland would be moved
to do so. alt-Japan would be very different. Spain
might be moved to send an expedition against
heathen intruders (if they are heathens). There
would probably be earlier contacts and clashes
between Japanese and Spanish mariners all
across the Pacific.

But assuming that Spain does not strike at
"New Japan" in force:

1750: Settled population now about 50,000.
Trading range covers everything west of the
Continental Divide and north of the Great
Basin, extending down to Great Salt Lake.
Pack traders and trappers range into Alberta,
and are bumping up against Hudson Bay Company
traders. Others are roaming out into the upper
Missouri Valley. Rumors of the Japanese filter
all the way to New Orleans. Assume the Japanese
reach SF Bay first. The Spanish react by
occupying the LA area and planting coastal
posts up to Monterey.

1760-1800: Clashes between Japanese and Spanish
escalate. A Spanish fleet raids the SF Bay
area, ravaging but not destroying the Japanese
settlement. The Japanese settlers destroy the
Monterey outpost. The offended Shogun sends a
fleet to seize Guam. The conflict is settled
by the return of Guam, agreement that Japanese
will stay out of southern California, and the
Monterey area and San Joaquin Valley will be
an empty buffer zone. New Japan increases to
about 250,000 people. The Shogun appoints a
regional governor.

1800-1850: Japanese migration increases as
Japanese ships improve. Settlements fill the
Sacramento Valley. Gold is discovered in 1824.
Population booms to about 1M people.

That's as far as I can take it.

Post by Old Toby
America and Mexico remain mostly as per OTL, except in so far as
the Japanese settlement has rippled out through North America.
Japanese trade has given the natives hefty amounts of iron and
horses, and possibly some firearms.

Not to any great degree, IMHO, until
much later. Horses maybe; they make
more horses. Does anyone know when the
various tribes acquired horses?

Post by Old Toby
Buddhist missionaries have
also made their presence felt

Unlikely, IMHO. Buddhist AFAIK have
no record of preaching to savages,
and the motley fur traders who are
the Japanese population are even
less attractive.

Post by Old Toby
There is also a sort of sub-rosa trade between the Japanese
and French Voyageurs, via native intermediaries.

Nope. They have nothing to trade
each other; they compete with each
other for Indian peltries. The voyageurs
didn't venture up to the Rockies till
after 1800, AFAIK.

[1] I've read that the explosion of feral pigs
in Oregon in the 1840s, from stock brought by
the earliest settlers, caused eco-disruption
that wiped out most of the Indians in the area.

[Jack Linthicum]

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by Old Toby
The specific "Japanese settle America" TL I'm considering has them
doing it in the early 1600's. They are thus roughly contemporary
with the English, French, and Dutch settlements and have a population
growth dynamic as strong as the English, while showing stronger
tendencies toward land improvements and assimilating natives (but
also a stronger tendency to wage aggressive war against them).

The problem for Japan is that the part of America
they have access to is the northwest, which is
not good for much except fur-trading till one
gets to Puget Sound, and is very rugged and
difficult. (To this day, the coast from Anchorage
to Vancouver is almost entirely vacant and cut off
from the interior.)
The Russian operations in Alaska were _extremely_
thin, not really a settler colony at all.
circa 1500: some Japanese mariners from Hokkaido
discover the fur-trading possibilities of Kamchatka
and Siberia. The furs are marketed in China, which
IIRC was the main importer of furs from NW America
in the late 1700s.
1550: there are Japanese trading posts and ports
in Sakhalin, the Kuriles, Kamchatka, and at OTL
Magadan (northern coast of the Okhotsk Sea).
1570: Japanese mariners discover the seal rookeries
of the Pribilof islands - a jackpot that inspires
further exploration.
1600: Japanese mariners follow the Aleutian chain
to Alaska, and establish new trading posts as far
as Juneau.
1620: the new Tokugawa Shogun considers banning
foreign commerce as in OTL, but the revenue from
the fur trade is too juicy. Voyagers to Alaska
discover the Subarctic Current, which sweeps from
the Kuriles to British Columbia, and the California
Current which runs south to Mexico. (The Alaska
Current runs from BC to Alaska.)
1640: Russian explorers from Irkutsk and Yakutsk
clash with Japanese traders in Siberia. The Russians
a long way from home. After some pulling and hauling,
the area is divided, with the Japanese having the
coasts and everything east of the Lena valley. (The
Amur Valley is held by the Chinese Empire.) The first
Japanese traders reach the Vancouver-Seattle area and
set up trading posts.
1650: Noting the good climate and relative accessibility
of the Vancouver-Seattle area, some Japanese bring horses,
pigs, and cattle. Being Hokkaidans, they plant wheat.
Outbreaks of smallpox and measles crash the native
population over the next 50 years. Also, some pigs go feral,
and disrupt the ecology, causing further hardship.[1]
1675: The Vancouver-Seattle "colony" has about 2,000
residents. Explorers have found the Columbia, and
put trading posts up to the mouth of the Snake River.
Others have gone up the Fraser River.
1700: The total "settled" population of Japanese
America is about 5,000; there are another 5,000
or so migrant traders and trappers, including their
native mates and mixblood offspring. There are
trading posts as far inland as the crest of the
Rockies. Exploring ships have cruised down the
coast as far as San Francisco Bay.
Here we start encountering possible Euro reactions.
OTL, New Spain spread slowly to the NW: the mission
stations were only at the Arizona border in 1700.
No effort was made to settle California till 1769,
in reaction to Russian activity.
It's possible that Spain would be moved to act
earlier by Japanese expansion. Both sides
would want the Bay; neither would have much
strength to seize it. Either side would dominate
if strongly backed from the homeland. It's beyond
me to say whether either homeland would be moved
to do so. alt-Japan would be very different. Spain
might be moved to send an expedition against
heathen intruders (if they are heathens). There
would probably be earlier contacts and clashes
between Japanese and Spanish mariners all
across the Pacific.
But assuming that Spain does not strike at
1750: Settled population now about 50,000.
Trading range covers everything west of the
Continental Divide and north of the Great
Basin, extending down to Great Salt Lake.
Pack traders and trappers range into Alberta,
and are bumping up against Hudson Bay Company
traders. Others are roaming out into the upper
Missouri Valley. Rumors of the Japanese filter
all the way to New Orleans. Assume the Japanese
reach SF Bay first. The Spanish react by
occupying the LA area and planting coastal
posts up to Monterey.
1760-1800: Clashes between Japanese and Spanish
escalate. A Spanish fleet raids the SF Bay
area, ravaging but not destroying the Japanese
settlement. The Japanese settlers destroy the
Monterey outpost. The offended Shogun sends a
fleet to seize Guam. The conflict is settled
by the return of Guam, agreement that Japanese
will stay out of southern California, and the
Monterey area and San Joaquin Valley will be
an empty buffer zone. New Japan increases to
about 250,000 people. The Shogun appoints a
regional governor.
1800-1850: Japanese migration increases as
Japanese ships improve. Settlements fill the
Sacramento Valley. Gold is discovered in 1824.
Population booms to about 1M people.
That's as far as I can take it.

Post by Old Toby
America and Mexico remain mostly as per OTL, except in so far as
the Japanese settlement has rippled out through North America.
Japanese trade has given the natives hefty amounts of iron and
horses, and possibly some firearms.

Not to any great degree, IMHO, until
much later. Horses maybe; they make
more horses. Does anyone know when the
various tribes acquired horses?

Post by Old Toby
Buddhist missionaries have
also made their presence felt

Unlikely, IMHO. Buddhist AFAIK have
no record of preaching to savages,
and the motley fur traders who are
the Japanese population are even
less attractive.

Post by Old Toby
There is also a sort of sub-rosa trade between the Japanese
and French Voyageurs, via native intermediaries.

Nope. They have nothing to trade
each other; they compete with each
other for Indian peltries. The voyageurs
didn't venture up to the Rockies till
after 1800, AFAIK.
[1] I've read that the explosion of feral pigs
in Oregon in the 1840s, from stock brought by
the earliest settlers, caused eco-disruption
that wiped out most of the Indians in the area.
--
| He had a shorter, more scraggly, and even less |
| flattering beard than Yassir Arafat, and Escalante |
| never conceived that such a thing was possible. |
| -- William Goldman, _Heat_ |

The Pueblo Revolt in 1600 was the primary source of horses in the
continental U.S. There were probably other sources for horses but the
main group came from Northern New Mexico. Comanches provided broken
horses as trade goods to the other Plains Indians.

http://www.comanchelanguage.org/THE%20COMANCHE%20AND%20HIS%20HORSE.htm

http://www.equibooks.com/conquerors-excerpt.html

The Appaloosa horse was bred up by the Nez Perce in the 18th century.
Reverse that order and have the Japanese lose or release horses into
the area now called Horse Heaven Hills on the Columbia, at the great
bend. Make the Nez Perce the breakers of horses and the traders to the
others and by 1770 or so the Plains Indians are into the horse culture
in reverse.

Juan Cabrillo explored the coast of California in 1542, he may have
heard of the strange men who had brought cattle and horses and pigs to
the Indians and gone further up the coast.

I defy any Chinese or Japanese noble to turn down a sea otter
garment.

The Indians of the area which is now SE Alaska and NW British Columbia
lived very well for their environment. Cedar plank houses, cedar
plank boats that could travel on long trading trips from Alaska to
Northern California. I have seen old (silent 1920s ?) movies of what
might be 60-80 foot canoes being paddled.

[jaded]

Post by Rich Rostrom
Unlikely, IMHO. Buddhist AFAIK have
no record of preaching to savages,
Buddhism has always had an evangelical component. How else are we to explain Buddhism in Ceylon,Indonesia, Korea and Japan?

[Jack Linthicum]

Post by Rich Rostrom

Post by Old Toby
The specific "Japanese settle America" TL I'm considering has them
doing it in the early 1600's. They are thus roughly contemporary
with the English, French, and Dutch settlements and have a population
growth dynamic as strong as the English, while showing stronger
tendencies toward land improvements and assimilating natives (but
also a stronger tendency to wage aggressive war against them).

The problem for Japan is that the part of America
they have access to is the northwest, which is
not good for much except fur-trading till one
gets to Puget Sound, and is very rugged and
difficult. (To this day, the coast from Anchorage
to Vancouver is almost entirely vacant and cut off
from the interior.)
The Russian operations in Alaska were _extremely_
thin, not really a settler colony at all.
circa 1500: some Japanese mariners from Hokkaido
discover the fur-trading possibilities of Kamchatka
and Siberia. The furs are marketed in China, which
IIRC was the main importer of furs from NW America
in the late 1700s.
1550: there are Japanese trading posts and ports
in Sakhalin, the Kuriles, Kamchatka, and at OTL
Magadan (northern coast of the Okhotsk Sea).
1570: Japanese mariners discover the seal rookeries
of the Pribilof islands - a jackpot that inspires
further exploration.
1600: Japanese mariners follow the Aleutian chain
to Alaska, and establish new trading posts as far
as Juneau.
1620: the new Tokugawa Shogun considers banning
foreign commerce as in OTL, but the revenue from
the fur trade is too juicy. Voyagers to Alaska
discover the Subarctic Current, which sweeps from
the Kuriles to British Columbia, and the California
Current which runs south to Mexico. (The Alaska
Current runs from BC to Alaska.)
1640: Russian explorers from Irkutsk and Yakutsk
clash with Japanese traders in Siberia. The Russians
a long way from home. After some pulling and hauling,
the area is divided, with the Japanese having the
coasts and everything east of the Lena valley. (The
Amur Valley is held by the Chinese Empire.) The first
Japanese traders reach the Vancouver-Seattle area and
set up trading posts.
1650: Noting the good climate and relative accessibility
of the Vancouver-Seattle area, some Japanese bring horses,
pigs, and cattle. Being Hokkaidans, they plant wheat.
Outbreaks of smallpox and measles crash the native
population over the next 50 years. Also, some pigs go feral,
and disrupt the ecology, causing further hardship.[1]
1675: The Vancouver-Seattle "colony" has about 2,000
residents. Explorers have found the Columbia, and
put trading posts up to the mouth of the Snake River.
Others have gone up the Fraser River.
1700: The total "settled" population of Japanese
America is about 5,000; there are another 5,000
or so migrant traders and trappers, including their
native mates and mixblood offspring. There are
trading posts as far inland as the crest of the
Rockies. Exploring ships have cruised down the
coast as far as San Francisco Bay.
Here we start encountering possible Euro reactions.
OTL, New Spain spread slowly to the NW: the mission
stations were only at the Arizona border in 1700.
No effort was made to settle California till 1769,
in reaction to Russian activity.
It's possible that Spain would be moved to act
earlier by Japanese expansion. Both sides
would want the Bay; neither would have much
strength to seize it. Either side would dominate
if strongly backed from the homeland. It's beyond
me to say whether either homeland would be moved
to do so. alt-Japan would be very different. Spain
might be moved to send an expedition against
heathen intruders (if they are heathens). There
would probably be earlier contacts and clashes
between Japanese and Spanish mariners all
across the Pacific.
But assuming that Spain does not strike at
1750: Settled population now about 50,000.
Trading range covers everything west of the
Continental Divide and north of the Great
Basin, extending down to Great Salt Lake.
Pack traders and trappers range into Alberta,
and are bumping up against Hudson Bay Company
traders. Others are roaming out into the upper
Missouri Valley. Rumors of the Japanese filter
all the way to New Orleans. Assume the Japanese
reach SF Bay first. The Spanish react by
occupying the LA area and planting coastal
posts up to Monterey.
1760-1800: Clashes between Japanese and Spanish
escalate. A Spanish fleet raids the SF Bay
area, ravaging but not destroying the Japanese
settlement. The Japanese settlers destroy the
Monterey outpost. The offended Shogun sends a
fleet to seize Guam. The conflict is settled
by the return of Guam, agreement that Japanese
will stay out of southern California, and the
Monterey area and San Joaquin Valley will be
an empty buffer zone. New Japan increases to
about 250,000 people. The Shogun appoints a
regional governor.
1800-1850: Japanese migration increases as
Japanese ships improve. Settlements fill the
Sacramento Valley. Gold is discovered in 1824.
Population booms to about 1M people.
That's as far as I can take it.

Post by Old Toby
America and Mexico remain mostly as per OTL, except in so far as
the Japanese settlement has rippled out through North America.
Japanese trade has given the natives hefty amounts of iron and
horses, and possibly some firearms.

Not to any great degree, IMHO, until
much later. Horses maybe; they make
more horses. Does anyone know when the
various tribes acquired horses?

Post by Old Toby
Buddhist missionaries have
also made their presence felt

Unlikely, IMHO. Buddhist AFAIK have
no record of preaching to savages,
and the motley fur traders who are
the Japanese population are even
less attractive.

Post by Old Toby
There is also a sort of sub-rosa trade between the Japanese
and French Voyageurs, via native intermediaries.

Nope. They have nothing to trade
each other; they compete with each
other for Indian peltries. The voyageurs
didn't venture up to the Rockies till
after 1800, AFAIK.
[1] I've read that the explosion of feral pigs
in Oregon in the 1840s, from stock brought by
the earliest settlers, caused eco-disruption
that wiped out most of the Indians in the area.
--
| He had a shorter, more scraggly, and even less |
| flattering beard than Yassir Arafat, and Escalante |
| never conceived that such a thing was possible. |
| -- William Goldman, _Heat_ |

Another point to be made is that by the middle of the 13th Century,
according to MacNeil's Plagues and Peoples, Japan had developed a
population immunity to diseases that were probably smallpox, and
measles. They were considered "childhood diseases". This would mean
that the entire company of an expedition would probably be carriers
for one or both of these diseases. Smallpox and measles did in about
90% of the population of the Americas OTL and the Western tribes
suffered as much when measles and smallpox reached them in the 18th
century.

The Pacific Coast from Kodiak Island to Humboldt Bay is rich in fish
and sea food, the tribes lived as hunter gatherers and never developed
agriculture because of the abundance. Lewis and Clark lived on Salmon
from the time they crossed the continental divide.

[Phil McGregor]

On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 10:39:55 -0700, Jack Linthicum

Post by Jack Linthicum
Another point to be made is that by the middle of the 13th Century,
according to MacNeil's Plagues and Peoples, Japan had developed a
population immunity to diseases that were probably smallpox, and

Really? I have read P&P and *nowhere* does MacNeill suggest *any*
population developed "immunity" to *smallpox*.

Post by Jack Linthicum
measles. They were considered "childhood diseases". This would mean

Again, MacNeill simply does NOT say that in Japan, or anywhere else,
for that matter, that *smallpox* ever became and endemic "hildhood
disease" like measles. Sure, recurrent *epidemics* tended to kill or
make immune whole generations at a time, but it was *not* a "childhood
disease" in the way MacNeill uses the term.

If you're going to cite standard references, at least have the
courtesy to either a) read them or b) make an attempt to understand
what they are actually saying.

Do you take pleasure in continually showing your ignorant
clewlessness?

Phil

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: ***@pacific.net.au

[Jack Linthicum]

Post by Phil McGregor
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 10:39:55 -0700, Jack Linthicum

Post by Jack Linthicum
Another point to be made is that by the middle of the 13th Century,
according to MacNeil's Plagues and Peoples, Japan had developed a
population immunity to diseases that were probably smallpox, and

Really? I have read P&P and *nowhere* does MacNeill suggest *any*
population developed "immunity" to *smallpox*.

Post by Jack Linthicum
measles. They were considered "childhood diseases". This would mean

Again, MacNeill simply does NOT say that in Japan, or anywhere else,
for that matter, that *smallpox* ever became and endemic "hildhood
disease" like measles. Sure, recurrent *epidemics* tended to kill or
make immune whole generations at a time, but it was *not* a "childhood
disease" in the way MacNeill uses the term.
If you're going to cite standard references, at least have the
courtesy to either a) read them or b) make an attempt to understand
what they are actually saying.
Do you take pleasure in continually showing your ignorant
clewlessness?
Phil
Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Chapter III Confluence of Civilized Disease Pools, pages 124-5
(paperback)

[Phil McGregor]

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 03:31:13 -0700, Jack Linthicum

Post by Jack Linthicum

Post by Phil McGregor
On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 10:39:55 -0700, Jack Linthicum

Post by Jack Linthicum
Another point to be made is that by the middle of the 13th Century,
according to MacNeil's Plagues and Peoples, Japan had developed a
population immunity to diseases that were probably smallpox, and

Really? I have read P&P and *nowhere* does MacNeill suggest *any*
population developed "immunity" to *smallpox*.

Post by Jack Linthicum
measles. They were considered "childhood diseases". This would mean

Again, MacNeill simply does NOT say that in Japan, or anywhere else,
for that matter, that *smallpox* ever became and endemic "hildhood
disease" like measles. Sure, recurrent *epidemics* tended to kill or
make immune whole generations at a time, but it was *not* a "childhood
disease" in the way MacNeill uses the term.
If you're going to cite standard references, at least have the
courtesy to either a) read them or b) make an attempt to understand
what they are actually saying.
Do you take pleasure in continually showing your ignorant
clewlessness?

Chapter III Confluence of Civilized Disease Pools, pages 124-5
(paperback)

(Presuming you mean the Anchor Books 1998 reprint)

Which, on the most perfunctory of readings, confirms ...

a) MacNeill does NOT say that any population developed "immunity" to
smallpox

and

b) That MacNeill does NOT say that Smallpox became and endemic
"childhood" disease like measles.

In fact, *n*o*w*h*e*r*e* on *e*i*t*h*e*r* page you cite does it
mention ...

a) Japan

In fact, Japan, as the index indicates clearly, is mentioned only on
pages ... 145, 152-54, 155, 157, 235, 237, 268

or

b) Smallpox

In fact, Smallpox, as the index indicates clearly, is mentioned only
on pages ... 9-10, 16, 20, 30, 31, 69, 75,97, 110, 120-22, 130-32,
142, 147, 148, 153, 154, 158, 198, 251

If you're trying to tell porkies, lnthipoo, might I suggest that
making cites that are ... lies ... is not a good idea when the person
you're trying to sell those lies to has made it *blindingly* plain
that he has a copy of the work you're peddling deliberate untruths
about.

This is not a case of linthipoo being *stupid* ... this is a
deliberate, outright, falsehood.

You made claims abou smallpox in Japan and Smallpox and the 13th
century and the pages you cite refer to India, China, Rome and the
Mediterranean in the period 200 BC - 200 AD and make no mention
whatsoever of Smallpox.

That's not stupidity, thats an outright lie.

Well, OK, I'll grant that you're a *stupid* liar.

Phil

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: ***@pacific.net.au