Why did it take European settlers on the US landmass almost 300

>>33746746

Because the white population was small, and had plentiful resources, with no major motive to expand,
and because the natives massively outnumbered them.

In 1622, natives killed a third of the entire white population of Virginia.
Which amounted to about 400 people.

Because generally when you march a couple thousand people into an environment that they've never fought in before to kill off the people who have lived their entire life in that area with the assumption that it will really easy because they're brown and act kinda funny, you are probably going to get your shit pushed in.

>>33746791
Exactly, demonstrated today in the demographics of the United States, where the primary population is Native and they hold the power.

>>33746791
I see what you did there

>>33746793
Oh, I am not saying that you won't win in the end, I am just saying that you will get slapped around far more than necessary.

Disease takes time to eradicate an entire race.

>>33746746
Because the settlers didn't show up in huge ships full of thousands of troops and the full backing of entire European militaries going "Boy, can't want to go fuck up some natives!"

Genocide is not its own reward, just the natural consequence of a growing population with the means to win any territorial conflicts that resulted from its expansion.

>>33746746
Because it was done on an ah hoc rather than sustained and organized basis.

>>33746746
But the natives were subdued in the regions that the settlers settled en mass. You seem to think that being driven out of their homes and into land which the European settlers aren't taking over yet is not subduing. As Europeans migrated westwards on the continent due to population pressures, the natives were driven before them.

In short, they did, you're retarded, fuck off.

File: battle_scene.jpg (534KB, 1152x864px) Image search: [Google]

534KB, 1152x864px

>>33746791
Just like the Gurkha war where the Europeans out numbered the Nepalese 22k to 11k but it turned out those funny looking knives good for more than farming.

>>33746808
Sort of, but the US population surpassed the 3 million mark (the high estimate for the number of living natives on the continent at the time) by the 1780's.

Natives lost, but considering how few warriors they had available in many engagements, their performance overall was pretty respectable.

It wasn't like the Brits/Afrikaners v. Zulus in South Africa or something, where the settlers got meat-spammed by opponents over and over again.

Natives used mobility, terrain, and what we'd now call guerrilla tactics against US forces, and it was a massive effort to eventually put down.

Go back to /pol/

>>33746905
>Natives used mobility, terrain, and what we'd now call guerrilla tactics against US forces, and it was a massive effort to eventually put down.

Nowadays, the local police deploy more men when someone shoots a cop.

>>33746746
Because genocide wasn't exactly on the agenda, expansion was.

Even Cortez had native allies when he took on the Aztecs. A tech advantage is great but you still need boots on the ground. A lot of them!

File: thundersticks.jpg (55KB, 327x500px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 327x500px

>>33746746
>despite their vast technological and military advantages

The colonial powers were long supplying Native Americans with guns through trade, often in competition with other powers. It was so lucrative that the Dutch and French actually produced rifles especially for Native Americans and later provided free ammunition and gunsmithing. The result being that Indians were often better armed than Euro-American settlers and in some cases even their armed forces and militias.

https://aeon.co/essays/how-did-the-introduction-of-guns-change-native-america

In the plains they were always outnumbered, especially so during the Civil War when the frontier posts could go six months or more without contact, let alone resupply.

>I don't care who does the fighting, I don't want any more of it "in mine." The boys out here have all come to the conclusion that fighting Indians is not what it is cracked up to be, especially when it is fighting on the open prairie against five to one, we always have to fight at such a disadvantage, we always have to shoot at them running, they wont stand and let a fellow shoot at them like a white man.

>Do tell me what is the popular opinion of this Indian war, in the States. No newspapers we get ever speak of us, theyre all gloating over the close of the war in the south and don't seem to remember the soldiers out here fighting a race whom it would be flattering to call men.

Corporal Hervey Johnson 1865

>>33746746
Because the British kept passing laws that limited how far American Colonials could settle. The British Empire literally said, "Hey, here's a line that we don't want you going past."

https://history.state.gov/milestones/1750-1775/proclamation-line-1763

>>33746746
because it wasn't a concerted effort or even goal

>>33746791
wrong and possibly retarded

File: Isandhlwana.jpg (105KB, 944x588px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 944x588px

>>33747446

You say that like you don't know that the Bongs with breech-loading rifles lost to natives armed with only spears.

File: native american laugh.jpg (7KB, 188x242px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 188x242px

>>33746746
>to successfully subdue the scattered native tribes


I dont think you know real history or even the current state of affairs in the US concerning the Native Americans.

>>33747551
>lost
>gained full control of territory

>>33747551
>Lost

Brits twice less casualties than the Zulus... and they still won after only 6 months.

They lost a few thousand men.
The Zulu lost an entire generation of fighters.

>>33747016
You got it backward :
The Brits got the law up because they didn't want to cause conflicts with the local savages... yet.

Why send perfectly good white christians to collect pelts when your average indian is happy to do so for a few bottles of bad alcohol ?
Especially when you need every skilled hand to build farmland and towns.
And even more so since the savages were KILLING EACH OTHER ANYWAY over those pelts because the trade with the Brits and Frenchies was so lucrative for them

>>33746746

>vast technological advantages

The bow was a better individual weapon than the gun until the mid-19th century, and when it comes down to it, a stone spear will kill an unarmored man just as easily as a sword.

>>33747582

And guess what, when the Bongs marched a couple thousand people into an environment that they've never fought in before, they got their shit pushed in.

When they finished licking their wounds, learned their lessons, had better preparation, and brought machine guns and artillery, they squashed in the natives in a couple months with minimal casualties.

>>33746746
because
A. the tribes were so scattered
B. many lived in places the white man had no interest going to, let alone fighting in
They just pushed the ignorant savages into the wastes
C. the white man wasn't trying to wipe them out, regardless of what your liberal history teacher might tell you
D. white man was too busy building the greatest country on earth

More than 500 peace treaties (520?550?) were signed between the native indians and the US government. 500 of them were subsequenctly broken or voided by the US govt when it suited them. It wasn't guns that won the west, it was trusting the government that lost it.

>>33746793
Learn to read dipshit

>>33748792
Calm down Squanto, we're almost done laying down all of our pipe, be happy in your reservations

>>33746746
Because the Europeans didn't try to subdue all of the Native Americans at once, you blithering retard. This was a number of conflicts against a number of different groups of native Americans, all for the control of resources, predominantly land, that the colonists eventually grew large enough to want to expand into and control. When said conflicts did occur, the native americans were almost always pushed out in relatively short order.

>>33748792
Little one sided there. It was very common on the plains for the Cheyennes,Sioux, Kiowas and Arapahoes to sue for peace or make promises simply as a tactic to stall for time with full intentions to inevitably break them.

War also tends to void treaties.

>>33746791
The British managed to do it in Australia pretty quickly though.

But aboriginals aren't really humans so....

>>33748792
>Fool me 500 times

File: 148428-004-864264C5.jpg (26KB, 550x335px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 550x335px

>>33746746
Settling the middle of the country wasn't a possibility until the railroads built to link the coasts were established, the Great Plains was a sea of grass and lumber is needed to homestead. That the plains were also home to the most war-like of Native Americans didn't help, though that's why Mexico invited settlement of Texas.

It's actually pretty funny how this entire landmass was conquered with the largest battles measuring a mere few thousand men on both sides. Due to, of course, the fracturedness of the indians, who did number several hundred thousand even at the start of the 19th century.
Perhaps an interesting comparison is the russian conquest of the steppe against the tartars, where armies of a hundred thousand men sometimes clashed.
The tartars were far superior to the indians in economy, technology, state organization, and they had the consistent backing of a major power (the ottoman empire).
Russia, while quite populous already during the early modern age, was backwards by european standards and had to rely on western foreigners for artillery, military organization, statecraft and many other things. They were also regularly at war with sweden and the commonwealth, suffering grave defeats at times.
And yet, what little technological advantage they had and the sheer economic superiority of an agrarian society allowed them to eventually conquer the tartars and all of the steppe and siberia. Really shows what little chance the indians ever had against european settlers in north america.