How many Indians in the first place?

>>133844597
the real question is, Why wasn't there devastating plagues when Vikings made contact with the Natives?

>>133844597
Or when the Polynesians traded with them?

>>133844751
there might have been, but no one was around to record it.

alternatively lower population density of the vikings made it so they weren't ridden with disease that they themselves were mostly immune to.

>>133844597
idk seems feasible to me

>>133844975
If that had happened, then Christopher Columbus would have sailed to America and gotten BTFO'd by Vikings

>>133844977
That would mean three civilizations that had only existed for centuries and a handful of primitive Native American cultures had the capacity of supporting a population several times larger than Europe at the time
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_demography

>>133844751
the vikings didn't bring pigs with them and then just let them go

>>133845497
oh ok, makes sense now. Then the Vikings were deliberately trying not to colonize. Probably just Settlements for the purpose of Research and diplomacy. They may have even left on their own

>>133844597

It seems odd now adays for so many people to die from disease but in those days they literally did not even know the most basic things like keep someone hydrated if they're sick and natives would have considered diseases brought from europe as literal curses they had such little clue what to do.

>>133845222
yea but the natives had all those crops to support the populations ie: corn potatoes trees and bushes that grow food literally everywhere

>>133845913
There's no way the Aztec empire had a population density on par with modern Bangladesh

>>133846211
how do you figure?

>>133846211
The real question is how long such a high population could be sustained. People can breed much faster than the food supply.

>>133846333
It takes millennia for populations of specific civilizations to get that high from primitive states. The aztecs apparently reached such a high population is a few centuries. They were also sacrificing thousands every year

It probably wasn't 99% that were killed off but definitely at least 75%. There were estimated to be around 500,000 total Natives in the state of California before contact with Westerners and after epidemics that number dropped to around 25,000 so roughly 95% of Natives were killed by disease

The thing that most liberals will never acknowledge is that this genocide wasn't deliberate. They have concocted this bullshit narrative that the diseases were spread by "poisoned blankets" when in reality the US never gave poisoned blankets to the Natives and in fact the "historian" who claimed they did has been thoroughly debunked

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/p/plag/5240451.0001.009/--did-the-us-army-distribute-smallpox-blankets-to-indians?rgn=main&view=fulltext

Also the vast majority of Natives who died of disease died long before they ever saw a white man. Coastal tribes would be exposed to smallpox and other diseases and they would trade with tribes further inland and the disease spread in that manner far before Jefferson ever made the Louisiana Purchase, so the tribes that Lewis and Clark made first contact with were already decimated by disease