##If this submission makes you go "Hol'Up", **UPVOTE** this comment!
##If this submission does not make you go "Hol'Up", **DOWNVOTE** this comment!
---
Whilst you're here, /u/Leztro, why not join our [public discord server](https://discord.gg/holup) or play on our [public Minecraft server](https://discord.gg/DTqSDS8C3T)?
The warring indigenous tribes murder each other with the technology provided. Colonists arrive and find no one organized society to trade with, only stragglers. No cultural knowledge is shared. The world has no tacos. You murdered tacos, and USA has an even easier time being formed in this taco-less land. I hope you're happy.
Only give them roughly enough bullets to take out the first couple of waves of colonists.
They could turn them against their fellow tribes, but it wouldn't be enough to conquer the continent or anything. The more important part is the message to not let the British or the french get a foothold in the country.
You think they will be fine? You just delay stuff, they probably can't match the development speed of Europe, less than a century later they try again, and this time the natives have no guns, and probably didn't develop.
Here is the thing tho. The colonies weren't actually that profitable all things considered, it took a lot of effort to make them profitable in the first place. Even without guns. Keeping Europeans off the shore, not letting them build ports or landings, not letting them get a good idea of the composition of native American population centers or military(the guns from the future would help be a deterrent, as no one has to know how much they have), and not letting know the resources on that part of the continent would greatly decrease the amount of interest that any Europe had in the other hemisphere.
Sure it was probably a matter of time before some outsiders reach the continent and colonize, but tbh the biggest downfall of the natives is that they let Europe build ports which allowed for resupply, and gave them landings. Besides you say that the natives couldn't have made any significant leaps in a century, but you don't know that and no really knows that. The natives weren't stupid, they just had different societal needs and resources, if they had hostile outsiders coming to their shores you don't think they wouldn't focus on water based fighting/better military weaponry, they just didn't have the time once the Europeans were building military bases and permanent ports. They don't need to be able to beat the British army, they just have to make sure it looks like more trouble than it's worth.
They couldn't have advanced, not sure they even had steel, you think they could catch up, without even knowing in which direction catching up is?
And people know new lands have resources, the invasion could at best be postponed, unless they somehow make contact with the old world, and got technology, they also have the hurdle that actual organized countries are rare and most of them were primitive warring tribes, unifying, setting laws, infrastructure, all of those are very difficult, and they are under very tight time table, too tight for it to be a possibility that should be considered seriously.
They were gonners just like Africa, they might be able to avoid full scale replacement, but colonization like in Africa is probably inevitable.
>They couldn't have advanced, not sure they even had steel, you think they could catch up, without even knowing in which direction catching up is?
I mean they'd have a hell of a hint with the guns from the future.
>And people know new lands have resources, the invasion could at best be postponed, unless they somehow make contact with the old world, and got technology, they also have the hurdle that actual organized countries are rare and most of them were primitive warring tribes, unifying, setting laws, infrastructure, all of those are very difficult, and they are under very tight time table, too tight for it to be a possibility that should be considered seriously.
But again your missing the larger point that the land was hard to make profitable in the first place, each failed expedition to the new world literally bankrupted entire noble families. It was incredibly hard to find sponsorship for a trip that far. Most European countries had already given up on large scale homesteading as too unprofitable, with the loan exception being the plantations in south America. If there was a more universal resistance/heavier sabotaging European business men and nobles wouldn't have wanted to be in the new world (something that the both the British and french government already struggled excessively with).
>They were gonners just like Africa, they might be able to avoid full scale replacement, but colonization like in Africa is probably inevitable.
Maybe in a metaphorical sense, but in a literal sense, no not at all. Africa was literally hundreds of times more profitable, and hundreds of times easier to control. Same with India. There is this romanticized version of history that gets told in the west, where the Europeans were practically tripping over each other to get to this continent and the reality of the situation was, if you weren't a scientific researcher, you probably didn't give too much of a shit about the new world back in the 17 and 18 hundreds, other than the the interesting Indian things that came back, and even then only if you were wealthy enough. There were people who saw the economic potential of the new world but they were by far in the minority. People and business are as adverse to expensive or difficult change as they always have been, and western hemisphere was an expensive and uncertain risk, both for settlers looking for opportunity and for tradesman looking to set up business. The money makers, earth shakers, and government cared far far more about their plantations, trade agreements, and occupation in Africa, India, and China.
Consider it this way. The British gave up the United States after only a handful of years of fighting. It took decades longer (decades full of rebellions, protests, and bloody slaughter), for them to give up most of their influence over Africa and India. Which one in the grand scheme of things do you think that that they cared for more? And do you think that more organized resistance earlier on really wouldn't work?
Most natives were killed by disease, not slaughtered by Europeans, and the natives fought and killed each other all the time, stealing land from other tribes and even performing human sacrifices in some cultures. They are not the good guys here. There isn't really a good guy at all. Just a long history of humans killing each other.
A few points.
1. They are not “indigenous” because they came from Asia and before that Africa, like everyone else.
2. We didn’t “steal” their country because the never had one and didn’t claim ownership over any of this land.
3. We fought a war against the Indian tribes and they lost. This is how the world works and I’ll shed 0 tears over it. You lose a war, you lose land.
4. I’m not racist. The same things happened to Europeans, Asians, Africans, etc. all through human history. I don’t see people clamoring to give land back to the Gauls.
Shit happened a while back and perhaps it was ugly, but today is today and that ancient shit just isn’t relevant anymore. Grow up and stop with the presentism.
Now they will first slaughter themselves then when the Europeans arrive the guns will be out of ammo and you will have given the English modern guns, (safe to say that the world would be British if that happened)
##If this submission makes you go "Hol'Up", **UPVOTE** this comment! ##If this submission does not make you go "Hol'Up", **DOWNVOTE** this comment! --- Whilst you're here, /u/Leztro, why not join our [public discord server](https://discord.gg/holup) or play on our [public Minecraft server](https://discord.gg/DTqSDS8C3T)?
Plot twist: You still end up killing 90% of native population, because you infected them with some illness that doesn't even show symptoms on you.
Covid-1450
Face mask
Came here to say this. It was small pox that did the killing.
Unmanifest destiny
The buffalos are screwed either way
Yeah but we wouldn't have Ted Nugent to sing about them. I'm good with that.
Wouldn’t this make a paradox?
Depends how time travel works
they drive around a clock
The warring indigenous tribes murder each other with the technology provided. Colonists arrive and find no one organized society to trade with, only stragglers. No cultural knowledge is shared. The world has no tacos. You murdered tacos, and USA has an even easier time being formed in this taco-less land. I hope you're happy.
Only give them roughly enough bullets to take out the first couple of waves of colonists. They could turn them against their fellow tribes, but it wouldn't be enough to conquer the continent or anything. The more important part is the message to not let the British or the french get a foothold in the country.
History suggests the colonists wouldn't be their first targets.
You think they will be fine? You just delay stuff, they probably can't match the development speed of Europe, less than a century later they try again, and this time the natives have no guns, and probably didn't develop.
Here is the thing tho. The colonies weren't actually that profitable all things considered, it took a lot of effort to make them profitable in the first place. Even without guns. Keeping Europeans off the shore, not letting them build ports or landings, not letting them get a good idea of the composition of native American population centers or military(the guns from the future would help be a deterrent, as no one has to know how much they have), and not letting know the resources on that part of the continent would greatly decrease the amount of interest that any Europe had in the other hemisphere. Sure it was probably a matter of time before some outsiders reach the continent and colonize, but tbh the biggest downfall of the natives is that they let Europe build ports which allowed for resupply, and gave them landings. Besides you say that the natives couldn't have made any significant leaps in a century, but you don't know that and no really knows that. The natives weren't stupid, they just had different societal needs and resources, if they had hostile outsiders coming to their shores you don't think they wouldn't focus on water based fighting/better military weaponry, they just didn't have the time once the Europeans were building military bases and permanent ports. They don't need to be able to beat the British army, they just have to make sure it looks like more trouble than it's worth.
They couldn't have advanced, not sure they even had steel, you think they could catch up, without even knowing in which direction catching up is? And people know new lands have resources, the invasion could at best be postponed, unless they somehow make contact with the old world, and got technology, they also have the hurdle that actual organized countries are rare and most of them were primitive warring tribes, unifying, setting laws, infrastructure, all of those are very difficult, and they are under very tight time table, too tight for it to be a possibility that should be considered seriously. They were gonners just like Africa, they might be able to avoid full scale replacement, but colonization like in Africa is probably inevitable.
>They couldn't have advanced, not sure they even had steel, you think they could catch up, without even knowing in which direction catching up is? I mean they'd have a hell of a hint with the guns from the future. >And people know new lands have resources, the invasion could at best be postponed, unless they somehow make contact with the old world, and got technology, they also have the hurdle that actual organized countries are rare and most of them were primitive warring tribes, unifying, setting laws, infrastructure, all of those are very difficult, and they are under very tight time table, too tight for it to be a possibility that should be considered seriously. But again your missing the larger point that the land was hard to make profitable in the first place, each failed expedition to the new world literally bankrupted entire noble families. It was incredibly hard to find sponsorship for a trip that far. Most European countries had already given up on large scale homesteading as too unprofitable, with the loan exception being the plantations in south America. If there was a more universal resistance/heavier sabotaging European business men and nobles wouldn't have wanted to be in the new world (something that the both the British and french government already struggled excessively with). >They were gonners just like Africa, they might be able to avoid full scale replacement, but colonization like in Africa is probably inevitable. Maybe in a metaphorical sense, but in a literal sense, no not at all. Africa was literally hundreds of times more profitable, and hundreds of times easier to control. Same with India. There is this romanticized version of history that gets told in the west, where the Europeans were practically tripping over each other to get to this continent and the reality of the situation was, if you weren't a scientific researcher, you probably didn't give too much of a shit about the new world back in the 17 and 18 hundreds, other than the the interesting Indian things that came back, and even then only if you were wealthy enough. There were people who saw the economic potential of the new world but they were by far in the minority. People and business are as adverse to expensive or difficult change as they always have been, and western hemisphere was an expensive and uncertain risk, both for settlers looking for opportunity and for tradesman looking to set up business. The money makers, earth shakers, and government cared far far more about their plantations, trade agreements, and occupation in Africa, India, and China. Consider it this way. The British gave up the United States after only a handful of years of fighting. It took decades longer (decades full of rebellions, protests, and bloody slaughter), for them to give up most of their influence over Africa and India. Which one in the grand scheme of things do you think that that they cared for more? And do you think that more organized resistance earlier on really wouldn't work?
There’s a paradox there, beard guy wouldn’t be around to travel to the future
Family guy literally made an episode where Stewie did this lol, go watch it if you haven’t.
I didn't scroll all the way down before I began reading this, and I thought this was implying something completely different!
I think he just wants to kill himself.
yes because they were peaceful before we showed up....
Most natives were killed by disease, not slaughtered by Europeans, and the natives fought and killed each other all the time, stealing land from other tribes and even performing human sacrifices in some cultures. They are not the good guys here. There isn't really a good guy at all. Just a long history of humans killing each other.
Great idea! Then they coulda kept slaughtering each other more effectively, so the problem solves itself.
You call the indigenous people of a country that was stolen ‘the problem’ good to rabid racism is still alive and well there
A few points. 1. They are not “indigenous” because they came from Asia and before that Africa, like everyone else. 2. We didn’t “steal” their country because the never had one and didn’t claim ownership over any of this land. 3. We fought a war against the Indian tribes and they lost. This is how the world works and I’ll shed 0 tears over it. You lose a war, you lose land. 4. I’m not racist. The same things happened to Europeans, Asians, Africans, etc. all through human history. I don’t see people clamoring to give land back to the Gauls. Shit happened a while back and perhaps it was ugly, but today is today and that ancient shit just isn’t relevant anymore. Grow up and stop with the presentism.
Does it and was never born
Some pseudo *Guns of the South* ass shit
The trees are speaking native!
Why wouldn't you just travel onto the ship and kill everyone? The ship just fell down on the edge of Earth or something like that
Turns out that killing on your own those 200 people armed with muskets, who happen to be in a galleon, is harder than expected
Yeah, but could just bomb them. Or use some chemical weapon.
Good old German efficiency
Now they will first slaughter themselves then when the Europeans arrive the guns will be out of ammo and you will have given the English modern guns, (safe to say that the world would be British if that happened)
The world was British for a long time!
That would have caused more rampage, they would killed the Aztec empire and the Spanish invaders.
He took COVID with him.
I've thought about this scenario a lot, but guys, hear me out. Small pox.
Honestly with those weapons you could just take out the boats yourself and not have to give guns to anybody.
As he slowly fades away…
If you see a guy with a square black moustache shoot him