a new spin on an old subject

[DaveSmith]

I think maybe things are getting a bit overcomplicated here. Obviously, this is more of a "just for fun" thread, so we have to take that for what it is. So, for a bit of clarification (at least in my POV). The original question posed had more to do with questions of technique than technology (yes,yes I know... completely interelated, but run with me). If stone/wood weapons are a big sticking point for us, then consider that post-contact Native Americans had traded for a great deal of european made items, including axes/tomahawks. In the Viking vs. African, I'd presume he meant one of the more well-known tribes (i.e.~zulu). We can spend all day comparing warriors from different areas and different eras, so maybe we narrow the field and judge based on the given guidelines. He asked who would win in Frank vs N.American with axes. So maybe in our fictional scenario a Frankish trapper ran into a Native American in the forest (yes, the NA would have a bow I know... forget that for now)... assuming they are both well-versed in the use of their axes... who would win. It's no fun analyzing the hell out of things (at least not for everyone). <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

[Douglas L. Meek]

It was a just for fun, and more of a fight between the people and not there gear.

I posted the same topic on 2 other fourms and each one seems to have a diffrent view on who would win. This fourm seems to take it the most seriously

I enjoy reading every ones post's.

[JeanryChandler]

I realise it's just for fun, obviously! I only mentioned gear / kit because "frankly" (pardon the pun) it's pretty significant in a fight (ever heard the expression never bring a knife to a gunfight?) and really almost all we know about when you are talking about a lot of these folks.

We don't unfortunately know what the martial arts of the early Franks really consisted of, or all that much about how they thought or what their philosophy was, what kind of shape they were in, how coordinated they were, etc. etc.

Jr

[Corey Roberts]

Hey, guys I would like to point out something.. When you are comparing "Native Americans" with any other group you have to realize that there were over 500 different american indian nations in north america. Comparing "native americans" with any other group of people like the Franks or anyone else is as generic as saying "I wonder what would happen if a European fought a samurai, saying European vs. samurai dosn't say anything at all just like saying "native american vs. Frank. The franks we're a specific tribe or group of people so if you're going to compare "native americans" with anyone else you should pick a tribe from a specific period. Otherwise the point is moot "native american" is just too broad.

[Corey Roberts]

If your comparing the commanches to the franks you have to take into account that the commanches would have guns. They got horses from the white's and they got guns too, if you take away their guns, it's just as historically accurate to take away their horses and then the're not commanche anymore...

[Bill Tsafa]

Please endure an ex anthropologist/archaeologist. This is the first time I have ever heard of this theory about the extinction of the horse in North America and util I read real research on the subject I must strongly disagree with this theory.

I'm just repeating what I saw on a channell 13 a while ago. The showed a horse on the ground with its hoofs so long they curved in. The person they interviewed gave his thoery that the softeing of the Nort American soil was the cause of the great horse extinction. Sorry i can't add anything else of give you a better refference.

It is has been agreed on by many scientist that the the south west has gone through drastic changes in its history. The Grand Canyon was once a huge river. It would make sence that with such changes back and forth a lot of animals would die off or migrate to other places.

Anyway like I said, I am no expert and I am just repeating what I herd on television with regaurd to the horses in North America.

[Rod-Thornton]

This is a very interesting discussion point, although not really such a novel idea. To the point... Jarrod Diamond (PhD) explored a similar question in his Pulitzer prize winning book, "Guns, Germs, &amp; Steel - The Fates of Human Societies" whereby he asks the basic question of "WHY did some cultures, existing in isolation on separate continents, all of which were colonized about the same time (roughly 13,000 years ago for modern man) develop such disparate societies resulting in one culture making steel weapons and technology, when others failed to, leaving them in essentially stone-aged societies? Especially when culturally, they ALL were of equivalent intelligence?

It is a good book and would be pointless to sum up in one short web-post, BUT the questions end up with the very clashes that you cite....say, a metallurgy-aware society clashing against the stone-aged one, such as Cortez and the Indians...both who had vast empires, agricultural societies (forget the hunter-gather myth), governments, irrigation, writing, etc. While the questions are very much like these what-if's , the reasons why they were "had-to-be's" are very interesting and re-affirm to me at least, one reason to study WMA -as those ultimately always triumphed due to the specific circumstances of that cultural progression of all things, including martial, that made the western European development the ultimate world shaper it was...
... (In case you haven't guessed, my money's on the viking, the frank, etc. )

[Justin Lompado]

"While the questions are very much like these what-if's , the reasons why they were "had-to-be's" are very interesting and re-affirm to me at least, one reason to study WMA -as those ultimately always triumphed due to the specific circumstances of that cultural progression of all things, including martial, that made the western European development the ultimate world shaper it was...
... (In case you haven't guessed, my money's on the viking, the frank, etc. )"

--> Thats a good point, but I would like to add IMO that even if the Aztecs had metal-smithing technology I beleive they would have been defeated by the Spanish, albeit not as soon and it would probably have taken more than the 1,000-2,000 Spaniards Cortes had.

--> In regards to the questions you raised that appear in Jared Diamond's book, I have often asked myself the same things. While I do not wholly agree with Diamond, I am at a loss for any other or real explanation of that phenomenon in the world before the last 2,500 years. In any case it is an interesting and fun question to ponder.

Thoughts/Comments?