The other Kingmaker Wrote:HiHi
Not completely sure on this JDR but might it not be said that as the Native Americans were in the main nomadic within their tribal lands, your suggestion re NY might be not entirely viable? :chin:
Some were nomads, yes. Especially those who for various reasons preferred an essentially mesolithic hunter-gatherer existence. Quite a few of them were sedentary agriculturalists who didn´t move very far of their own volition (warfare or encroachment, waged by either fellow natives or europeans might be a strong motivation in forcing displacement though)
Quote:Whereas even in the Bronze Age, due to relative overpopulation,
Quote:England and indeed the rest of western europe has always been relitivly overpopulated with regard to economic sustainability and in someways,
I am not so sure. The notion that pre-modern Europe was overpopulated lacks empirical evidence. Especially given the fact that the breakdown of central government in the western parts of the Roman empire meant, that demographics in some parts of the empire (most notably Britain) went into a tailspin. The notion of a "Migration Theory" induced overpopulation being behind fortified permanent settlements in Europe (but not the Americas) lacks a consistent inner logic that would make the argument acceptable. As far as I can see a settlement is a settlement, whether it is in the Americas or Europe, and for much the same reason.