[Paloma_55]

"The "success" of disease and famine in wiping out the majority natives is probably because there weren't that many of them, rather than large numbers being wiped out."

It was European population densities that led to the dark ages. The upside of the dark ages is that Europeans became more resilient to disease.

Native Americans (poor naming since they were not native any more than the Europeans, they just arrived sooner) had such a low population density that disease could not thrive, and therefore, immunities could not be developed as broadly.

PS: Where did the Aztec's go? Disease? Did a white man visit them?

[John Valentine]

Did a white man visit them?

Yeah. Ever hear of Cortez?

[bagman]

Yes, disease was a major detrimental impact on the Aztecs. Hernando Cortez was another major detrimental impact on the Aztecs.

[tiki]

PS: Where did the Aztec's go? Disease? Did a white man visit them?

Exactly, the Mimbrenos, the Anasazi, too, many tribes disappeared long before the white man for white man's disease to be the problem. Did they starve? Did they assimilate? Who knows?

I do think there were a lot of them.

[brazzaville]

Good afternoon.
"Did a white man visit them?"

Actually several hundred did, under Cortez and Pedro de Alvarado and they effectively destroyed Aztec culture.

Ritual cannibalism using Spaniards who were carriers of smallpox may have played a part in the fall of the Aztecs.

Whatever the cause, fewer beating hearts were ripped from captive chests after the arrival of the Europeans.

Michael Frazier