Alternate History Speculation: Mammoths and Native Americans

[Zeta]

Something occured to me the other day - how would the history of the world have been different if the Native American tribes, instead of hunting mammoths and mastadons to extinction, had instead domesticated them in a fashion similar to how Indians (the OTHER Indians) domesticated the Indian Elephants? As we all know, Elephants were responsible for many of Alexander the Great's defeats in India. And mounts, such as horseback, have traditionally granted great development and military advantages to every culture who employed them, pre-automobile. Would the Native Americans have lost that much ground to European invaders if they were riding atop gigantic pachyderms, and had used their potential strength and mobility to increase their food and shelter production far past what they actually did?

 

[Habunake]

We would have PET MAMMOTHS!

That would be freakin awesome. And I also would imagine using them for battle, and breeding ferocious killer Mammoths!

 

[GrnMarvl14]

Since when did Native Americans hunt mammoths to extinction? Of course they hunted them, but it seems as if there are three leading theories, and hunting is only one, and none are really any higher-established than another.

Assuming they had lived, I don't really see the natives using them. Bison weren't domesticated. And, actually, I can't find anything on domesticated animals in North America larger than the dog/turkey (until the Europeans arrived and brought the horse and other such fun creatures, although South Americans did have alpacas and llamas). Native American groups were largely farming/hunting groups. They would cultivate crops, but hunt local animals when meat was needed (or trade with other tribes). Just because an animal is there doesn't mean that a group will domesticate it. Maybe if they HAD domesticated it (or, rather, had the chance to), it might have meant an improvement in building practices.

And, keep in mind, the Europeans conquered Africa and India with little problem, so I don't see mammoths being a bigger deal than regular elephants. Kill the rider, the stead is usually content to wander off. And guns vs bows and arrows is usually a no-brainer. Plus, most European conquests were rather subervsive early on, and by the time you had any REAL European conquest, trade was rather pervasive, so both sides would have had mammoths. Although the French would have gotten rich off of mammoth belts instead of beaver, I bet.

 

[FabuVinny]

That would certainly have made the Europeans more nervous about attacking. Though I have a feeling they would have still got around it and there is one weakness to using elephants in battle - injure the legs and they'll start trampling anyone unlucky enough to be near the feet.

I do wonder if it would have at least affected the speed of the Spanish conquest of Central and South America. On the battlefield they would have actually posed some kind of threat to the armoured soldiers but the rapid severity in the spread of disease would still have played a major role.