I hear you but I think you are thinking like a modern, liberal human. Think more like a caveman. I don't think cavemen would impose a "wildlife" reserve. They would most likely eat the lizard people. Or be eaten.
LOL. You need to re-check your history. If the Indians wanted to, they could've wiped out all the white settlers. Instead, they allowed (and even helped) more and more white people to arrive until enough came to wipe out the Natives instead. White people were not 'more' advanced than Indians (in terms of battle capabilities). Instead they used tricks like giving them smallpox to dwindle the Indians numbers. In terms of weaponry, guns back then were extremely inaccurate. Bows and arrows were actually far superior to guns. Why do you think the Chinese never used gunpowder to develop guns...because a crossbow was far better. It took hundreds of years to improve the gun to be an effective weapon. Back then, you'd miss a guy standing ten feet away. That's why guns back then had short knives on the end...cause you'd probably need it.
That's probably what happened in our history. But dominant predators have lived within the same turf without competing with each other, like killer whales and sharks. When they cross, they fight bitterly, but the two species generally avoid each other. The lizard people could be nocturnal, choose cold blooded regions, or have vastly different diets. A war for territory that consumes each species focus could be inevitable, but the stakes involved would make a world of difference.
The thing is sharks and killer whales don't really think about each other when they don't see each other (how much do sharks actually think at all?). People, otoh, would think about the lizard men all the time especially if there had been a previous fight. Man would think about self-defence and revenge. Now, if the lizard people and humans were fighting to a stand-off they may try to avoid each other but since they were both intelligent they would both be thinking of ways to eleminate the competition/threat. But a race of killer lizard men would probably mean that black humans wouldn't seem so different from white humans.
With bows and arrows you can always re-use some of your ammo (assuming you win) or make more ammo on site. With guns once you've shot your load your gun is a basically a club.
That could well be an excuse for George W Bush not fighting lizard beings, since he goes to bed by 9 PM every evening.
It would come down to a battle for sure. In the end the humans would win, because our captain would use resources he found to make gun powder, and use that with large bamboo tube. This would enable him to win, and the humans and enterprise would be safe after that.
Of course GWB would get up extra early to fight the lizard men and his troops would be fresh while the lizard men would be tired from being up all night. If Clinton were in charge, he'd be looking for a Lizard woman with no teeth (and possibly a flat head).
Ya think so? No. Gotta run that treadmill. Oh wait, didn't he switch to biking lately? I honestly think Dubya should seek better advice on how to ride a bike from you. Whatever. Priority, man, priority.
I asked how old you were because you keep posting pictures and comments like these. It just gets old (unless you're 12).
I not sure about that. Various native groups could, and did, wipe out small groups of Europeans but with the advantages of guns, steel, better transportation, numbers and most importantly resistance to several highly contagious diseases it was only a matter of time between the Europeans defeating the Native Americans. As for guns not being effective compared to bows you're forgetting you can use gunpowder for more than hand guns. Cannons are far more deadlier and easier to use and transport than catapults. Guns require less skill to operate than bows and are better at piercing armor. You can break a charge better with a line of muskets than you will with a line of archers even if the musket individually aren't as accurate. The Chinese didn't develop the idea of using gunpowder to fire projectiles like bullets but did use it to develop rockets and bombs. It wasn't that they had and ended up deciding that crossbows were better. Anyway the Chinese did end up using guns and cannons when they were introduced into China in the 16th C..
What if there was a cataclysm or scenario that forced the two species to work together? Cavemen were still vulnerable to other predators. If lizardmen shared a similar predator, their competition would appear less crucial. Since the two species are capable of language, they're able to reach some agreement to provide mutual defense. Language could prevent wars of total annihilation. While all you said is true, has the natives been hostile to the likes of Columbus, Cortez and the Jamestown colonists, none of the news of spices, gold, or land would've reached back to the Europeans. There would've been no proof nor incentive of riches. The European powers main goal for exploration from the 14th to 18th centuries was mainly for trade and profit. They didn't decide to colonize Africa and ultimately Asia because their power projection was limited to the coastlines, so it was more profitable to deal and trade with the local leaders. In the scenario of lizard men in the Americas and humans in the rest of the world , the winning specis would probably be the one that has had the most contact and trade within their races. The Indians lost out because of their seclusion while the Europeans had constant contact with other cultures through the Muslim, African, and Asian trade routes. Illnesses from domesticated animals such as the flu, plague and small pox originated and spread worldwide. Most European technology up until the 17th century was heavily borrowed from other civilizations. Meanwhile, the Native Americans had less domestication and less technological contact within their continent.
While I would like to believe that if humans and lizardmen both existed there would be enough goodness enough between us and enough in common to communicate intelligably and also relate on a 'human' level I don't believe its so. Think about it this way right now the human population is approaching 6 Billion and still increasing. Presuming lizardmen where roughly as fecund and at the same technology level as us then they would've been reproducing at about the same rate and more importantly would've been tyring to obtain resources at the same rate. I doubt with two dominant intelligent species we could've coexisted to the point much past where we were at a billion each and reaching industrialization then war would've certainly broken out as we both competed for the same resources. While wars have obviously broken out between humans the difference is that the conquered end up being absorbed into the conquerors since humans can still breed with each other. So there are very few true pure blood native Americans left but there are still many mixed blood descendants. With a totally different species though there's not even a biological impetus to interbreed them and as both humans and lizardmen continued to breed and consume resources the pressures of burgeoning populations would eventually compel one to wipe out the other.
sorry i have to correct you a little bit. you are right about shear numbers of indian populations in america. i believe what is now mexico city (i can't spell the aztec name right) was one of the biggest cities in the world at the time it was discovered by euros. HOWEVER, between 75-90% of the indian population was destroyed by disease unknowingly by the Euro settlers. They knew nothing of the diseases they carried which the Indians had no resistance to. It was a popular belief that it was God killing off the Indian sinners. On a side note the only major disease the Indians gave to the Euros was syphillis. also i would have to disagree with you that Euros were not superior in terms of battle capabilities. the only thing that the indians were better at was knowing the landscape and being willing to not living in euro style settlements. meaning they could use guerrila tactics much easier than euros. i would explain more but i'm pretty pushed for time now.
The Euros actually knowingly spread small pox among the Indians in an effort to kill them off and thin out their poplulation. It was bothing unkowingly and knowingly that the Europeans spread disease among the American Indians. There are actual letters from early settlers discussing the tactic of giving the Indians blankets infested with small pox.
And I thought this was the other way around? I was under the impression that it was the white man that spread syphillis to Indians?
ummm im talking about when the euros first got to south america. that is what did the large majority of the destruction to the indian populations. this is a long time before what you are talking about.
You may be right but I remember asking this question to my prof back at UT and he said the only major disease that was spread to Europe from the Americas was syphillis. I might be remembering incorrectly though.
