"I was under the impression, perhaps incorrectly, that the Indians of South America suffered devastating population depletion due to diseases, both animal and human born, during the first generation of Spanish and Portuguese conquest, diseases which were passed along by oblivious conquistadors."
Aside from the fact that the population decline continued unabated until at least 1600, much more than the "first generation," you are correct.
Estimates for the population at the time of conquest vary considerably, but there is no question that various diseases (smallpox factors heavily, and famously in the fall of Tenochtitlan) shredded the population to a tiny fraction (Optimistically, 10%, or possibly as far as less than 1% of preconquest population) by 1600.
Obi: There is no seriously considered attempt by the Spanish in the new world to spread disease. Anyone even vaguely familiar with how the Spanish made their money in America would conclude that spreading disease is contrary to how the Spanish perceived their own interests. Indians were wealth, and disease killed indians.
The only possible instance where it might have been beneficial to introduce such diseases would be at the beginning of conquest. The two problems with that are a) the state of medical biology in the early 16th century was pathetic, and b ) accounts of the conquest express either surprise or contempt at the impact of the diseases.
The status of the non-Mesoamerican North American natives I'm not sure of. Maybe that's a myth, maybe not. Certainly, since there was no enslavement or labour draft of natives, there is much less disincentive to do so. But that doesn't mean it happened.
Jester
Aside from the fact that the population decline continued unabated until at least 1600, much more than the "first generation," you are correct.
Estimates for the population at the time of conquest vary considerably, but there is no question that various diseases (smallpox factors heavily, and famously in the fall of Tenochtitlan) shredded the population to a tiny fraction (Optimistically, 10%, or possibly as far as less than 1% of preconquest population) by 1600.
Obi: There is no seriously considered attempt by the Spanish in the new world to spread disease. Anyone even vaguely familiar with how the Spanish made their money in America would conclude that spreading disease is contrary to how the Spanish perceived their own interests. Indians were wealth, and disease killed indians.
The only possible instance where it might have been beneficial to introduce such diseases would be at the beginning of conquest. The two problems with that are a) the state of medical biology in the early 16th century was pathetic, and b ) accounts of the conquest express either surprise or contempt at the impact of the diseases.
The status of the non-Mesoamerican North American natives I'm not sure of. Maybe that's a myth, maybe not. Certainly, since there was no enslavement or labour draft of natives, there is much less disincentive to do so. But that doesn't mean it happened.
Jester