WI: Hernan Cortez and his men are massacred by the Aztecs
- Thread starter Shogun
- Start date
This might help the Incas survive longer. Maybe they can recover from their smallpox epidemics and the civil war and be stronger when they eventually are contacted by Europeans.
Or maybe it doesn't. For all we know, another group of Spanish conquistadors might come along next year and conquer the Aztecs. There were a lot of poor soldiers in Spain who were interested in making a name for themselves in the New World after all.
Or maybe it doesn't. For all we know, another group of Spanish conquistadors might come along next year and conquer the Aztecs. There were a lot of poor soldiers in Spain who were interested in making a name for themselves in the New World after all.
AmIndHistoryAuthor
Banned
That seems extremely fatalistic to assume you defeat one conquest attempt and nothing happens. Obviously:
The Aztecs have time to recover from the impact of disease, instead of having to deal with multiple epidemics while fighting off an army.
All that Spanish armor and firearms and ammo are laying around. The Aztecs shouldn't have too much difficulty in adopting it and beginning to make their own.
There are also horses. If the next invasion doesn't come for a few years, they may face the beginnings of Aztec cavalry. Or, if you want an interesting twist, Tlaxcalan cavalry fighting alongside Spanish cavalry vs Aztecs.
A complete massacre is unlikely. Some of the Spaniards will be captured for sacrifice. No doubt they will try to bargain for their lives with their own expertise.
The main and immeidate difficulty for the Aztecs will come in the fact that Tlaxcalans and other Spanish allies will still be around.
The Aztecs have time to recover from the impact of disease, instead of having to deal with multiple epidemics while fighting off an army.
All that Spanish armor and firearms and ammo are laying around. The Aztecs shouldn't have too much difficulty in adopting it and beginning to make their own.
There are also horses. If the next invasion doesn't come for a few years, they may face the beginnings of Aztec cavalry. Or, if you want an interesting twist, Tlaxcalan cavalry fighting alongside Spanish cavalry vs Aztecs.
A complete massacre is unlikely. Some of the Spaniards will be captured for sacrifice. No doubt they will try to bargain for their lives with their own expertise.
The main and immeidate difficulty for the Aztecs will come in the fact that Tlaxcalans and other Spanish allies will still be around.
Last edited:
Another thing AmInd forgot; Cortez and his men were perhaps both the best and the worst conquistadors, as in best at what they did and among the cruelest to boot. Hell, one of their leaders was Pedro Alvarado. Without the likes of him, Cortez, and Malinche, the Aztecs are gonna have more success. This doesn't necessarily mean they will be unconquered, but it does mean they will more likely than not survive more intact. One thing to remember is that AFAIK the King of Spain hated the kind of stuff they did. He even drastically punished Diego de Landa for burning Maya books. So it's easy to assume that despite the diseases, the Aztecs could possibly remain somewhat intact as a vassal of Spain. Which would be awesome. All their treasures would still be around, not to mention the city of Tenochtitlan itself.
Also, what do you think the results of Xicotencatl the Elder dying sooner and getting replaced by his son would be? The Elder was decidedly pro-Spanish, while his son opposed them numerous times even if it meant having an ally against the Mexica. With the death of his father and Cortez's force, would he just try to remain neutral as long as possible and not give any aid to future Spanish incursions?
Also, what do you think the results of Xicotencatl the Elder dying sooner and getting replaced by his son would be? The Elder was decidedly pro-Spanish, while his son opposed them numerous times even if it meant having an ally against the Mexica. With the death of his father and Cortez's force, would he just try to remain neutral as long as possible and not give any aid to future Spanish incursions?
wormyguy
Banned
Europeans took millennia to acquire partial resistance to diseases like smallpox and plague. The Aztecs have two decades, tops, before better-supplied Europeans arrive again, in greater numbers.
With hindsight they shouldn't. If me or you were to mindswap with the Aztec king, we wouldn't have too much trouble. But the Aztecs don't have hindsight, and they have no idea how the Spanish operated their magical shooty tubes. They also had a staggering inability to divert their impressive metalworking skills to any practical use. They also had no knowledge of ironworking, or of how to accurately produce the delicate springs, pivots, triggers etc. necessary for musket manufacture. At best, and this is really pushing it because they had nothing resembling chemical analysis, they might figure out gunpowder and use it in religious ceremonies as "thunder and lightning" sound effects.
They have no idea of how to feed or maintain horses, very delicate and temperamental creatures. Plus, they'd most likely either kill them as demons or eat them.
Kind of difficult when they don't speak the same language.
Not really. Since the suggested POD is that Cortez and his men are killed on the beach, there is no contact between them at all. They'll revolt eventually anyway.
AmIndHistoryAuthor
Banned
1. Resistance is a word you imagined, not mine. I said recovery.
2. Nope, nothing practical.
http://www.jstor.org/pss/661077
3. "Delicate"?
Oh yes, a blunderbuss is as delicate as making a watch...
4. Nope, Aztecs had nothing like chemo analysis. Wrong again...
http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.pa.06.040166.000301
5. Oh yes, those Aztecs were so stupid they couldn't handle a horse.
Problem is, that doesn't hold up. The Cheyenne adopted the horse within a small number of years. Same with most other Plains tribes.
Not only that, the first Aztecs to ride a horse did so way back before 1541, actually leading their troops into battle on horseback in the Mixton War.
6. Apparently you didn't know the Spaniards had a translator among them, Malinche.
And apparently, as you have made repeatedly clear, you have such an ingrained image of Aztecs as ignorant primitives, you ignore that people can learn another language, even when theyve never heard it before. Missionaries do it all the time.
7. Try actually reading the POD. It says massacred "before far inland." Like almost everything else in your post, "on the the beach" is something you imagined.
Same thing with your idea that the Tlaxcalans would "revolt" against the Aztecs. The Tlaxcalans were independent of them, bubba.
Last edited:
Emera78
Banned
Aztecs making firearms is ASB territory.
As to horses they are too few of them, and most would be killed. Some presented perhaps as pets or trophies.
The surviving conquistadors would be sacrificed.
Anyway that is besides the point, as the Aztecs will be dealing with disease epidemic, while on the coast new conquistadors eager to pursue their chance for plunder and glory will land.
As to horses they are too few of them, and most would be killed. Some presented perhaps as pets or trophies.
The surviving conquistadors would be sacrificed.
Anyway that is besides the point, as the Aztecs will be dealing with disease epidemic, while on the coast new conquistadors eager to pursue their chance for plunder and glory will land.
Zioneer
Banned
If I remember correctly, there's a "Guns of the Tawisytuna" (or however it's spelled) timeline by robertp, which details the Incans (I think) gaining gunpowder centuries before the Spaniards arrive, and faring reasonably well, even against European disease.
You all should check it out for ideas.
You all should check it out for ideas.
wormyguy
Banned
It's hard to recover from c. 60% of the population being killed. Plus, resistance still applies. Another (albeit smaller) outbreak comes in 15-30 years.
Third sentence of your source:
Prescott in his Conquest of Mexico gives a picturesque account of the splendor of the court of the Montezumas with its silver and gold ornaments and utensils, but the knowledge of metals does not seem to have extended to the general use of copper or bronze for tools and weapons. (Emphasis mine)
Indeed.
Actually, it is. The firing mechanism on a handheld firearm requires that one not only be able to create very delicate "clockwork" parts (out of iron), but also that they fit perfectly together. As far as I know, the Aztecs never created a complex machine out of metal.3. "Delicate"?
Oh yes, a blunderbuss is as delicate as making a watch...
Your source says they knew how to use herbs as simple medication, which has nothing to do with chemical analysis (i.e. breaking down gunpowder into its components, then identifying them), and furthermore that you don't know what chemical analysis actually is.4. Nope, Aztecs had nothing like chemo analysis. Wrong again...
http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.pa.06.040166.000301
The Plains tribes had access to a continuous, large supply of horses, with decades for experimentation. These ATL Aztecs have maybe 4 or 5 specimens. It's unlikely that they will figure them out before they die, or decide to kill and eat them.5. Oh yes, those Aztecs were so stupid they couldn't handle a horse.
Problem is, that doesn't hold up. The Cheyenne adopted the horse within a small number of years. Same with most other Plains tribes.
Yes. Only 22 years after Cortez's conquest. See above.
Yes, who only spoke Nahuatl and Maya. They had a priest with them, Geronimo de Aguilar, who was the only one who spoke Maya. Presumably, by virtue of being a (missionary) priest, he's among the first to get a nasty public execution.
The Aztecs weren't exactly known for keeping prisoners for years on end. They were known for killing them quickly, and brutally.
Whatever the case, one can assume they mean within a couple of months of the landing.
I admit I'm not terribly familiar with who was independent or vassals of whom in Central America at the time, but I do know that the Aztecs weren't very popular among their neighbors or their people, and they were headed for an unhappy ending even before Cortez first set sail.
Calling Cortez's expedition Castillian is a bit of a stretch considering the fact that the Spanish colonial government actually tried to arrest him for invading the Aztec Empire.
IMO, that fact keeps the butterflies from being too massive on the Spanish side; other conquistadors will assume that Cortez's expedition failed because he had no government backing and, not because the Aztecs are somehow unconquerable.
As for the Aztecs managing to reverse-engineer firearms when they didn't even know how to make iron, and according to AmInd's own source they hadn't even figured out bronze yet, that's obviously ASB. They're not anywhere close to the level of development needed to replicate firearms.
Also, IMO Cortez's expedition might well destroy the Aztec Empire even if it fails; if the plagues are still unleashed the Aztec Empire is probably going to collapse anyway. The Aztecs would be hard pressed to maintain their regional hegemony when most of them are sick and dying (granted, their vassals wouldn't be in much better shape). Whoever follows Cortez might find conquest remarkably easy if the fragile but substantial Aztec Empire has shattered into a dozen plague-ravaged warring states.
1. Resistance is a word you imagined, not mine. I said recovery.
2. Nope, nothing practical.
http://www.jstor.org/pss/661077
3. "Delicate"?
Oh yes, a blunderbuss is as delicate as making a watch...
4. Nope, Aztecs had nothing like chemo analysis. Wrong again...
http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.pa.06.040166.000301
5. Oh yes, those Aztecs were so stupid they couldn't handle a horse.
Problem is, that doesn't hold up. The Cheyenne adopted the horse within a small number of years. Same with most other Plains tribes.
Not only that, the first Aztecs to ride a horse did so way back before 1541, actually leading their troops into battle on horseback in the Mixton War.
6. Apparently you didn't know the Spaniards had a translator among them, Malinche.
And apparently, as you have made repeatedly clear, you have such an ingrained image of Aztecs as ignorant primitives, you ignore that people can learn another language, even when theyve never heard it before. Missionaries do it all the time.
7. Try actually reading the POD. It says massacred "before far inland." Like almost everything else in your post, "on the the beach" is something you imagined.
Same thing with your idea that the Tlaxcalans would "revolt" against the Aztecs. The Tlaxcalans were independent of them, bubba.
I agree with most of what you said. However, you must understand that Cortes landed with a total of just 608 men, and seventeen horses (one was produced when its mother foaled on the voyage to Mexico). Of those, only thirteen soldiers were musketeers, and thirty-two were crossbowmen. The rest carried swords. There were just ten cannons, two greyhounds, and four falcons additionally.
Now, let's go through your hypothetical death of Cortes's army. They are surrounded on all sides and the first assault by the Aztecs is poison darts and arrows. This wipes out a few of the swordsmen, but more crucially enough darts and arrows will kill a horse. Assuming that there are at least four breeding pairs of horses (guessing that half were castrated), and each of the seventeen has an equal chance of being hit, you are definitely going to lose a few of the breeding horses. That reduces you to best-case three breeding pairs, worst case none. Many of these horses might get killed when the melee fighting begins. So that brings you to a best-case scenario of one breeding pair of horses. As others have said, the horses might get killed for whatever reason (food, sacrifice, etc.). Even if they aren't, who says the Aztecs will know what to feed the horses? Maybe they'll try feeding it a poisonous weed (unwittingly), killing them.
Now on to the matter of the gunners and crossbowmen. Thirteen gunners, and maybe three are killed at the beginning of the battle. Ten more fire off a few volleys and then resort to swordsmanship or swinging the muskets around. If these men realize the battle is lost, they might try to destroy their weapons (throwing them in a puddle, smashing the clockwork, etc.). Same goes for those ten cannons.
At the end of this, the best I can see the Aztecs gaining are crossbows. Those, unlike muskets, aren't a big leap in technology, and there should be a few examples left after the battle.
And I'm sure they might get it in their heads to melt the swords down into knives or swords of their own, but having examples of Spanish steel swords does not a blacksmith make.
More to the point, warhorses and thus mainly geldings and stallions... Even assuming assuming the Aztecs pick up all the Spanish cavalry mounts (IIRC the campaign rarely saw more than 20 Spanish horsemen active in any single battle, so a 2 remount to 1 rider ratio would put us in the region of 50 horses) they aren't going to have that much breeding stock.
Now, given that small starting point and given a mare typically is pregenant for about 12 months and then -dependent on the breed of horse in question- you're talking another two (Thoroughbreds... not too healthy but if they retire from racing at age 10 it doesn't have time to catch up with 'em) to four before the foal is physically mature enough to be ridden, add another year for the actual breaking in and training (and you've still got quite a green horse coming out, not one you'd want to ride in traffic let alone battle)... in short assuming everything goes well and none of the horses get syphoned off into other uses it'll be at least a decade, probably closer to two before the Aztecs have the horses to provide even a semi-useful cavalry force.
I've noticed numerous mistakes from multiple people.
1. A lot of you are overstating the effectiveness of the guns of the time. They were not terribly accurate or in large supply, and served primarily as a shock weapon at first. Key words being at first. The Aztecs (among other peoples) figured out when to dive to the ground when charging musketeers. The fear went away very quick, in the conquests of native peoples guns were always the least of their worries.
2. The plagues would most likely not shatter the Aztec Empire as you imagined, they held together enough to give a lot of resistance to Cortez. It is likely that they would surmise that more Spanish would come, probably from asking prisoners, and the new emperor was a much, much stronger and smarter leader than Motecuzoma Xocoyotzin.
3. Wormyguy, Aztec prisoners were definitely not universally cut apart upon altars. They had a booming slave market, and guess where most slaves came from? Warfare. Sacrificees would usually only be collected in "Flower Wars", the sole point of which officially was to gather victims for sacrifice (always from enemies who believed in this too), while an ulterior motive was to weaken the loser, usually being the Tlaxcallans and their allies.
1. A lot of you are overstating the effectiveness of the guns of the time. They were not terribly accurate or in large supply, and served primarily as a shock weapon at first. Key words being at first. The Aztecs (among other peoples) figured out when to dive to the ground when charging musketeers. The fear went away very quick, in the conquests of native peoples guns were always the least of their worries.
2. The plagues would most likely not shatter the Aztec Empire as you imagined, they held together enough to give a lot of resistance to Cortez. It is likely that they would surmise that more Spanish would come, probably from asking prisoners, and the new emperor was a much, much stronger and smarter leader than Motecuzoma Xocoyotzin.
3. Wormyguy, Aztec prisoners were definitely not universally cut apart upon altars. They had a booming slave market, and guess where most slaves came from? Warfare. Sacrificees would usually only be collected in "Flower Wars", the sole point of which officially was to gather victims for sacrifice (always from enemies who believed in this too), while an ulterior motive was to weaken the loser, usually being the Tlaxcallans and their allies.
Better yet.....what if it was the Tarascans that remainded indepndent (along with a host of smaller semi independent states that made up Mexico)? They already had better rudimentary metalwork and very effective fortifications and their leader Tangaxuan was smart enough to submit to Cortes and preserve his rule in his state for some time, it was only when the Spanish got with a Tarascan noble by Nuno DE Guzman and he was heavily criticed by the Church and Spanish Authorities.
If say the Spanish Crown took a more direct path to the submission of Mexico (instead of allowing Cortes and Co to go on their own) it seems likely that colonization would have took the form of various Mexican Native Kingdom-Protectorates paying Tribute to Spain and allowing Missionaries allowing for while a fractured Mexico but more intact cultural hallmarks amongst the natives. If this practice was copied then its likly something similar would happen to the Incas. Its also likely when th English get their groove on they would encourage revolts amongst these native kingdoms...
Yea, the Aztecs and fellow Mesoamericans weren't stupid, it wouldn;t be too hard to recreate a Crossbow and the admnistration would keep alive a few Conquistadors (if they could deliver the goods) and a crude handgun not like the fist gunpowder heandheld weapons in Europa seems likely. Further their cotton armor was quite effective for warfare in the region, capable of stopping arrows and darts-Conquistadors would adopt this type of armor during their struggles in conquering the region further it was much more flexible then the metal armor of the Spanish-bullets could penetrate in cotton or metal armor anyway. Why would they destroy their guns? If a Spanish musketeer was likely to be captured he would probably use it as trade to his captor for his own freedom. Cortes burned their ships, better survival over technological secrets.
They also had pretty slack Slave laws
Last edited:
Though any gunpowder weapons would be completely unfeasible and more trouble than they're worth for quite some time, assuming they gained the ability to create some. Just wouldn't be worth the time and expense to make them. They already had weapons that were effective against Spanish armor and even then the Spanish largely adopted the native armor due to the climate. The main reason Cortez won at all was through the use of his native allies, they were more essential than guns, steel, or even germs. Cut out Cortez, Aguilar, and Malinche, the Spanish would be set back greatly. This would, in addition to giving the Aztecs more time and a better chance for peace with Spain, would benefit the Maya and Incas even more greatly.
Emera78
Banned
Peace with Spain ? Cortez brought a group of 500 hundred men, and toppled the Aztec Empire. If Spain ever would find itself at war with Aztec Empire(not that they would even bother, since to Spain it would be a war with primitive natives, that they would view as half-naked barbarians-not my view but stating the attitude of that time), then Aztec Empire is gone without a question.
None of the entities mentioned have a chance of survival. Only the Inca with very big butterfiles, can dream of becoming a client state of European power, to be absorbed as a province later, barring PODs like total devastation of European civilization(of cours I mean post-Columbus contact)