What if during the hostage-taking of Moctezuma, the tables were turned against the Spanish and were ruthlessly slaughtered? Pretty simple POD, I'm not sure how to elaborate.
I appreciate any input.
I appreciate any input.
WI: Aztecs slaughter the Conquistadors?
- Thread starter MrNumbahOne
- Start date
You probably have to wait some times before someone actually cares about Mexico. After all Cortez was on the loose.
But Castillans already had access to some knowledge about Aztec Empire, its gold of course but even more its fertile and welthy lands (that were as much, if not more, the objective of conquistadores).
It would be only a matter of time before someone else lead an expedition there.
Of course Aztecs would probably benefit from experience and more knowledge about the invaders, but everything that played against them would still be there, not counting the epidemics that would made them an easier prey than OTL one.
But Castillans already had access to some knowledge about Aztec Empire, its gold of course but even more its fertile and welthy lands (that were as much, if not more, the objective of conquistadores).
It would be only a matter of time before someone else lead an expedition there.
Of course Aztecs would probably benefit from experience and more knowledge about the invaders, but everything that played against them would still be there, not counting the epidemics that would made them an easier prey than OTL one.
Huehuecoyotl
Monthly Donor
This is just before Pánfilo de Narvaéz's incursion into Mexico. He was seeking out Cortés to make him account for his disobedience of the orders of Velasquez, the governor of Cuba. He may well not have heard tell of Cortés' demise, and what he'd do upon discovering this fact decides much of what happens next.
It's a pretty big hit on new Spain's manpower if they lose several hundred men, enough to set them back for some time. What happens if the Aztecs can adapt to their new enemies and at least use captured Spanish weapons, however, would make the conquest of Mexico take years, if not decades.
TFSmith121
Banned
de Narvaez is on his way, there are lots of Spaniards, and
Narvaez is on his way, there are lots of Spaniards, and they have guns, germs, and steel.
Confronations between high neolithic cultures with no immunity to European diseases and Sixteenth Century Europeans is really only going to end one way...
Best,
Narvaez is on his way, there are lots of Spaniards, and they have guns, germs, and steel.
Confronations between high neolithic cultures with no immunity to European diseases and Sixteenth Century Europeans is really only going to end one way...
Best,
twovultures
Donor
And yet, they ended in a plethora of ways and sometimes very badly for the conquistadors not just before Cortes' little adventure but for decades after it. There's no guarantee that Narvaez is going to accomplish anything-in fact, with word that Cortes is dead and the realization that he's in the middle of extremely hostile territory, he's pretty likely to hightail it out of there and go back to the safety of the Spanish Caribbean.
From there, there's a lot of different ways that this could play out but with the initial conquest undone the Aztecs have the potential to resist Spanish colonization for a very long time.
Huehuecoyotl
Monthly Donor
Agreed. Conquest is anything but an inevitability. The Triple Alliance may be humbled, and even break under the stress, but there's a very good chance that Mesoamerica at large will be deemed not worth Spain's effort and left to go its own way.
TFSmith121
Banned
Sorry, when did the Spanish sail away from ANY
Sorry, when did the Spanish sail away from ANY of the high neolithic cultures in the Americas in the Sixteenth Century?
Cripes, they sent armies into Florida and (eventually) New Mexico on wild goose chases...
Plus, there were plenty of unemployed and underemployed second sons with military experience in the Peninsula and with crappy prospects outside of going west - so there were plenty of recruits.
As tragic as the outcome was for the Mexica, Maya, Inca, Tupi, et al, there's no way the larger socioeconomic issues in Iberia are going to change, and the technical, epidemiological, and political advantages are all going one way...
Not to be an absolute determinist, but absent de las Casas being named viceroy, I don't see the Spanish and Portuguese conquests going significantly different than they did historically, given everything that had happened in Iberia up to 1500 or so...
Best,
Sorry, when did the Spanish sail away from ANY of the high neolithic cultures in the Americas in the Sixteenth Century?
Cripes, they sent armies into Florida and (eventually) New Mexico on wild goose chases...
Plus, there were plenty of unemployed and underemployed second sons with military experience in the Peninsula and with crappy prospects outside of going west - so there were plenty of recruits.
As tragic as the outcome was for the Mexica, Maya, Inca, Tupi, et al, there's no way the larger socioeconomic issues in Iberia are going to change, and the technical, epidemiological, and political advantages are all going one way...
Not to be an absolute determinist, but absent de las Casas being named viceroy, I don't see the Spanish and Portuguese conquests going significantly different than they did historically, given everything that had happened in Iberia up to 1500 or so...
Best,
Huehuecoyotl
Monthly Donor
I suppose, but almost all of those excursions came on the coattails of the conquest of Mexico. I think it's fair to say the Spanish push into the Americas may be a good deal less energetic if the expeditions against the Triple Alliance fail so miserably.
The Spanish are going to slow down just because they lose about as many men as a small Spanish town? I don't see it. The Spanish simply send another expedition.
Critically when the said expedition was a rogue one. An another being actually planned and supported by Castille would be really more dangerous.
This leaves me picturing the Spanish, or some other Europeans, eventually conquering the area, but the Native peoples put up enough resistance that the hold by the Europeans is, at best, tenuous, and allows the native peoples to adapt. Westernize enough and they could possibly toss the Europeans out if they could manage to organize themselves.
Hmmm...a westernized or even quasi westernized Native Mexican state...that would be interesting.
They would end up being slaughtered like previous Conquistador bands who tried conquering territory through violence. Cortes was not the first expedition to the mainland Mexico.
The greatest myth of the Spanish Conquest is that it was a purely European affair and the outcome was the result of...guns, germs, and steel (blame Jared Diamond). The effects of the epidemic was crippling yes, but Cortes won primarily by exploiting native resentment and opposition to the Triple Alliance into forging a large native force to besiege and take Tenochtitlan. Read "Seven Myths of the Spanish Conquest".
Additionally, I would like to point out that the Araucanian people held out against repeated Spanish and later Chilean/Argentine advances up until to the late 1800s. The Spanish conquests of Mexico and the Andes was far from a historical certainty.
While this is true, it's more due to the fact that the hegemony of the Triple Alliance in Mexico was built on shaky ground, and there are ample opponents to the Aztecs, notably Tlaxcala and the Totonacs, whom are willing to form a partnership with the Spanish to gain regional dominance; eventually the Spanish in such a case are able to, as in the Andes, marry into and co-opt local power structures, but that's on a generational timeframe.
Last edited:
TFSmith121
Banned
Yeah, but...
Divide and conquer is hardly a new tactic...the thing about "local" empires is there was almost always a conquered people ready to cooperate with the "new" imperialists in a bid to regain some political power.
And the Mapuche et al had some topographical and chronological advantages the Mexica and Inca did not...and some epidemiological ones, for that matter.
Best,
Divide and conquer is hardly a new tactic...the thing about "local" empires is there was almost always a conquered people ready to cooperate with the "new" imperialists in a bid to regain some political power.
And the Mapuche et al had some topographical and chronological advantages the Mexica and Inca did not...and some epidemiological ones, for that matter.
Best,
I think the structural problems and resource limitations of the Aztec empire were too daunting for the empire to survive in the long term. As a tributary power the empire had too many indigenous enemies with a vested interest in destroying them and the Aztecs didn't have access to the metals, animals (horses especially) and gunpowder weapons that made the conquistadors so powerful. If Cortes had been destroyed, the Aztecs would have gained perhaps a decade or two before the Europeans returned and finished what the conquistadors started.
twovultures
Donor
I do see potential changes. Without the precedent set by Cortez, the Spanish may not even try for the Inca empire. Instead of bothering to conquer the Aztecs, they may instead seek to trade-for example, using the Aztecs (and Mayans) as a granary, trading with them for maize to feed slaves in the Caribbean.
IMO conquest is likely, after centuries of contact and internal instability caused by plagues, but Cortes' expedition was a major turning point and its failure would change a lot with colonialism in the Americas.
I wonder if such an event would deter England from establishing colonies in the New World.