No Classic Mesoamerican Collapse

[NothingNow]

On a related note, but not exactly pertinent to this thread, any hypotheses on what language the city spoke and what ethnicity they were? It's a problem I can't find many clues on and has been bothering me a long while.

I'd put some money on it being a member of the Totonacan family if the Totonac hypothesis is correct, and Kaufman's idea of Totonacan influence on other Mesoamerican areas being a result of this might be good, although the Valley of Mexico is a single clusterfuck of a Sprachbund.

Otomi is another likely one, as we know it was spoken in the vicinity of Teotihuacan before and after the Classic period, but strangely have nothing from the classic period.

 

[9 Fanged Hummingbird]

For some reason I keep wanting to believe they spoke a Mixe-Zoquean language. Maybe it has something to do with the fact I have an easier time finding dictionaries for that than Otomi or Totonac.

 

[NothingNow]

For some reason I keep wanting to believe they spoke a Mixe-Zoquean language. Maybe it has something to do with the fact I have an easier time finding dictionaries for that than Otomi or Totonac.

That was one of Kaufman's proposals as well.

 

[9 Fanged Hummingbird]

I'm reviving this thread so I can get feedback to help with a possible project to come out soon. So, what possible consequences do you people think would result from European explorers encountering larger, more stable, kingdoms in the New World? The very first New World civilization to be encountered was the Maya civilization, and they thrashed the first several expeditions and it took centuries for Spain to be able to claim the whole area with a straight face. Without a Classic Collapse happening their population would be about 10 times larger and they'd be much more advanced as well. Going with the idea that Spanish colonization efforts are much less successful than IOTL, how would Europe change? The purpose of this discussion, let's assume the Spanish are limited to making colonies in the Caribbean and less inhabited parts of the Americas. Central Mexico might still have an even larger than OTL civilization (I'm still not sure whether I want to avert the Mexican Collapse in my project as well as the Maya Collapse), the Maya area (larger than OTL's area, with the Maya establishing "colonies" as far as Panama and having large settlements in the Nicaraguan frontier) is obviously off-limits for conquistadors, the Mississippian civilization may still exist as a result of butterflies and some more contact with Mesoamerica, another possible idea is to have more development among the Pueblo peoples as well with larger settlements, and the Andean is also going to be free of rampaging conquistadors for the meantime at least, though the Inca may not exist. So what my limited knowledge of Europe tells me is that there's gonna be much less gold and silver flowing into Europe, and the Spanish Armada might not ever come to exist. With fewer routes of possible colonization/conquest, the European powers might feud even more bitterly over what they can take, and it might still be harder for them to drive off every single tribe from their homeland. The tribes and kingdoms that are threatened might try beating Europe at their own game, by taking advantage of the invader's conflicts and playing them against eachother.

But what my limited knowledge of European history does not tell me, is what happens as a result of no Spanish Armada, or a stunted colonization effort in the Americas. I assume they'll put some more effort into trying to take land in South America, with possible butterflies resulting in actual contact with large settlements in the Amazon and conflict with those peoples. Argentina would also be ripe for colonization, with the sparse population there less hostile climate than in the Amazon and Canada. But I still have no clue about political ramifications in Europe. Another idea I had was to have the first contact between Old World and New was to have it with the Ming and ATL Mesoamerica, but I don't think people would like the idea of multiple PoD's, to be honest I mostly like the idea just because it would result in a gentler contact scenario and might help save the Ming from falling somehow.

 

[The Sandman]

I don't know enough to give specific details, but I'd expect massive economic and political butterflies pretty much everywhere in Europe and Asia as a result of the Spanish not having vast quantities of gold and silver from Mesoamerica and the Andes to spend. Aside from the changes in Europe from the Spanish no longer being able to subsidize wars until inflation blew up their economy, it's going to affect China deeply given how the Ming used Spanish silver for a significant portion of their coinage.

The various native polities in the OTL eastern US might also have some time to recover from the European plagues ravaging their populations before European settlers start showing up off the coast, since the New World won't be seen as the enormous treasure vault to be plundered freely that it appeared as IOTL thanks to the Spanish conquest and the ensuing centuries of looting.

Introduction of crops and livestock from Europe is still likely to occur to at least some extent, although perhaps not to the same degree as IOTL. It depends a great deal on who ends up controlling the trade routes to the Americas.

Spanish missionaries are going to be a problem; it just doesn't seem plausible to avoid their presence given the history of both Christianity and Spain.

 

[twovultures]

In the long run, Spain might benefit by not having a huge and sudden influx of gold and silver. This might mean no armada, but it also means less inflation of the bureaucracy, less inflation of money, and less wealth to throw away on useless and destructive wars. Spain might not rise to become "the Greatest Power" in the 16th century, but it may have more opportunity later to industrialize and/or develop an empire.

France would probably step into whatever void Spain leaves on continental Europe. Perhaps Spain would not be willing to prosecute the Italian wars so much without money to pay for them, and would let Francis I take Milan.

 

[9 Fanged Hummingbird]

Spanish missionaries are going to be a problem; it just doesn't seem plausible to avoid their presence given the history of both Christianity and Spain.

I can see the Mesoamerican kingdoms allowing missionaries free roam around their countries as part of a deal with the Spanish and others, but the missionaries would likely be harassed in many backwoods areas or even possible the cities and there's be many retaliatory attacks on them every time missionaries inevitably try to stop a native ritual. That'd cause a bit of tension to be sure.

 

[Elfwine]

In the long run, Spain might benefit by not having a huge and sudden influx of gold and silver. This might mean no armada, but it also means less inflation of the bureaucracy, less inflation of money, and less wealth to throw away on useless and destructive wars. Spain might not rise to become "the Greatest Power" in the 16th century, but it may have more opportunity later to industrialize and/or develop an empire.

France would probably step into whatever void Spain leaves on continental Europe. Perhaps Spain would not be willing to prosecute the Italian wars so much without money to pay for them, and would let Francis I take Milan.

Given that far more of the money for those "useless and destructive" wars came from taxes on Castile and not from New World gold and silver, I'm not sure you would have less inflation and less "useless and destructive wars" - Spain fought those not because it had money to burn but because it considered the costs of not fighting them even worse than the costs of fighting them.

Why's that changing, assuming minimal butterflies?

 

[twovultures]

Given that far more of the money for those "useless and destructive" wars came from taxes on Castile and not from New World gold and silver, I'm not sure you would have less inflation and less "useless and destructive wars" - Spain fought those not because it had money to burn but because it considered the costs of not fighting them even worse than the costs of fighting them.

Why's that changing, assuming minimal butterflies?

I was under the impression that it was the influx of gold and silver from the New World that caused the inflation, as the cost of money was linked to gold. Is that not true?

 

[NothingNow]

I'm reviving this thread so I can get feedback to help with a possible project to come out soon. So, what possible consequences do you people think would result from European explorers encountering larger, more stable, kingdoms in the New World?

But what my limited knowledge of European history does not tell me, is what happens as a result of no Spanish Armada, or a stunted colonization effort in the Americas. I assume they'll put some more effort into trying to take land in South America, with possible butterflies resulting in actual contact with large settlements in the Amazon and conflict with those peoples. Argentina would also be ripe for colonization, with the sparse population there less hostile climate than in the Amazon and Canada. But I still have no clue about political ramifications in Europe.

Pretty much you've forced the Europeans into trade, piracy and other activities, instead of out and out conquest.
Also, with a number of decently powerful states, and good theologians, you've just made the Reformation come slightly sooner, and produce a hell of a lot more violence, since you just created yet another set of difficult questions for the church.

But spain will likely get more sustainibly wealthy and develop into more of a seapower, but we won't see the Manilla trade, unless some hapless Portugese vessel ends up in Acapulco by accident. This means one might not get the chance to get good Chinese food in Tenochtitlan until a century so later.

 

[Elfwine]

I was under the impression that it was the influx of gold and silver from the New World that caused the inflation, as the cost of money was linked to gold. Is that not true?

Devaluing the currency by putting more copper into it or the like is going to send inflation soaring too.

 

[jkay]

Aren't you're living in wishful thinking land on thinking they'd do any better than the Aztecs after 1492? How many zillions of more animal domestications, the important thing, did they have than the Aztecs? Why think they'd be higher tech than the Aztecs or their other many other failed neighbors during Conquest? Why think they'd have more people, given their worse land?

Who knew Cortes' feat in Aztecaland wasn't replicated in Incaland and North America by the British?

Though, I hope you won't let that one problem stop your TL. It looks interesting to me.

The Mayans held out for a very long time IOTL, so what might happen with this ITTL?

But, so did certain cities like Macchu Picchu in many places; that didn't keep the Incas from being conquista'd. just caused some delays in strong patches. And, how much of that long time to finish is just comes from having had all their gold and other good stuff already stolen by their neighbors?

 

[AtriumCarceris]

Also, with a number of decently powerful states, and good theologians, you've just made the Reformation come slightly sooner, and produce a hell of a lot more violence, since you just created yet another set of difficult questions for the church.

What difficult questions would these be?

 

[nlspeed]

However, jkay, Tawantinsuyu was conquered only because they were in the middle of a civil war, and I think it's widely believed (?) that they could have repelled Pizarro if not for that.

The Aztecs, on the other hand, were only conquered because many cities joined the Spanish. It's very easy to imagine a better doing Aztec nation; the Spanish could have been easily killed during La Noche Triste, or when they fled to Tlaxcala, or whatever else you can think of.

So I don't think the Mayas would do as bad as both of them per se. Although, who knows what the butterflies will do? And who knows, maybe the Mayas will also have a civil war or whatever and fall because of that. But there is a possibility I'd argue.

 

[9 Fanged Hummingbird]

Aren't you're living in wishful thinking land on thinking they'd do any better than the Aztecs after 1492? How many zillions of more animal domestications, the important thing, did they have than the Aztecs? Why think they'd be higher tech than the Aztecs or their other many other failed neighbors during Conquest? Why think they'd have more people, given their worse land?

Who knew Cortes' feat in Aztecaland wasn't replicated in Incaland and North America by the British?

Though, I hope you won't let that one problem stop your TL. It looks interesting to me.

But, so did certain cities like Macchu Picchu in many places; that didn't keep the Incas from being conquista'd. just caused some delays in strong patches. And, how much of that long time to finish is just comes from having had all their gold and other good stuff already stolen by their neighbors?

Their population would be larger than IOTL because the Collapse resulted in a sharp decline of the population. Central Mexico may have eventually recovered, but it's obvious the Maya area never did. In the Postclassic/Contact era there were maybe 1 or 2 million Maya, whereas in the Classic there were upwards of 10 million. The fact the land was poor was compensated for by the fact that the Maya came up with numerous different agricultural practices to make the most out of their land, from milpa to chinampas, gardens, terraces, chultunes, and even large canal networks. And it's likely they'd be more advanced than IOTL since they'd have 700 years not suffering from civilizational decline to progress from the high point of the Classic era.

As for Cortes, his feats owed as much to luck as to his own skill as a leader, and if he failed (which was more likely than him succeeding) the conquistadors would be greatly discouraged. Most conquistadors were greatly encouraged or even inspired to go adventuring by the feats of Cortes and the treasures he reaped in the conquest of Mexico, but there'd be far fewer people willing to tramp about in the jungle searching for gold and glory if the few survivors who come out of these expeditions only ever tell tales of misery, hardship, and brutal death, because here Cortes' army would simply be the 3rd expedition to die horribly in the jungles of the New World, and the largest at that. Pizarro and the like wouldn't have an example to look to when going to South America, nobody can look at what Cortes did and say "See? Toppling these pagan kingdoms is possible if you just try!" Even IOTL, before Cortes did his thing the governor of Cuba actually only planned on establishing trade relations with Mexico.

 

[Simreeve]

And the later introduction of the potato will lead to higher pop. in the highlands, and as such a shift of power to the highland areas.

And then they get hit by the Potato Blight?

 

[The Sandman]

And then they get hit by the Potato Blight?

Only if they have a monoculture. Given how much closer they are to the source, that seems unlikely.

 

[jkay]

Their population would be larger than IOTL because the Collapse resulted in a sharp decline of the population. . .

But, would the Mayas really be any bigger than the Aztec that IOTL collapsed? After all, Canada has a much SMALLER population than ours despite having better opportunities for learning to grow in the cold and even more turf; and mountainous Lictenstein a tiny population despite similar, er, opportunities to learn growing in the mountains. And, I'm still waiting on any REASON your Mayas wouldn't've suffered megaplague and consequent internal turbulence like the rest of the Americas IOTL.

As for Cortes, his feats owed as much to luck as to his own skill as a leader,

Cortes' success couldn't've had anything to with the population collapse and consequent possibilities for changes of power and rebellion against imperial oppression. Even if he'd failed, wouldn't've that've just delayed the Aztec collapse til Pizarro, a similar evil mind like so many others?

Didn't the same pattern sadly happen throughout the ENTIRE AMERICAS, two big continents? Why believe the Mayas would be an exception?

And, LSCatalina seems to me to be way ahead of me on this thread.

 

[Cuāuhtemōc]

However, jkay, Tawantinsuyu was conquered only because they were in the middle of a civil war, and I think it's widely believed (?) that they could have repelled Pizarro if not for that.

The Inca Empire actually repelled a Portuguese expedition led by Aleixo Garcia who had similar numbers in men to that of the later Pizarro expedition. They were defeated and expelled. So yes, Tawantinsuyu could defeat European expeditionary forces when it wasn't going under the turmoil of civil war.

 

[9 Fanged Hummingbird]

But, would the Mayas really be any bigger than the Aztec that IOTL collapsed? After all, Canada has a much SMALLER population than ours despite having better opportunities for learning to grow in the cold and even more turf; and mountainous Lictenstein a tiny population despite similar, er, opportunities to learn growing in the mountains. And, I'm still waiting on any REASON your Mayas wouldn't've suffered megaplague and consequent internal turbulence like the rest of the Americas IOTL.

Cortes' success couldn't've had anything to with the population collapse and consequent possibilities for changes of power and rebellion against imperial oppression. Even if he'd failed, wouldn't've that've just delayed the Aztec collapse til Pizarro, a similar evil mind like so many others?

Didn't the same pattern sadly happen throughout the ENTIRE AMERICAS, two big continents? Why believe the Mayas would be an exception?

And, LSCatalina seems to me to be way ahead of me on this thread.

Um, I don't get your point about the Maya not being bigger than the Aztecs, they are not replacing them. Mexico already had a large empire that was as developed as the Aztecs in the 600's, called Teotihuacan. If anything, Teotihuacan may have actually been larger. Here we are supposing their civilization does not collapse, which means like the Maya the Mexican states will continue growing and advancing and stuff, I believe I outlined this already in the OP. Your point about Canada and Liechtenstein I do not comprehend, I cannot see what you mean at all. I never claimed that the Maya would not suffer plague as a result of the Spanish contact, but with a more stable civilization and a larger population base they'd be less sorely affected than the OTL Maya, who still could defeat waves of Spanish conquistadors even after the plagues ran their course. Your point about Cortes makes it sound as if you didn't read any of my posts thoroughly. The subsequent waves of conquistadors drew their inspiration from the example of Cortes. If his expedition fails, then not only are many hundreds of conquistadors dead, but there will be far, far less enthusiasm for further incursions with no victories to look to as an example and proof that their task could be done. Pizarro's conquest would likely not have happened if Cortes failed. And there's the not inconsequential fact that Cortes was initially a rebel, the Spanish originally planned on simply trading with the natives. When Cortes fails (and without the Aztec empire's weaknesses to take advantage of he surely will fail) the Spanish will be rather embarrassed and will continue to try to establish peaceable relations.