AHC: Setup for a Prosperous, Industrialized Latin America

[EMT]

Inca Empire at its greatest extent is 2 milion km2, which is smallish chunk of whole of South America.

after disease, after contact with European military, it will become far smaller state.

Even IF Inca managed to hold in Pacific Coast, Entirety of Atlantic Coast would be too far for Inca to interfere. Entirety of Coast from Buenos Aires to Venezuela would be European colonies. Amazon likely become European colonies since its mouth in Atlantic. That would means large chunk of South America is out of Inca hand.

besides what make you think Inca would be better conqueror than Europeans ? Chinese wipe out Dzungar. Turks genocided Armenians. Most South America outside (or even inside) Inca Empire didn't share Incas language, ethnicity, or religion. And Inca would seek to emulate many things Europeans do : slavery, colonizations, etc.

and people should remember that Inca is an Empire, brutal and oppressives ones, which practice wholesale relocation of people. Like Meiji Japan or Qing China, Incas would copy many many part of European civilizations, which much more advanced technologically than Incas. Many drawbacks of haciendas system, which elites govern masses near-slave poor, would still be part of Inca Empire.

Why are you referencing the Neo-Inca state when we're discussing ATL scenarios? That'd be like referring to the post-Latin Empire Byzantium as the Roman Empire. Yeah, sure...with a big ol' asterisk at the end. If you're not getting the idea that first contact with the Inca as IOTL was Spain rolling natural 20s, I don't know what to tell you. Especially if for it to be feasible, Cortez has to succeed first too to set a precedent for wildass Conquistador adventures into the middle of the wilderness in hopes of finding civilization to plunder and conquer. There are SO many ways to butterfly Incan conquest that have been beaten to death that I'm sick of arguing this point with people that don't understand the topic whatsoever.

As for the Atlantic Coast...what? Nobody here has talked about the Atlantic at all. I don't think anybody here's advocating for the Inca to take Venezuela or Brazil. Who gives a damn if they don't own the entirety of South America. As for your point on Buenos Aires, that's exactly the type of colony that is incredibly exposed to the Inca. It's the mouth to the second most extensive river system in South America and downstream from many rivers originating in the Andes. It's by far the easiest means for the Inca to trade with Europeans. There's no way in hell the Inca won't covet the La Plata basin given their survival; every other state in the region that has any interests depending on that river system have gone to war over it, the Inca are unlikely to be any different. Colombia, the Southern Cone, and the western coasts of Central America are all within (relatively) easy striking range for the Inca to contest by virtue of proximity or easy sea access. That's a pretty significant number of OTL colonies that the Inca could theoretically contest at some point in their history, even if they don't take them.

I again don't get what you're trying to get at about better conquerors, but sure, I'll bite. What makes the Inca better(ie probable/successful) conquerors than Europeans(in South America) is that there's no race-based caste systems in place or social systems designed to keep the conquered as separate from the conquerors. The Inca system is built on the assimilation of the conquered through (to be blunt) cultural genocide and turning the conquered into just another Quechua subject. You'd know this if you read through my post above where I described this system. Most other native South Americans have incredibly low population densities and are unable to compete demographically with the Inca, nor do they have the state organization to resist the Inca, much in the same way that with few exceptions such as the Mapuche that have clear reasons as to explain their resistance/capabilities, European powers largely rolled less organized cultures in South America. This is no different for the Inca. I don't get what your point is about colonialism or genocide; an expansionist state is an expansionist state. The Inca are ultimately no different and will follow similar models suiting their society. The reason I highlight aspects of their society(something I wouldn't do for other topics I'm well versed in such as Turkish or American history) is because Inca society is far more alien to Western backgrounds than just about any that they're likely to know of. The Inca were the culmination of millennia of Andean civilization that up until European contact developed almost entirely independent of all foreign influence. Finally, there are aspects to Inca society that predispose them to certain tendencies or actions(IMO), and it's no accident that a state without horses managed to rule a massive realm comparable to Rome in distances from one end to the other, but with mountains instead of seas. And finally...quinine. The Inca have a monopoly on quinine. Big boom.

And again you return to brutality. What's your point? Is anybody here dressing up the Inca, pretending like their assimilation policies aren't cultural genocide and that it's not just another Empire, albeit a unique one in the grand scheme of things? The key difference between the Inca and European empires is that they're not running an extraction operation trying to siphon as much wealth as possible out of the region. The Spanish built the hacienda system of the back of the Mita system with more drawbacks and none of the perks for the local people. I can't believe I have to explain this, but the Inca and Spanish models for labor in the New World are completely, and I do mean completely incomparable. Finally, you keep talking about the Inca copying Europeans with slavery, colonialism, etc. It's clear you fail to understand something vital. The Inca are not a backwards society. They have a very advanced society in many aspects. Their realm was arguably one of the most centralized states in the world for its time, and its size ridiculous given their geography. That isn't an accident. European society is NOT going to upend Andean civilization. The Inca lack in material goods and the knowledge to produce said goods. That's it. For the love of god, if you're going to argue that the Inca are backwards, learn what you're arguing about.

So again, to close it out once more; what's the point you're trying to make?

------------------------------------

@CalBear
Is there a line that can be crossed with respect to trolling on the conquest of the New World/Latin Americans, especially the natives? I get this site is Anglophone so North American natives are going to have the most mindshare and thus have more easily identifiable race-baiting/trolling/etc., but in this thread alone we've had drive-by 'ASB, divine intervention or bust', 'The people(be they native, Hispanic, whatever) are culturally and socially flawed, incapable of prosperity', 'Only Northern European Protestant Jesus and good Anglo-Saxon breeding can bring prosperity', people coming in swinging with stereotypes such as 'Latin Americans all live in the tropics', the usual lazy(and ignorant) tropes on European military supremacy and overinflating the impact of European disease...the list goes on. It's like a bad cocktail of tropes and borderline memes that have me feeling like people have the green light to gaslight on the topic.

I completely get skepticism about the survival of New World states. I disagree, but I get it. I get that some people just don't know much on the topic and are going to have some bad takes. But this is some next-level garbage where it's impossible to discuss New World states post-contact without dedicating half the thread to shooting down the usual suspects and the same arguments and ignorance on the topic over and over again. In every single thread. I've never seen any other subject on this site get anywhere near as much leeway for people dropping ignorant, and sometimes bigoted takes then marching off freely having successfully disrupted the thread and the topic. Everyone thinks they're an authority on the topic and feels obliged to drop their take and disrupt the thread or treat the topic like a meme and it's infuriating to maintain a discussion. And I'm not even saying it's this post in particular, this one's largely inoffensive to the worst this thread's produced, but the culmination of it all is just too much.

 

[kholieken]

So again, to close it out once more; what's the point you're trying to make ?

My point is with POD at Age of Conquest, it is very difficult to have Prosperous Latin America. Which is what POD demanded.

Look, I keep explaining that its about CONTINENT. not about one country retaining independence from Spain. I even mention Mapuche, Maya and Tarascan in my comment.

Its very difficult to change course of history on a continent, on short time (1500-2000) to prosperity. Even Neo-Inca would be surrounded by Europeans South America.

 

[Thomas1195]

Why are you referencing the Neo-Inca state when we're discussing ATL scenarios? That'd be like referring to the post-Latin Empire Byzantium as the Roman Empire. Yeah, sure...with a big ol' asterisk at the end. If you're not getting the idea that first contact with the Inca as IOTL was Spain rolling natural 20s, I don't know what to tell you. Especially if for it to be feasible, Cortez has to succeed first too to set a precedent for wildass Conquistador adventures into the middle of the wilderness in hopes of finding civilization to plunder and conquer. There are SO many ways to butterfly Incan conquest that have been beaten to death that I'm sick of arguing this point with people that don't understand the topic whatsoever.

The problem here is that the OP specifically talks about Latin America. Unlike in North America, there was more substantial native population in South America - which means the Spanish/Portuguese would most likely end up establishing the OTL oppressive social structure if they still want to colonize large swath of South America - pulling the same thing that the US did with the natives was much more difficult. Now, if their colonies are simply a chain of smaller coastal colonies/cities then they could end up being Anglo-style settler colonies - but changes in Spain proper would have been needed as well. I mean, the developments in Spain IOTL strengthened the rural aristocracies and the crown at the expense of the urban bourgeois/comuneros. This, combined with the ongoing Habsburgs wars, resulting in the situation that the South American colonies became a extractive mining operation whose purpose was to dig gold to fund those wars.

 

[EMT]

The problem here is that the OP specifically talks about Latin America.

No it doesn't. The second sentence in the OP even says as much, that colonization patterns for the region don't have to be as OTL. And he broadly references everything south of the American border as the region in question he's referring to which is not 1:1 with Latin America. Latin America was used as a shorthand for the geographic region.

My point is with POD at Age of Conquest, it is very difficult to have Prosperous Latin America. Which is what POD demanded.

Look, I keep explaining that its about CONTINENT. not about one country retaining independence from Spain. I even mention Mapuche, Maya and Tarascan in my comment.

Its very difficult to change course of history on a continent, on short time (1500-2000) to prosperity. Even Neo-Inca would be surrounded by Europeans South America.

With a POD any time during or after the Age of Discovery, how can Latin America (anything south of the modern US) be set up to be comparable in living standards to the US of today? Colonization patterns don't necessarily have to be similar (e.g. the metropole for any region can be different) but I'd like to have a realistic scenario setting the region up for prosperity into the 21st Century.

I get what you're trying to highlight now, but it's important to keep the distinction between an empire that is right at home versus a colonial empire with zero interest in developing anything, treating the place like a strip mine. I think blunting European colonization is vital to achieving this because unlike extraction, established trade routes will lead to greater commercial traffic for the entire region as a whole. Allow me to highlight what I'm getting at.

From the development of the Suez Canal onwards, the sea traffic in the Atlantic outside of the North Atlantic(read: the USA and Europe) has made up a shrinking share of the world's sea traffic. The Atlantic seaboard of South America used to be if not on, at least tangential to the primary artery of trade in the world between Europe and Asia. In the modern-day, With the creation of the Panam Canal, Latin America is right in the center of a major trade route but trade largely flows destined for ports outside of Latin America; it's the way station without a reason to stop. In other words, Latin America is not a desirable market in the grand scheme of things due to lacking wealth.

Why is it lacking wealth? What wealth, specifically? Well, a big one would be gross wealth in the general sense. Latin America is all things considered, lightly populated for its size with a few exceptions. The Andes are a demographic wasteland compared to what they used to be to this day. The population density of incredibly fertile countries like Argentina and Uruguay do not impress relative to their size and arable land. In terms of being a market destination, Latin America just doesn't have either the demographics or gross national wealth to be a beacon for trade in the same way that more densely populated states are. Another major factor would be the relatively low development for how long it's been settled; see English colonies on the Atlantic seaboard vs. Cuba, Mexico or Colombia. Say what you will about historical trends or the reasoning behind this, but here's the lowdown: nowadays, the ex-colonies that ran as plantations or resource extraction sites aren't very prosperous, the colonies that escaped this economic model or traded their goods from the start are more prosperous on average. It doesn't matter the nationality of the colonizer, the region where the colonization happened, etc. but this rule of thumb holds.

Canada started as a fur extraction colony, but the furs were largely as a result of trade, either between natives and colonists, or the colonists themselves engaging in fur trapping. Then we have Jamaica. Same colonizer, much more attention and settlers sent, but the economic model relied on exploiting imported African slaves in order to produce wealth for a small planter class, many of which weren't even locals to the island. The end result; wealth is not being retained on the island. I could show a little model of this, and how conversely, the Spanish colonies most removed from this economic model(Argentina, Uruguay, Chile) are among the wealthiest post-colonial states colonized by Spain. Of course, there are a million factors. And I'd go so far as to say that many states could buck these historic inclinations with the right decision-makers at the right place, namely somewhere like Mexico. But the trend largely holds.

So in order to avoid extraction economics, you need to replace it with trade. Trade creates wealth on both ends of the trade node to varying degrees. And regions sitting on that trade route will generally speaking will have the opportunity to engage with that trade by virtue of sitting on that trade route. And we also need to pump up the demographics of Latin America. Step 1 would be to not destroy what was already being built up before European contact. Step 2 would be to have the most demographically suited region(the Rio de La Plata basin) be a primary target for settlement. European, native, whatever. Agriculture needs to happen as soon as possible. The region, much like the Atlantic Seaboard, the Cape, etc. is a goldilocks zone for demographic growth. If you've read up on American demographic history, the numbers are insane. An average of ten children per woman at independence. You could settle the region long before the first English colony and have a similar demographic heft to the La Plata basin as the Atlantic Seaboard if not more densely populated.

So put the plan together. A failed conquest of the Aztec(and by extension the Inca) results in native states in Mesoamerica and the Andes surviving. European colonialism is closer to what occurred OTL in early Indian colonization at first, with trade ports being established and client states at most. With less demographic damage, these native states' economies shift to accommodate European commerce, with the Caribbean being the major artery of trade with both regions. European settler colonies are at this time limited to the Caribbean, parts of Central America south of the Maya and the OTL Spanish Main. The Inca in particular catch European attention due to their large amounts of bullion and facilitating trade(due to their coasts all being on the Pacific Ocean) becomes a high priority, as the Spanish hold a temporary monopoly on trade with the Inca by their control of the trade route from Quito to Cartagena. This leads to an eventual Portuguese voyage that reaches OTL Buenos Aires. Sailing upriver, an expedition is organized that makes contact with the Inca and arranges for trade via the Rio de La Plata. Inca goods flow downriver, Portuguese goods(slaves?) upriver.

This new trade artery for the Inca puts military and demographic pressure to secure the route as intrepid tribal raiders have begun to harass shipping. The Portuguese, largely focused on Asia(as well as knowing that they're super violating the Treaty of Tordesillas with their Buenos Aires fort) are largely hands-off with the colony, leaving the Inca to secure the hinterland downriver from OTL Bolivia downwards over the course of a few decades.

Fast-forward a few more decades, and the Inca state is on more stable footing. While not demographically recovered to pre-contact levels, the early introduction of inoculation via West African slaves stabilized the situation and has allowed the Inca realm to secure more of the Rio de La Plata with settlers, not just forts. Trade continues with the Portuguese but tensions rise due to differences in religion, Europeans taking liberties in the Inca realm, diplomatic faux pas, etc. such that the Inca are considering seizing Buenos Aires. The Spanish, keen to break the Portuguese-Inca trade network, engage in a series of back-and-forth deals, schemes, and guarantees in the Sapa Inca's court with the Spanish encouraging the Inca to seize the fort, and the Portuguese encouraging the Inca to expel the Spanish. Ultimately, the Inca side with the Spanish and with the aid of Spanish arms/soldiers/ships/whatever, take control of the region. What Portuguese are present either leave to Brazil or are dispersed into the Mita system, and Quechuas brought in.

The region's fertility and the introduction of more of Europe's crop package by the way of the recently conquered Buenos Aires leads to the population booming. The Inca, disproportionately conscious of their demographic situation following initial contact with Europeans, take keen notice and dedicate great effort into replicating this widely. Expansion in other directions is largely halted(delaying aspirations into Colombia and the Llanos de Moxos) and disproportionate resources are put into shipping Quechua settlers into the Rio de La Plata basin and breaking any locals opposing them. By 1700, the Quechua population has ballooned in the region and Quechua settlements can be found up and down the Paraguay, Uruguay, Iguazu, and Parana Rivers with the most remote and ambitious settlements up against the mountains separating the coasts of Portuguese Brazil from Quechua settlements, not all of which are officially organized by the Inca state. Due to the far more open geography of the Rio de La Plata basin, control of the populace in the region is far more fluid than the ancestral home of the Quechua in the Andes. This has led to the more upstream regions being more disorganized, less strictly governed, and akin to the American Wild West of OTL north and east of Parana Falls and full of Quechua homesteaders, Portuguese traders and settlers, as well as Tupi and other native groups all cohabitating in the loosest sense of the word.

I'm going to leave it at this, but I think the gist is clear. Heavy demographic presence earlier than OTL with an economy centered on trade with the wider world, not extraction for the sake of a foreign metropole. This leads to far more traffic in the South Atlantic that will benefit OTL's Brazil in the long run. While slave plantations in the Caribbean may not be butterflied, the region will have a secondary function as a trade hub for Mesoamerican and some Andean trade, which should lead to a better economic situation on the whole. If nothing else, the higher population densities throughout Mesoamerica and South America plus an earlier spread of quinine as the Inca expand should lead to a much more populous region that worst-case scenario, is a desirable market to flood with goods akin to China and the extensive trade contact with Europe(being by far the closest of the 'big exotic markets') should lead to a greater diffusion of knowhow in the general sense.

 

[kholieken]

I get what you're trying to highlight now, but it's important to keep the distinction between an empire that is right at home versus a colonial empire with zero interest in developing anything, treating the place like a strip mine. I think blunting European colonization is vital to achieving this because unlike extraction, established trade routes will lead to greater commercial traffic for the entire region as a whole. Allow me to highlight what I'm getting at.
...
Fast-forward a few more decades, and the Inca state is on more stable footing. While not demographically recovered to pre-contact levels, the early introduction of inoculation via West African slaves stabilized the situation and has allowed the Inca realm to secure more of the Rio de La Plata with settlers, not just forts.

Its still doubtful to me. VOC conquer Indonesia, EIC conquer India, Portuguese conquer Goa and Mombassa, and all of that without massive die-out due to diseases. Even if Cortez and Pizarro defeated, other Europeans adventurers (Portuguese, Dutch, English, etc) would conquer lots of land in Latin America. Independent Aztec and Incas would be just like Thailand and Japan, handful of independent countries on conquered continent. while some may not as brutal as Spain, overall it would be pretty brutal, Portuguese in Brazil and Dutch on Indonesia show that exploitation of natives would be severe, and create more or less permanent societal effect (which even after Independence, is hard to reverse).

Also Incas wouldn't be "at home" when they expanded outside Quechua speaking areas. They would treat Amazonian tribes, or Mapuche, or other "faraway" people just like Chinese treats Dzungar or Russia treat Siberians.

And I seriously doubtful that Incas had population, military acumen, and societal capability to go to Rio de la Plata basin. to me Incas had already overreach their capability, after disease, with many Europeans as neighbours, they will be lucky as Independent country controlling Peru.

 

[EMT]

Its still doubtful to me. VOC conquer Indonesia, EIC conquer India, Portuguese conquer Goa and Mombassa, and all of that without massive die-out due to diseases. Even if Cortez and Pizarro defeated, other Europeans adventurers (Portuguese, Dutch, English, etc) would conquer lots of land in Latin America. Independent Aztec and Incas would be just like Thailand and Japan, handful of independent countries on conquered continent. while some may not as brutal as Spain, overall it would be pretty brutal, Portuguese in Brazil and Dutch on Indonesia show that exploitation of natives would be severe, and create more or less permanent societal effect (which even after Independence, is hard to reverse).

Also Incas wouldn't be "at home" when they expanded outside Quechua speaking areas. They would treat Amazonian tribes, or Mapuche, or other "faraway" people just like Chinese treats Dzungar or Russia treat Siberians.

And I seriously doubtful that Incas had population, military acumen, and societal capability to go to Rio de la Plata basin. to me Incas had already overreach their capability, after disease, with many Europeans as neighbours, they will be lucky as Independent country controlling Peru.

It's like you glossed over everything everyone that understands pre-colonial history has written in this thread, then decided the Inca's capabilities start and end with your gut feelings without a lick of research or context. Alright I'm out. No more of this crap.

It still fucking tickles me silly that people think Europeans will all turn into Conquistadors without someone setting a precedent

 

[Vinization]

Just less Superpower posturing would work too. Without the PostWar 1st World vs 2nd vying for influence in all unaligned countries, things work out very differently

Funnily enough perhaps, an useful POD for Latin America could be a Nationalist victory in China. I think the war was still winnable for Chiang even with a post 1945 POD (there was a spy that warned Mao and the others of a major offensive to Yan'an, allowing the leadership to flee. If that doesn't happen and the CCP is decapitated...).

No commies in China = no/victorious Korean War = much less paranoia in the US. McCarthy would have much less influence, if any.