Assuming No European Contact, What is the Fate of the Aztecs?

[Anaxagoras]

Assuming that no European contact takes place, what will be the fate of the Aztec Empire? Does it collapse, perhaps due to internal rebellion? Does it eventually get destroyed by a more powerful foe? Or does it continue its rise and become an event more powerful state?

Discuss.

 

[wtw]

Eventually collapse, they either have a slave revolt or run out of sacrifices because they depopulate much of the region and turn on one another. Or a natural disaster wipes them out.

 

[Intransigent Southerner]

It will collapse eventually. The system was far too unstable and any major shakeup (e.g. an earthquake in Tenochtitlan, a new disease, civil war between the three capitals, etc) could topple it, as the events of 1518-1521 showed only too well.

Eventually collapse, they either have a slave revolt or run out of sacrifices because they depopulate much of the region and turn on one another. Or a natural disaster wipes them out.

Slave revolt? Why?

Aztec sacrifices weren't on the scale where you depopulate whole regions. The sacrifice industry was more than sustainable.

 

[wtw]

It will collapse eventually. The system was far too unstable and any major shakeup (e.g. an earthquake in Tenochtitlan, a new disease, civil war between the three capitals, etc) could topple it, as the events of 1518-1521 showed only too well.


Slave revolt? Why?

Aztec sacrifices weren't on the scale where you depopulate whole regions. The sacrifice industry was more than sustainable.

Yeah no one likes being hunted and then having their hearts ripped out of their chests. The more people under their thumb the more likely they are going to revolt and win. The Spanish went as far as they did because no one liked the Aztecs.

 

[GauchoBadger]

Maybe they collapse and their former empire gets taken over by the comparatively more ingenious Tarascans?

 

[Lalli]

Agree with previous posts. Aztecs were pretty much doomed. Their instable governing system and habit hunt and sacrifice people will eventually cause civil war and/or rebel. Aztecs might be replaced some another major culture or several different tribal city states. But that not matter when Europeans eventually caught them.

And perhaps we wonder which killed Aztecs.

 

[kasumigenx]

The Tarascans are starting to produce iron.

 

[Spelf]

Tlaxcala sacks Tenochtitlan eventually

Basically OTL but without guns and God involved by the conquerors

 

[9 Fanged Hummingbird]

Yeah no one likes being hunted and then having their hearts ripped out of their chests. The more people under their thumb the more likely they are going to revolt and win. The Spanish went as far as they did because no one liked the Aztecs.

The people the Aztecs had under their thumb didn't resent the Aztecs for ripping hearts out of chests, they resented the Aztecs for winning. The people the Aztecs fought by and large had the same sacrificial rituals but weren't as notable because they tended to lose battles and thus came away with fewer prisoners to sacrifice. After all, Rome was every bit as cruel but how many revolts from within the empire had an honest chance of toppling the whole thing over?

Tlaxcala sacks Tenochtitlan eventually

Basically OTL but without guns and God involved by the conquerors

HOW!? You can't just throw out random names and assume they're a major power, Tlaxcala was an independent state (well, confederation of states much like the Aztecs but far smaller) that was on the losing end of a series of wars of attrition against the Aztecs. With what friggin' army do they sack Tenochtitlan?

 

[CountDVB]

The people the Aztecs had under their thumb didn't resent the Aztecs for ripping hearts out of chests, they resented the Aztecs for winning. The people the Aztecs fought by and large had the same sacrificial rituals but weren't as notable because they tended to lose battles and thus came away with fewer prisoners to sacrifice. After all, Rome was every bit as cruel but how many revolts from within the empire had an honest chance of toppling the whole thing over?

Actually, the Aztecs were hated because they took their human sacrifice to insane levels. As in going overboard.

 

[ar-pharazon]

I'd think they still had some expanding to do-finally conquering the Tlaxcala, fighting the huaxtecs, Tarascans, and any enemies to the south.

The chichimecs and other Indians of modern north Mexico/south Texas region would be long term opponents in the north of the region.

Eventually an earthquake, civil war, invasion from the north, or some combination thereof would have toppled the empire.

 

[9 Fanged Hummingbird]

Actually, the Aztecs were hated because they took their human sacrifice to insane levels. As in going overboard.

Which they were able to do by winning wars. The Tlaxcalans for example had the same sacrificial rituals, they were of pretty much the same ethnic group after all, the difference is that the Tlaxcalans lost. They actually agreed to take part in Flower Wars and they would've killed as many people if given the chance. The Mesoamericans generally all practiced human sacrifice to some degree believing it was an honorable act necessary for sustaining the world, they're not going to arbitrarily hate on one specific country because they do something they see as a positive a lot more, they hate them because they wage more wars, conquer their territory, and force them to pay tribute (which was primarily economic tribute, not human sacrifices as the stereotype goes).

 

[CountDVB]

Which they were able to do by winning wars. The Tlaxcalans for example had the same sacrificial rituals, they were of pretty much the same ethnic group after all, the difference is that the Tlaxcalans lost. They actually agreed to take part in Flower Wars and they would've killed as many people if given the chance. The Mesoamericans generally all practiced human sacrifice to some degree believing it was an honorable act necessary for sustaining the world, they're not going to arbitrarily hate on one specific country because they do something they see as a positive a lot more, they hate them because they wage more wars, conquer their territory, and force them to pay tribute (which was primarily economic tribute, not human sacrifices as the stereotype goes).

They did blood letting and the Aztecs would sacrifice maybe more than a thousands people in one day. I get the Flower Wars stuff, but the Aztecs took it to frightening degrees, hence why they were viewed as nuts

 

[9 Fanged Hummingbird]

They did blood letting and the Aztecs would sacrifice maybe more than a thousands people in one day. I get the Flower Wars stuff, but the Aztecs took it to frightening degrees, hence why they were viewed as nuts

The extent to Aztec sacrifices has been questioned and again you have no proof that their enemies didn't do the same type of stuff. The Flower Wars were a part of the Aztecs "unique" focus on taking huge numbers of sacrificial victims (warriors/soldiers however) and yet their enemies still agreed to take part in them as a separate thing from the traditional wars they waged.

 

[CountDVB]

The extent to Aztec sacrifices has been questioned and again you have no proof that their enemies didn't do the same type of stuff. The Flower Wars were a part of the Aztecs "unique" focus on taking huge numbers of sacrificial victims (warriors/soldiers however) and yet their enemies still agreed to take part in them as a separate thing from the traditional wars they waged.

That is not the point. Regardless, the Aztecs would've made foes out of everyone and saying it is because they were better than everyone is not relevant (or accurate, otherwise, they wouldn't have so many foes.)

But I am wondering who could replace them.

The Tarascans being metal workers could potentially do it and it'd be interesting to see.

 

[9 Fanged Hummingbird]

That is not the point. Regardless, the Aztecs would've made foes out of everyone and saying it is because they were better than everyone is not relevant (or accurate, otherwise, they wouldn't have so many foes.)

But I am wondering who could replace them.

The Tarascans being metal workers could potentially do it and it'd be interesting to see.

The Aztecs were in the same situation as the Romans but the people who feel like Rome is the greatest civ of its time just ignore that the Roman Empire was an extremely cruel and expansionist nation that made enemies of everyone as well. Nobody makes an empire without making enemies.

The Tarascans made metal daggers, but they weren't on the cusp of starting the Mesoamerican Bronze Age or something.

 

[KarneeKarnay]

They collapse. One reason or another. The more interesting thing is how that shakes up the rest of the Americas. It's arguable that the Incas, the other premier power on the continents, could have taken over the Aztec Empire. Distance alone makes this problematic.

Eventually a successor Empire will probably take the place, just due to lack of comparable nations in the region to move in. What's more interesting is where refugees go. We have proof that the Aztecs did trade with the Incas and the relative stability of the Incas, will be appealing to the population. However another number will settle north along the coasts, away from Central America.

I'm not sure what sort of nations/tribes existed in the North or their level of development. It's a debated issue, even to today. What will happen regardless is greater integration between the Native American communities. More trade, more conflict, more advancement.

 

[Lenwe]

The Tarascans are starting to produce iron.

Please source on this I want to know more( i could read spanish, english, portuguese, and a little french if necesary)

 

[Kerney]

A divided, post imperial Mexico could be harder to conquer. The essential beheading of Aztec leadership would not be possible and rulers could learn from the lessons of recently conquered neighbors, adopting horses and firearms.

 

[Intransigent Southerner]

It's arguable that the Incas, the other premier power on the continents, could have taken over the Aztec Empire. Distance alone makes this problematic.

Plus the fact that the Inca did not know México even existed.

What's more interesting is where refugees go. We have proof that the Aztecs did trade with the Incas and the relative stability of the Incas, will be appealing to the population. However another number will settle north along the coasts, away from Central America.

Why do they have to go anywhere? The Otomi (most likely candidates for the majority population of Tenochtitlan) stayed exactly where they were when Teotihuacan collapsed, and the Totonacs (other plausible candidates) just moved a little to the east but stayed in Mesoamerica.

The Aztecs did not know the Inca existed. Also, the Aztecs per se lived in the most inland part of Mesoamerica. They will not be going to the Andes if their empire collapses.