Christianity in a surviving Aztec Empire and Inca Empire

I am unsure I agree to be honest, that argument kind of smacks of 'the end of history' vibes, like societies are locked into a certain path and could never radically change or collapse.
despite the horrors of the wars of religion and decline of the religion in certain circles in the era of enlightenment it still continued to be part of European culture it unless one accelerates the path of secularization we saw in otl then i don't see how the ottomans taking Vienna or any city except rome changes this
 
despite the horrors of the wars of religion and decline of the religion in certain circles in the era of enlightenment it still continued to be part of European culture it unless one accelerates the path of secularization we saw in otl then i don't see how the ottomans taking Vienna or any city except rome changes this
I think my point is that by that logic the Roman faith would never fall, or Zoroastrianism would not be supplanted and intern the faith of Inti would also remain strong in its own rights.
 
I think my point is that by that logic the Roman faith would never fall, or Zoroastrianism would not be supplanted and intern the faith of Inti would also remain strong in its own rights.
going a bit off topic but as mentioned one no, these are context i already mentioned why roman religion in part declined and Zoroastrians are case of the persecutions and changes but ...again how do the ottomans conquering some part of Austria change European religion? , as for initi yeah i even mentioned to you that Christianity most likely does not make an inroad but even then the system of religion in the Inca empire was very different again context is key and you seem to rather ignore it for the sake of finding contradictions
 
I really can't help but feel, reading threads like this, that there is a very strong intellectual strand on this forum that is basically convinced of the ultimate triumph of Christianity, and Abrahamic religions more broadly, for reasons that I suspect are ideological.
As a Catholic myself, I'm not too convinced of the so-called inevitability of the 'ultimate triumph' of Christianity or the Abrahamic tradition. Inevitability isn't a thing in alternate history, only likelihood.

That said, when it comes to Christianity in the Americas, well, one side has the guns, germs, and steel.
 
going a bit off topic but as mentioned one no, these are context i already mentioned why roman religion in part declined and Zoroastrians are case of the persecutions and changes but ...again how do the ottomans conquering some part of Austria change European religion? , as for initi yeah i even mentioned to you that Christianity most likely does not make an inroad but even then the system of religion in the Inca empire was very different again context is key and you seem to rather ignore it for the sake of finding contradictions
I think we are talking passed one another, as your:
"despite the horrors of the wars of religion and decline of the religion in certain circles in the era of enlightenment it still continued to be part of European culture it unless one accelerates the path of secularization we saw in otl then i don't see how the ottomans taking Vienna or any city except rome changes this"
I focused more on the former over the latter part of that post, the Ottomans adding another country to their expanding empire might be a wound but yes its unlikely to de-stabilize the entire Church. Taking Rome and the entire Meditation might though XD
 
Christianity is far from destined to just displace all native religions. The Mexica for instance very much believed in their old religion, and most of the old priesthood just flat out refused to convert no matter the price. They had a complex and ancient system of belief, with theological canons as complex as those of the Abrahamic religion, and were very capable of providing an intellectual challenge to Christian missionaries. Further many ordinary Mexica seem to have felt deeply connected to their religion, which can be seen from the fact that it took centuries for Christianity to fully catch on, and that the Nahua faith continued to be practiced in secret for quite a long time as well.
Without the Spanish having the ability to just massacre the old clergy, burn the temples and destroy the religious texts, I don't see the Nahua religion going any time soon. The Shintos and Hindus certainly did not just give up their own religion once Christianity rolled around, even when Britain came to rule all of India.
 
Why does everyone think the Mexica Empire was on the brink of collapse before Cortez came? Really, they were just getting started. The previous generation they had turned the Tripple Alliance into an extension of their own government, they were slowly grinding down the Tlaxcala through the Flower Wars, they were founding new colonies all over the place and new cities were being conquered rapidly. Sure, they were absolutely despised by their vassals, but so were the Romans, and without the Conquistadors it's doubtful if a rebellion could defeat the Empire.
With no invasion, or an invasion driven back into the sea, the Mexica are in a pretty good place to steam-roll what's left of independent polities in central Mexico. They can trade gold, cacao and jade for steel weapons and fire-arms, and use those to build a pesudo-modern army. The only place they realistically can't conquer is arid northern Mexico, because grain-states can't control unarrable land. Also the Yukatan, the rainforest would be a huge problem (just ask the Spanish about fighting Mayans in the jungle).
Not if the Purepecha had anything to say about it. If they invaded the Aztecs during an Aztec attempt at subjugating some polity, then the Aztecs would be unable to use their strongest forces hence they would lose (essentially the same thing that happened to the Purepecha when they tried to subjugate states to their west in Jalisco). And that's not considering the fact everyone in Mesoamerica would be struck repeatedly by epidemics unlike any their society had ever seen.

It is also nigh-inevitable that at least one or two European states gets on the wrong side of the Aztecs and promptly turns to smuggling and piracy to support rebellions within the Aztec Empire in order to weaken their European rival who would be effectively allied with the Aztecs.
So yeah. No invasion and the Mexica are well set up to become the big hegemon of Mesoamerica for the next centuries.
As for religion, Christianity will likely spread in parts of the country exposed to traders and missionaries, so the Gulf coast region. The Mexica would probably tolerate it - no need to upset lucrative partners, plus Christianity works with a lot of religious themes already wide-spread in Mesoamerica. I don't see the elite converting at all, to be honest. The Hindu rulers of India didn't, why should the Mexica? Human sacrifice has also no real reason to leave. The Christians will complain about it, but they won't end trade over that. It might be reduced in scale quite a bit, due to a lack of foreign captives once the Empire reaches greatest possible extent, but I can't see it leaving completely. It's to integral to the Nahua faith.
Colonisation in Africa, India, or Indonesia didn't involve world changing epidemics that kill a huge portion of the population. It would make sense the Aztecs would suffer something akin to the Shimabara Rebellion on steroids. I would assume human sacrifice would be greatly diminished as part of the evolution of the Nahua worldview in light of the mass epidemics, rebellions, and drought they will face. Given that human sacrifice would not be successful at quelling these conditions, would be the source of considerable animosity among their subject people, and would be the target of great criticism by their newfound European allies, it makes sense it would diminish in popularity.

Come to think of it, Christianity has obvious appeal among Aztec subject peoples because it explicitly speaks against human sacrifice since Jesus was the only sacrifice of value (which could be worked into the Mesoamerican worldview given the one story of Quetzalcoatl envisioning an enlightened time where only butterflies and hummingbirds are sacrificed). Christianity also promises that those who continue to sacrifice people will suffer divine punishment in the next world.
Christianity is far from destined to just displace all native religions. The Mexica for instance very much believed in their old religion, and most of the old priesthood just flat out refused to convert no matter the price. They had a complex and ancient system of belief, with theological canons as complex as those of the Abrahamic religion, and were very capable of providing an intellectual challenge to Christian missionaries. Further many ordinary Mexica seem to have felt deeply connected to their religion, which can be seen from the fact that it took centuries for Christianity to fully catch on, and that the Nahua faith continued to be practiced in secret for quite a long time as well.
Without the Spanish having the ability to just massacre the old clergy, burn the temples and destroy the religious texts, I don't see the Nahua religion going any time soon. The Shintos and Hindus certainly did not just give up their own religion once Christianity rolled around, even when Britain came to rule all of India.
That's not really an argument against Christianisation given people could reap the benefits of being outwardly Christian but practicing a syncretic form of their faith not much different from today's Mexican folk Christianity. Elements like Jesus's sacrifice and the eucharist would have appeal in the Mesoamerican worldview. Old religions and institutions would suffer a grave crisis since the 16th and 17th centuries in Mesoamerica will be an era of warfare, mass epidemic, and drought on a scale never before seen.
 
Yeah but they only got to that point by the barrel of a gun, again, the African continent didn't become predominantly Christian because they liked it, they became that way because Europeans came in and killed and tortured until they bowed their heads and then kept it up for generations, eroding any and all previous faiths. Without overwhelming firepower to force people to convert and keep them converted foe centuries, its about as effective as any other religion, as we saw with it basically being squashed out of Japan once the Europeans didn't hold all the cards anymore.
This rather ignores the context of said success, IE, state mandated conversion, total destruction of local and traditional cultures, generations of violence to enforce it and even in the modern era the withholding of aid to countries and people struggling to recover from colonialism unless they convert. Like, again, people didn't convert to Christianity en mass cos they wanted to, they were forced to, which to me, if anything, is a sign that without force, Christianity isn't anymore special than any other Religion.
I disagree, the fact islam and christianity can spread in any way, whether by coin, book or sword, shows the force of this religion. That's not a moral thing these days, but it's pretty effective. Islam would never have the strength it has today without its military conquests. The fact that these religions make this something important and moral also helps, by conquering a people and converting them you are saving them. The world has more or less four religions, christianity, islam, hindu (india basically) and buddhist (Japan, China, Tibet and Thailand). Of these the most widely spaced are the first two, in every corner of the world there is a Christian or a Muslim.
the best example of resistance, as you mentioned, is japan, which was very far from the european powers. Which is not the case with the native powers that are much closer. If Japan had been close to European powers it would have turned into a war. The same if this had happened with an Islamic power. These religions give a certain brotherhood between nations. Often what saved Europe was the fact that they were Christian and the same with Muslim countries (being saved by other countries because they had the same religion).
 
I disagree, the fact islam and christianity can spread in any way, whether by coin, book or sword, shows the force of this religion.
You're missing the point, which is that the primary way Christianity and Islam spread was by sword.
Of these the most widely spaced are the first two, in every corner of the world there is a Christian or a Muslim.
There are Buddhists and Hindus in every corner of the world these days.
the best example of resistance, as you mentioned, is japan, which was very far from the european powers. Which is not the case with the native powers that are much closer. If Japan had been close to European powers it would have turned into a war.
I am unconvinced that, by the 1800s, Japan was farther away than, say, Mesoamerica was in the 1500s and 1600s. The ability to project force is not determined by raw distance, but also how quickly and reliably technology can get you someplace.
 
There are Buddhists and Hindus in every corner of the world these days.
you have Chinese doing business in the world as well as Indians. There are also immigrants going to Europe and America (maintaining their religion, which until recently was impossible). and there have been some groups trying new religions especially in Europe/USA due to the decline in the strength of religion in the region. I think these are the groups, or am I forgetting one?
I am unconvinced that, by the 1800s, Japan was farther away than
the rebellion in japan took place in 1637. We have korea as an example of a country that converted without using force for christianity. Indonesia for a Muslim example
, say, Mesoamerica was in the 1500s and 1600s. The ability to project force is not determined by raw distance, but also how quickly and reliably technology can get you someplace.
trips to the new world took about +-66 days on their 16th cycle. a cruise from california to japan nowadays takes 25 days, a voyage carrying cargo from hawaii to japan takes about 42 days. Transatlantic cruises to Europe from the USA typically last around two weeks, with travelers spending around 13 to 16 nights onboard.
The travel difference was huge. So exercising power in the new world is not the same thing as exercising power in japan.
 
I don't remember if it was the Aztecs or the Incas who didn't use the wheel (although they had access to it, it was used in things like toys but never equipment). does anyone remember who it was?
 
I disagree, the fact islam and christianity can spread in any way, whether by coin, book or sword, shows the force of this religion. That's not a moral thing these days, but it's pretty effective. Islam would never have the strength it has today without its military conquests. The fact that these religions make this something important and moral also helps, by conquering a people and converting them you are saving them. The world has more or less four religions, christianity, islam, hindu (india basically) and buddhist (Japan, China, Tibet and Thailand). Of these the most widely spaced are the first two, in every corner of the world there is a Christian or a Muslim.
the best example of resistance, as you mentioned, is japan, which was very far from the european powers. Which is not the case with the native powers that are much closer. If Japan had been close to European powers it would have turned into a war. The same if this had happened with an Islamic power. These religions give a certain brotherhood between nations. Often what saved Europe was the fact that they were Christian and the same with Muslim countries (being saved by other countries because they had the same religion).
As others have noted they are far from the only religions to spread and more pointedly the reasons they spread as far as they did is by and large due to state mandated conversions, violence and massive pressure from the states that made life difficult for members of the wrong faiths. The rest of this has nothing really to do with the argument as its just discussing motives and not cause and effect, and counter arguments have already been made, also as previously noted, the Tawantinsuyu also spread their religion, just by incorporating local faiths into the greater skein.
Um, are we talking about the same Christian and Islamic kingdoms that spend most of their histories killing each other rather than their religious rivals? Beyond that, exercising power requires having the time, resources and people to do so, which without a massive influx of new world money Spain does not have and would struggle to do among the Tawantinsuyu anyway given all the logistical disadvantages they'd be operating under.
 
As others have noted they are far from the only religions to spread and more pointedly the reasons they spread as far as they did is by and large due to state mandated conversions, violence and massive pressure from the states that made life difficult for members of the wrong faiths. The rest of this has nothing really to do with the argument as its just discussing motives and not cause and effect, and counter arguments have already been made, also as previously noted, the Tawantinsuyu also spread their religion, just by incorporating local faiths into the greater skein.
Violence and oppression was one of the ways. Yes, there are other religions that do this, none with the same strength, fanaticism, effectiveness and resistance as Islam and Christianity. It's not the same thing, the change made by the Incas for example is lighter. The Incas did something similar to the Romans by absorbing local religions and mixing them with the Roman pantheon.
Um, are we talking about the same Christian and Islamic kingdoms that spend most of their histories killing each other rather than their religious rivals?
There is an old Arab saying: I, against my brothers. I and my brothers against my cousins. I and my brothers and my cousins against the world
Beyond that, exercising power requires having the time, resources and people to do so, which without a massive influx of new world money Spain does not have and would struggle to do among the Tawantinsuyu anyway given all the logistical disadvantages they'd be operating under.
Yes, I agree with that, the conquest of the Incas without having the Aztecs is practically impossible. The only way to happen is if something almost abs occurs (which happens a few times in human history, but it's rare)
 
Violence and oppression was one of the ways. Yes, there are other religions that do this, none with the same strength, fanaticism, effectiveness and resistance as Islam and Christianity. It's not the same thing, the change made by the Incas for example is lighter. The Incas did something similar to the Romans by absorbing local religions and mixing them with the Roman pantheon.
The primary way and most other religions didn't care whether other people believed them or not which informed a lot about their practices. Seriously this entire argument feels like European exceptionalism except with Christianity, which is a historically baseless idea.
There is an old Arab saying: I, against my brothers. I and my brothers against my cousins. I and my brothers and my cousins against the world
That's nice, doesn't change the fact most of Christian and Islamic history was spent killing their own side than anyone else; there's no magical special brotherhood between Christians. The religion is not special compared to any other, it just got lucky enough to be a popular one prior to the Industrial Revolution/Invasion of the New World; I'm sure a religious person would claim that divine providence, but realistically it was dumb luck.
Yes, I agree with that, the conquest of the Incas without having the Aztecs is practically impossible. The only way to happen is if something almost abs occurs (which happens a few times in human history, but it's rare)
OK?
 
The primary way and most other religions didn't care whether other people believed them or not which informed a lot about their practices. Seriously this entire argument feels like European exceptionalism except with Christianity, which is a historically baseless idea.
It's not expitionalism or anything like that. Islam and Christianity defeated the vast majority of the world's religions, losing to Buddhism in Japan, China and vietnam and Hindu in India. With the Aztecs and Incas surviving in ttl they can join that group that resisted this wave.
That's nice, doesn't change the fact most of Christian and Islamic history was spent killing their own side than anyone else; there's no magical special brotherhood between Christians
It's not magic, it's historic. yes as the saying goes you fight among your own until something external enters the dispute uniting them against this other. Ottomans vs Austria and Poland. Islamic coalition against the Portuguese in the Indian sea. History has several examples of this type of union against a third party.
 
It's not expitionalism or anything like that. Islam and Christianity defeated the vast majority of the world's religions, losing to Buddhism in Japan, China and vietnam and Hindu in India. With the Aztecs and Incas surviving in ttl they can join that group that resisted this wave.
It sure sounds like it when you talk about their special brotherhood and unique traits that totally let them beat out all the other religions while largely glossing over the centuries of missionary work and then state sponsored violence, bolstered by plagues and then increasing weapons disparity used to enforce their will.
It's not magic, it's historic. yes as the saying goes you fight among your own until something external enters the dispute uniting them against this other. Ottomans vs Austria and Poland. Islamic coalition against the Portuguese in the Indian sea. History has several examples of this type of union against a third party.
We also see this happen with groups who had no such religious history, the Achaemenid worked with the Greeks on multiple occasions, Greek city states aligned with the Achaemenid intern just to name one set of examples. Working together against a common foe isn't some cheat code possessed only by Christians and Muslims, everyone does it.
 
It sure sounds like it when you talk about their special brotherhood and unique traits that totally let them beat out all the other religions while largely glossing over the centuries of missionary work and then state sponsored violence, bolstered by plagues and then increasing weapons disparity used to enforce their will.
no, it's a "job" that lasted centuries as you said. I am not denying that they used violence or that they did not do missionary work. It's just that they win in most cases.
We also see this happen with groups who had no such religious history, the Achaemenid worked with the Greeks on multiple occasions, Greek city states aligned with the Achaemenid intern just to name one set of examples. Working together against a common foe isn't some cheat code possessed only by Christians and Muslims, everyone does it.
yes they did, only the form and effectiveness of this coalition is different (there are certain things such as religious obligations for example).
 
no, it's a "job" that lasted centuries as you said. I am not denying that they used violence or that they did not do missionary work. It's just that they win in most cases.
You keep glossing over it like it wasn't the primary means of conversion, which it was, without the ability to enforce it on others Christianity has no broader appeal than any other religion; that's why it took centuries to even become a semi popular religion in Rome that still needed to be propped up by and enforced by several successive emperors. If Buddhism had taken to the roads, we could well have seen a Buddhists Augustus and Roman Empire.
yes they did, only the form and effectiveness of this coalition is different (there are certain things such as religious obligations for example).
Me (Looks at the Christians sacking Constantinople rather than crusading, and then generations later leaving it to be swallowed by the Ottomans) Yeah... Religious Obligation...
 
You keep glossing over it like it wasn't the primary means of conversion, which it was, without the ability to enforce it on others Christianity has no broader appeal than any other religion;
Various theories attempt to explain how Christianity managed to spread so successfully prior to the Edict of Milan (313). In The Rise of Christianity, Rodney Stark argues that Christianity replaced paganism chiefly because it improved the lives of its adherents in various ways.[43] Dag Øistein Endsjø argues that Christianity was helped by its promise of a general resurrection of the dead at the end of the world which was compatible with the traditional Greek belief that true immortality depended on the survival of the body.[44] According to Will Durant, the Christian Church prevailed over paganism because it offered a much more attractive doctrine, and because the church leaders addressed human needs better than their rivals.[45]

Bart D. Ehrman attributes the rapid spread of Christianity to five factors: (1) the promise of salvation and eternal life for everyone was an attractive alternative to Roman religions; (2) stories of miracles and healings purportedly showed that the one Christian God was more powerful than the many Roman gods; (3) Christianity began as a grassroots movement providing hope of a better future in the next life for the lower classes; (4) Christianity took worshipers away from other religions since converts were expected to give up the worship of other gods, unusual in antiquity where worship of many gods was common; (5) in the Roman world, converting one person often meant converting the whole household—if the head of the household was converted, he decided the religion of his wife, children and slaves.

Wiki

Christianity had a lot of advantage compared to its competitors such as Mithraism which denied the position of women in religion against Christianity which protected women from abuse for example.
that's why it took centuries to even become a semi popular religion in Rome that still needed to be propped up by and enforced by several successive emperors. If Buddhism had taken to the roads, we could well have seen a Buddhists Augustus and Roman Empire.
I doubt Buddhism is attractive to Romans. But you seem to have the idea, that all religions are on the same level of power struggle.
Me (Looks at the Christians sacking Constantinople rather than crusading, and then generations later leaving it to be swallowed by the Ottomans) Yeah... Religious Obligation...
yes this crusade deserves the prize of the most stupid religion war of the medieval period. Unless you know a worse one?
 
Last edited:
Hi, OP here. So, I’ve been monitoring the conversation, and while I’m appreciative of the discussion, I may kindly ask that we move on from this religious debate of Abrahamic faith.

While I’ll admit, I am a Catholic myself, I made this thread to theorize on had the Aztecs and Inca survived, and how would Christianity effect them and the native faiths, not because of some “Christian Exceptionalism”. And while I understand the need to understand if or how Christianity would rise or even can (and using historical examples and examining cultural values), the debate so fair seems to be derailing.

So May I kindly ask we change the subject and move on?
 
Top