Christianity in a surviving Aztec Empire and Inca Empire

[Arkenfolm]

Traditional religions in Africa and Indonesia still very much exist though. Traditional African religions are still practiced by relatively large groups in many ostensibly Muslim or Christian countries. Consider that Christianity in particular was forced onto the region during the scramble, and that prior to that, while there were Christian states such as the Kingdom of the Congo, most African states did not convert to Christianity. Even in places where contact with Christian European were frequent, the majority religion was pagan until the early 20th century, such as in the case of the Akan religion, or that of the Yoruba. Such states are a much better analogy for this scenario, because there we see the presence of Christianity in the absense of a Christian state apparatus to enforce the mandated religion. You may note, Christianity failed to become the majority religion there by peaceful means and required state coercion to become dominant.

Traditional African religions are almost all heavily blended with either Christianity or Islam or both, while in Indonesia Islam spread mostly peacefully due to the advantages it offered rulers. In fact, Islam even grew in West Africa during the era of European colonialism. But once again, it's worth noting that we don't have an analogue for the situation Mesoamerica would be dealing with since it is very likely sizable Spanish enclaves would exist along the coast along with Spanish colonies not far away in Central America and Cuba.

I think you overestimate the relevance of the upper classes to the lower. Most of what the rulers believe is completely disconnected to what is relevant for their subjects. Medieval Christian peasants did not care very much for the complex theology elaborated by priests and nobles and stubbornly refused to accept unpopular church teachings for centuries. The Catholic Church tried really, really hard to eliminate belief in magic and faeries and witches, and at that they roundly failed, for these beliefs were still very much alive when the reformation came around, and indeed they are still held by sizeable populations throughout Europe and the Americas. Or consider the struggle of the westernized Indian upper class to actually enforce the secular constitution they wrote up. Unless you want to crack down hard against any one particular practice, it isn't going just because the upper class doesn't like it.

That doesn't change the fact that lower classes still converted to the religion of the elite and attributed aspects of the old gods they worshipped to Christian saints.

Incidentally, at times the lower classes were far more orthodox than the elite, like the radical Protestant movements in the 16th century or during the English Civil War. The Fulani jihads (which would be part of the Islamic tradition of orthodox Muslims overthrowing decadent rulers) and no doubt various Buddhist peasant revolts in China and Japan might count as well.

Lets also not forget that the people who are in charge in Tenochtitlan are not the people who would feel compelled to convert. Those are regional rulers and merchants in the east of the empire, distinct from the important nobles of the central highlands. They have absolutely no power over the imperial court - that's why they convert in the first place.

They're the ones keeping the imperial court happy with huge tribute demands, and the ones who don't like the imperial court to begin with because of said tribute demands. This is thus an instance of where promoting Christianity would benefit the elite since it keeps these people happy.

The imperial nobility will never convert, under no circumstances, because the Nahua religions works for their ambitions, while Christianity is contrary to them. They had their jobs because of their religion, and if they were Christians they'd loose most of their secular power. The Nahua faith was integral to the Mexica empire. It could no more convert to Christianity than an Islamic caliphate could. If it did, it would almost certainly disintegrate.

I don't see how it's any different from the role of pagan rulers in Germanic and Slavic Europe where their dynasties traced descent from deities and one of their most important roles was to preside at feasts in honour of the chief god of the city. And clearly plenty of nobles were willing to collaborate with the Spanish since the ruling dynasties of many altepetl still held much power in New Spain, which suggests their power was more based on lineage than religion.

if i had to guess who would found buenos aires it would be the country that colonized brazil in ttl. the Argentine west will be an area of struggle between colonizers and the Incas. Probably with the colonists winning and the division of the two nations being the Andes

The Spanish had plans to colonise Argentina before the conquest of the Inca, and it's also far west of the Tordesillas line so no Catholic nation could legally claim it. Asuncion in modern Paraguay was the first real Spanish center, and it would likely be even more prominent as a center for trading with the Inca (or raiding them no doubt).

What I think is most likely to happen is the new post-Aztec power will have a bastard version of Christianity. Much more than in OTL, to the point of not being considered Catholic (as it is considered in OTL). The Incas I don't know, their religion is something less extreme and is something more intense with the leader having a divine position. As much as no one likes the Inca religion, it is much more acceptable than the Aztec. They may lose territory, but the core of the empire can remain strong. With religion adapting to be more palatable to the world. Sacrifice only with animals for example.

But the Aztecs would primarily have dealings with Catholic powers (Spain, France, maybe pre-Reformation England) for at least a century, it wouldn't benefit them to promote their own Christianity even if they'd be tolerant of the folk Christianity in the countryside. It's like how Kongo was officially Catholic even if the vast majority of people only had some vague ideas about Christianity.

I don't bring up the Inca because they seem more likely by far to keep their religion given their divine monarchy and relative isolation, since the coast would be the most depopulated by European introduced diseases (as happened in lowland Ecuador and parts of Peru) and would likely be most easily seized/purchased by Europeans (I've always loved the idea of Callao as a South American Macau). There's going to be far less pressure and incentive for them to convert, although it's possible if the state declines enough/is colonised.

 

[holycookie]

The Spanish had plans to colonise Argentina before the conquest of the Inca,

They made some expeditions in the argentina region all without exception failed due to the natives killing the spanish.It was only after the conquest of Peru, when they urgently needed a way to drain the vast amount of resources from the Inca empire back to Spain, that the conquerors were able to gain a foothold in the region. In the year 1536, four years after the Inca conquest, even so, the bases were constantly destroyed by the Indians. The bases only started to survive from +-1570.

and it's also far west of the Tordesillas line so no Catholic nation could legally claim it.

As if any power would respect this line, neither Portugal nor Spain respected this line. The philippines is an example of the spanish not respecting the line. Whoever colonizes Brazil will not obey the line long-term . Without the conquest of Peru, the colonization of Argentina is not worth it with very hostile indigenous people and no wealth to gain.

Asuncion in modern Paraguay was the first real Spanish center, and it would likely be even more prominent as a center for trading with the Inca (or raiding them no doubt).

It is easier to have bases in Ecuador and attack from there due to the greater proximity to Inca gold. The Argentine region began to be explored shortly after the conquest of Peru, without conquest there is no colonization of the region.
The Spaniards will take control of the caribbean, the gran colombia region and the caribbean coast of otl usa. The southern region of the USA in particular had gold, the Florida region, if I'm not mistaken.

But the Aztecs would primarily have dealings with Catholic powers (Spain, France, maybe pre-Reformation England) for at least a century, it wouldn't benefit them to promote their own Christianity even if they'd be tolerant of the folk Christianity in the countryside. It's like how Kongo was officially Catholic even if the vast majority of people only had some vague ideas about Christianity.

Probably the Aztecs will not convert due to their culture. The maximum that can occur is something like the Kongo,like you mentioned. Only after the Aztecs,that Christianity will really start to make gains.

 

[Arkenfolm]

They made some expeditions in the argentina region all without exception failed due to the natives killing the spanish.It was only after the conquest of Peru, when they urgently needed a way to drain the vast amount of resources from the Inca empire back to Spain, that the conquerors were able to gain a foothold in the region. In the year 1536, four years after the Inca conquest, even so, the bases were constantly destroyed by the Indians. The bases only started to survive from +-1570.

Asuncion was never destroyed, that's why it has the nickname "mother of cities". Aleixo Garcia for instance was killed by his Guarani allies, who were enemies of the Inca. If the Inca survive, then the Guarani will remain their enemies for at least some time and thus potential allies to the Spanish. And those conquistador bases pre-Pizarro in the La Plata region existed in large part because of rumoured wealth of the Inca. Even without Pizarro, they will continue to appear and eventually coalesce into a settlement.

As if any power would respect this line, neither Portugal nor Spain respected this line. The philippines is an example of the spanish not respecting the line. Whoever colonizes Brazil will not obey the line long-term . Without the conquest of Peru, the colonization of Argentina is not worth it with very hostile indigenous people and no wealth to gain.

Even though it didn't matter in the long run, the conception was already there in the Spanish mindset that Argentina was the path to the Inca. And it was more or less a backwater in the Spanish Empire since most exports of the former Inca Empire went through Pacific ports like Callao and Guayaquil. If we assume Spain can't gain a foothold in Ecuador TTL (no guarantee, since that's where the Spanish conquest of the Inca started after all), then Argentina is one potential base.

The Tordesillas line in the Americas was violated by the Brazilian bandeirantes over the course of centuries and was settled because of various European wars. That gives the Spanish plenty of time to settle in the La Plata region.

It is easier to have bases in Ecuador and attack from there due to the greater proximity to Inca gold. The Argentine region began to be explored shortly after the conquest of Peru, without conquest there is no colonization of the region.

This is incorrect given the activities of Garcia, Sebastian Cabot, etc. in that region. At the very least, it would be a base for trade (or raiding) the Inca and a series of missions like it was OTL (or in other fringes of the Spanish Empire like the modern US Southwest or Florida).

The Spaniards will take control of the caribbean, the gran colombia region and the caribbean coast of otl usa. The southern region of the USA in particular had gold, the Florida region, if I'm not mistaken.

It was one of Spain's greatest failures not finding the gold in Georgia/Carolinas (not Florida) and I could imagine that conquistadors might be more interested in that TTL and end up stumbling across it given the numerous Spanish expeditions post-de Soto in the South. De Soto for that matter came very close to the areas the gold was at in his expedition/rampage.

Probably the Aztecs will not convert due to their culture. The maximum that can occur is something like the Kongo,like you mentioned. Only after the Aztecs,that Christianity will really start to make gains.

Except Kongo did convert and their leaders and nobles patronised the Catholic Church and European missionaries, even if they were very heterodox in practice. I don't think there's anything special in Aztec culture that inhibits conversion if given the incredibly destructive factors that would be present in the 16th/17th century.

 

[holycookie]

Asuncion was never destroyed, that's why it has the nickname "mother of cities".

Asuncion was made after the conquest of the Incas. I just think North America will be more interesting for the Spaniards. it was one of the few cities that dealt well enough with the Guarani

Aleixo Garcia for instance was killed by his Guarani allies, who were enemies of the Inca. If the Inca survive, then the Guarani will remain their enemies for at least some time and thus potential allies to the Spanish.

or will they ally themselves with another group that is colonizing south america, the guaranis were not loyal to anyone but themselves.

And those conquistador bases pre-Pizarro in the La Plata region existed in large part because of rumoured wealth of the Inca. Even without Pizarro, they will continue to appear and eventually coalesce into a settlement.

no, you are assuming that the bases become cities because they are in the region. France had several bases in otl brazil, portugal destroyed them with little difficulty.
the bases will exist, but they will probably be abandoned/destroyed with the spain focusing on the caribbean and regions with gold.

Even though it didn't matter in the long run, the conception was already there in the Spanish mindset that Argentina was the path to the Inca. And it was more or less a backwater in the Spanish Empire since most exports of the former Inca Empire went through Pacific ports like Callao and Guayaquil. If we assume Spain can't gain a foothold in Ecuador TTL (no guarantee, since that's where the Spanish conquest of the Inca started after all), then Argentina is one potential base.

To be honest, it's hard to know where they're going to focus. The conquest of the Aztecs and Incas changed Spanish thinking so much that I don't know how they would act. I think from what I read that controlling the caribbean the gran colombia region and the florida region would make more sense. They are all regions close to each other and valuable.
The "argentine" region is far away and without resources coming down in large quantities it is not worth the expense. When you can earn more in other regions

During these years the viceroyalty in general and the city of Buenos Aires in particular became a flourishing outpost of the Spanish empire. Silver from the Potosí mines, previously exported via Peru, was sent through Buenos Aires. An enormous demand grew for salted meat—especially in Cuba and Brazil and other areas where slaves were fed cheaply—spurring an era of unprecedented prosperity for the cattle industry of the Pampas. Hides and other cattle products also brought wealth to Buenos Aires.
source: https://www.britannica.com/place/Viceroyalty-of-the-Rio-de-la-Plata

The Tordesillas line in the Americas was violated by the Brazilian bandeirantes over the course of centuries and was settled because of various European wars.

the tordesillas line was violated by everyone who could. The Bandeirantes constantly did as you said, but anyone who could did.

That gives the Spanish plenty of time to settle in the La Plata region.
This is incorrect given the activities of Garcia, Sebastian Cabot, etc. in that region. At the very least, it would be a base for trade (or raiding) the Inca and a series of missions like it was OTL (or in other fringes of the Spanish Empire like the modern US Southwest or Florida).

Activity does not mean colonization. Portugal had activities in Canada, but Brazil was more valuable so Canada was abandoned. France was active in Brazil, but was unable to colonize it.
The colonization of the region of the plata without the great amount of minerals of the Incas will be something similar to the colonization of the Dutch of North America. Like the colony new netherlands, with a short life span. with country focusing on other areas that are more valuable and easier.

Except Kongo did convert and their leaders and nobles patronised the Catholic Church and European missionaries, even if they were very heterodox in practice. I don't think there's anything special in Aztec culture that inhibits conversion if given the incredibly destructive factors that would be present in the 16th/17th century.

the most likely with the Aztecs, is their collapse due to a set of pressures (such as diseases that even if they don't kill 90%, will kill at least 60% of the population). with another group taking power and having their strange version of Christianity.

 

[Arkenfolm]

Asuncion was made after the conquest of the Incas. I just think North America will be more interesting for the Spaniards. it was one of the few cities that dealt well enough with the Guarani

or will they ally themselves with another group that is colonizing south america, the guaranis were not loyal to anyone but themselves.

Except that was already on a known trade route to the Inca (used by the Guarani) and used for raiding by both Guarani and Spaniards. Pedro de Mendoza already had intentions to colonise the area before the Inca were conquered. Compared to a trade route to the wealthiest New World Empire, North America doesn't offer much besides a few pieces of gold (at least until they find the main sources, but even then, the gold in Georgia lasted barely 20 years before it was more or less exhausted) and a population rapidly collapsing from drought and epidemic.

no, you are assuming that the bases become cities because they are in the region. France had several bases in otl brazil, portugal destroyed them with little difficulty.
the bases will exist, but they will probably be abandoned/destroyed with the spain focusing on the caribbean and regions with gold.

Portugal isn't present that far south because it's illegal for them to be there. The southern parts of their territory in Brazil was very poor before bandeirante raids and discovery of gold in Minas Gerais brought wealth into the area. Why would it be worth expanding further south into equally poor areas and risk pissing off the Spanish in the process?

To be honest, it's hard to know where they're going to focus. The conquest of the Aztecs and Incas changed Spanish thinking so much that I don't know how they would act. I think from what I read that controlling the caribbean the gran colombia region and the florida region would make more sense. They are all regions close to each other and valuable.
The "argentine" region is far away and without resources coming down in large quantities it is not worth the expense. When you can earn more in other regions

Simple--Argentina has trade with the Inca, and is probably no more expensive or worthless than the American South which likely would have become a money sink for Spain much like Texas, New Mexico, or for that matter many parts of Argentina were had Spain tried to expand their system of missions into a more populated and permanent colony.

During these years the viceroyalty in general and the city of Buenos Aires in particular became a flourishing outpost of the Spanish empire. Silver from the Potosí mines, previously exported via Peru, was sent through Buenos Aires. An enormous demand grew for salted meat—especially in Cuba and Brazil and other areas where slaves were fed cheaply—spurring an era of unprecedented prosperity for the cattle industry of the Pampas. Hides and other cattle products also brought wealth to Buenos Aires.
source: https://www.britannica.com/place/Viceroyalty-of-the-Rio-de-la-Plata

Yes, that's referring to the late 18th century given Buenos Aires was ruled from Peru. The change would be because it's quicker, easier, and safer (avoids Caribbean piracy) to export silver to Spain from the Atlantic than from the Pacific. The Inca will be forced to run an extractive economy with their silver to pay for modernising the state and keeping the government powerful in the face of revolts and population decline. This silver could be exported through a Spanish concession at, say, Callao, or could be exported overland at Buenos Aires.

Now yes, I think the overland land route is disadvantageous from the Inca perspective since it's harder to police and leaves them more open to smuggling/raiding from the Spanish/Guarani/other natives, but unlike China or Japan who successfully restricted trade, 16th/early 17th century Spain would have a lot more pull and influence over the Inca. It's inevitable that European smugglers and their native allies would try and use that as a backdoor into the Inca and even if Spain wouldn't directly gain from this trade, the smugglers still need bases and still need places to spend their money which would mean the area is still economically viable. We have to keep in mind that Pizarro's failure doesn't mean Spaniards won't try less ambitious raids against the Inca, of which they would know that La Plata is one potential route (and possibly a quicker one)

the tordesillas line was violated by everyone who could. The Bandeirantes constantly did as you said, but anyone who could did.

Everyone who could. Portugal is not in a position to say no to Spanish interests in La Plata because their main interests lay much further north in Brazil and in general in Africa and the Indies. Even OTL against a much weaker Spain centuries later they were evicted from Uruguay.

the most likely with the Aztecs, is their collapse due to a set of pressures (such as diseases that even if they don't kill 90%, will kill at least 60% of the population). with another group taking power and having their strange version of Christianity.

Yes, I do agree the Aztecs will likely collapse, it's just they probably won't collapse within the first 20-30 years after Cortes shows up and fails like you often see in TLs/maps here. How they collapse, who knows. Maybe they hold on as a vestigial empire until some later era of colonialism when they're directly absorbed, or maybe they get overthrown and conquered by a newcomer power. There's a lot of possibilities, hence why I think a slow and gradual colonisation of Mesoamerica is a very fascinating scenario.

 

[holycookie]

Except that was already on a known trade route to the Inca (used by the Guarani) and used for raiding by both Guarani and Spaniards.

and portuguese.
The main reason for sending troops to that region was to protect the region as a possession of the Spanish crown before the Portuguese advances.Since the discovery of Brazil in 1500, Portugal had threatened to expand beyond the Rio de la Plata, which would deprive the Spaniards of their territories.

Pedro de Mendoza already had intentions to colonise the area before the Inca were conquered.

Pedro's expedition departs in the year 1535. Arrived at Rio de la Plata 1536, making the settlement buenos aries. The place had sources of fresh water and a relatively flat coastline. In the same year Pedro sent an army commanded by his brother to attack the natives nearby. The battle against the natives, in which the Spaniards lost, caused the loss of two-thirds of the Spanish troops. In december the city was burned. Buenos Aires was rebuilt shortly after Pedro's return to Spain, but was abandoned and burned down by its 350 inhabitants in 1541, who decided to migrate north to the city of Asunción.
Asunción was the only city that resisted continuous attacks by the natives. He (Pedro) had to pay for the entire expedition due to the spain not having money/ interest in the region. What saved the expedition from a long and agonizing death was the conquest of the Incas(like the portuguese expeditions to canada).

Portugal isn't present that far south because it's illegal for them to be there. The southern parts of their territory in Brazil was very poor before bandeirante raids and discovery of gold in Minas Gerais brought wealth into the area. Why would it be worth expanding further south into equally poor areas and risk pissing off the Spanish in the process?

they were interested, including making expeditions as early as 1530. Food and weather was one of the factors( the colony had to import food). There are other factors with the Portuguese only colonizing the coast of South America (brazil) in the period, descending to the south of the region and making forts.
as far as being illegal, they knew it was illegal. They did it anyway. This irritated Spain a lot, but the nation had enough problems and enemies. So they competed for control of the region and their descendants as well, with neither side having full control of the region.

Simple--Argentina has trade with the Inca, and is probably no more expensive or worthless than the American South which likely would have become a money sink for Spain much like Texas, New Mexico, or for that matter many parts of Argentina were had Spain tried to expand their system of missions into a more populated and permanent colony.

To be honest, everything I've read in the region indicates that without the conquest of the Incas, the colony would at best be a colony like Quebec.

The Inca will be forced to run an extractive economy with their silver to pay for modernising the state and keeping the government powerful in the face of revolts and population decline. This silver could be exported through a Spanish concession at, say, Callao, or could be exported overland at Buenos Aires.
Now yes, I think the overland land route is disadvantageous from the Inca perspective since it's harder to police and leaves them more open to smuggling/raiding from the Spanish/Guarani/other natives, but unlike China or Japan who successfully restricted trade, 16th/early 17th century Spain would have a lot more pull and influence over the Inca. It's inevitable that European smugglers and their native allies would try and use that as a backdoor into the Inca and even if Spain wouldn't directly gain from this trade, the smugglers still need bases and still need places to spend their money which would mean the area is still economically viable. We have to keep in mind that Pizarro's failure doesn't mean Spaniards won't try less ambitious raids against the Inca, of which they would know that La Plata is one potential route (and possibly a quicker one)

yes, what will indicate the colonization of the region will be the power relationship between the Inca and Spain. And for how long does spain manage to have the monopoly of the Inca tribute.

Everyone who could. Portugal is not in a position to say no to Spanish interests in La Plata because their main interests lay much further north in Brazil and in general in Africa and the Indies. Even OTL against a much weaker Spain centuries later they were evicted from Uruguay.

to be honest, portugal was also very weak, it was a period of decadence for the powers of iberia. The region only had the situation resolved with Argentina and Brazil having a free passage agreement and a neutral country (Uruguay) that would allow free trade in these rivers, in the 19th century

Yes, I do agree the Aztecs will likely collapse, it's just they probably won't collapse within the first 20-30 years after Cortes shows up and fails like you often see in TLs/maps here. How they collapse, who knows. Maybe they hold on as a vestigial empire until some later era of colonialism when they're directly absorbed, or maybe they get overthrown and conquered by a newcomer power. There's a lot of possibilities, hence why I think a slow and gradual colonisation of Mesoamerica is a very fascinating scenario.

with the Incas it's the same thing.
Everything I'm reading indicates that the Incas will either collapse or at least lose the south of the country to newly conquered groups and revolts. maintaining its strength in and around Peru, but having little strength elsewhere. The Inca way of management kind of makes the creation of something like a warlord period (as in china) quite likely.

 

[manitobot]

It would be pretty interesting. Funny thought of initial Dominican missionaries fervently convincing the Mexica to end human sacrifice by drawing a parallel to the death of Jesus on the cross, ie "this person had been sacrificed on the cross, like how you sacrificed to Huiztlipochtli so that all other sacrifices need not happen anymore"

 

[holycookie]

It would be pretty interesting. Funny thought of initial Dominican missionaries fervently convincing the Mexica to end human sacrifice by drawing a parallel to the death of Jesus on the cross, ie "this person had been sacrificed on the cross, like how you sacrificed to Huiztlipochtli so that all other sacrifices need not happen anymore"

perhaps, but the more I read about the two religions (Inca and Aztec) the more likely it is that neither group accepts the Christian religion. With the Incas it is more likely, but God would be part of the Inca pantheon in this case. Both lost about 90 percent of the population to disease. If they resist the conquest, the population will still lose at least 60% of the population in the encounter with the disease, with another 10% (minimum) of side effects caused by the pandemic. This still leaves a good population in both countries, with the Incas probably concentrating in Peru and the Aztecs remaining at their previous size. what will be left of the populations of empires:
Inca (3,6 M)
aztecs(1,8M)
It will be a big blow, but the core of the empires will remain. The rest will probably be lost.
this is a great environment for Christianity. With countries falling into civil wars between Christians and natives. Or if they don't fall, they'll be under constant pressure. With the next 2 centuries being the reconstruction of these empires. These religions will be transformed into something new and quite different from European Christianity.

 

[manitobot]

perhaps, but the more I read about the two religions (Inca and Aztec) the more likely it is that neither group accepts the Christian religion. With the Incas it is more likely, but God would be part of the Inca pantheon in this case. Both lost about 90 percent of the population to disease. If they resist the conquest, the population will still lose at least 60% of the population in the encounter with the disease, with another 10% (minimum) of side effects caused by the pandemic. This still leaves a good population in both countries, with the Incas probably concentrating in Peru and the Aztecs remaining at their previous size. what will be left of the populations of empires:
Inca (3,6 M)
aztecs(1,8M)
It will be a big blow, but the core of the empires will remain. The rest will probably be lost.
this is a great environment for Christianity. With countries falling into civil wars between Christians and natives. Or if they don't fall, they'll be under constant pressure. With the next 2 centuries being the reconstruction of these empires. These religions will be transformed into something new and quite different from European Christianity.

So without conquest, the population decline of 90% is more like 60-70%?

 

[holycookie]

So without conquest, the population decline of 90% is more like 60-70%?

not having to be enslaved by the Spaniards helps a lot. But the situation is not good, losing 70% of its population traumatizes a country, and destroys its future for a long time, maybe even forever.