Could the Spanish conquer the new world without small pox?

What if they succeed, but fail to consolidate and say something in Europe (civil war, religious war, normal war) prevents them from capitalizing on a weakened New World.

Like most of the early colonial exploits, the expeditions of Cortez and Pizarro were largely private enterprises undertaken with royal approval. I can't see any amount of European strife hindering the exploitation of an already conquered Aztec or Inca. In fact European unrest might propel more adventurers to the Americas.
 
As I said before, look to the history of Portuguese Africa to know what will happen in America. They can conquer many strips of land, even in Mexico but probably will not enter deep into the new continent, their better chances are in Argentina, the Islands and in North America. If the butterflies dont mess everything and the european powers still develop to be the great powers they were in the 19th century America will fall to Europe at the same time as Africa and Asia.
 
As I said before, look to the history of Portuguese Africa to know what will happen in America. They can conquer many strips of land, even in Mexico but probably will not enter deep into the new continent, their better chances are in Argentina, the Islands and in North America.
When you consider the size of the "army" that first invaded the Inca Empire, European germs made a great difference. The "army" would have a problem carving out on enclave on the coast let alone starting to bring the Empire to its knees.

That is not to say that horses, gunpowder and steel weapons did not help. However, when you consider that 9 out of 10 of the New World population died from imported disease it is no brainer to what made the difference.
 
The Indians who came after Montezuma were rapidly learning the Spaniards weren't gods. Without disease Cortez would have probably not have been so successful in using the Tlaxcalan Indians to attack the Aztec capital and without disease he may not have have been victorious in destroying the Aztecs. But the Aztec's had made a lot of enemies during Montezumas reign and his followers preferred murdering each other rather than forming a solid front against the Spaniards. All the Aztecs and the other Indian tribes needed was time to learn what they were facing. With no epidemic diseases (smallpox, measles) killing them like some vengeful hand of god they may have had time to overcome the numerically inferior Spaniards and if they put all the blame of Aztec cruelty to Montezuma, now dead, they might have been able to hold the line until they figured out how to deal with this new threat. I suspect there were Spaniards who would have been willing, for gold, to teach the Indians how to build and use European tech against the new invaders.

The Conquest was like a perfect storm. Rotten superstitious leader who made bad decisions, tottering empire with lots of resentful tribes ready to revolt, versus an experienced charismatic aggressive christian leader who exploited every opportunity he could, combined with multiple deadly epidemic diseases spreading across a totally vulnerable population.

Montezuma has always amazed me. Here is a guy who casually ordered the butchery of thousands on the great pyramid but who personally couldn't see Cortez and his men for what they were and take contingency steps if things went wrong. Totally clueless. Had Cortez faced a personality type like Genghis Khan or even Odo Nobunaga of the same time period the results would have been different.
 
Last edited:
I think a Spanish conquest of the Valley of Mexico is possible without smallpox, but it might unfold differently. The Aztecs had enough enemies or unhappy vassals that a Spanish expedition could form a nucleus for that the Triple Alliance could be destroyed, and that would leave the Spanish with at very least a foot in the door at Vera Cruz, from which they could project increasing power over the remaining cities and tribes of Mexico.

That is, if the King doesn't decide that the costs weren't worth it, and tighten the leash on his American officials; Cortes had to deliver something greater than the magnitude of his treason to keep his head, so a lot depends on how Charles I sees things. He might be pleased if Tenochtitlan is captured relatively intact (if the Tlaxcalans don't massacre the Aztecs), but the Valley of Mexico just gets shell-gamed between various indigenous states, it might not add up to Cortes keeping his head.
 
Someone brought up Africa as a comparison: sub-Saharan Africa (which was where the technology difference was most similar to the Americas) was mostly protected by disease (well into the 19th century, a posting in Africa was mostly a death sentence). That's much less of an issue in the Americas (especially if our magical "disease barrier" also prevents the importation of Yellow Fever and Malaria to the New World, both of which were imported from Africa with the slave ships, OTL).

The initial outbreaks in Mexico were basically simultaneous with the Spanish invasion, and struck both the Aztecs and their enemies (of whom the Tlaxcalans are the most famous, but only one of the many groups who sided with the Spanish against the Aztecs). And Cortes was only one expedition; if he fails, people will likely keep trying. Note that what we call the "Conquest of Mexico" was really only the beginning of a fairly long process; especially early on, Spanish rule outside a few cities was basically conducted by the pre-existing native rulers (instead of the Lord of City X giving tribute to Tenochtitlan, he'd give it to the Spanish governor, but otherwise things remained more or less unchanged for most of the subjects). You'd likely see this continuing longer with a larger native population, but the issue would be the same. We tend to focus on the conquistadors, but almost all their expeditions were accompanied by large contingents of native allies (both as warriors and as logistical support); if they can still establish a strong foothold, that just means they have more allies surviving the epidemics to accompany their conquests.

Peru is more difficult, but still has issues with regular civil wars among different Inca claimants (even if Huayna Capac isn't killed by smallpox, he's not immortal; he has to die sometime), which opens up vulnerabilities, and the Spanish still have a strong technological edge (which was probably more important in Peru than in Mexico, as the climate is more conducive to wearing metal armor). Besides, after the wealth of Mexico, it's going to be really easy to keep recruiting would-be conquistadors for future expeditions, so they can always keep trying.
 
As I said before, look to the history of Portuguese Africa to know what will happen in America. They can conquer many strips of land, even in Mexico but probably will not enter deep into the new continent, their better chances are in Argentina, the Islands and in North America. If the butterflies dont mess everything and the european powers still develop to be the great powers they were in the 19th century America will fall to Europe at the same time as Africa and Asia.
Except that's because Africa had its own endemic diseases which would quickly kill any Europeans trying to settle there. America has no such barrier, and if you posit no Old World diseases crossing over, malaria is not something to worry about.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
It wasn't just smallpox, influenza and Measles were major players as well. Measles has a awe-inspiring R-naught of 12-18. One person will infect 12-18 people. Once it is an unprotected population there is no stopping it and it has a remarkable fatality rate.
 
As I said before, look to the history of Portuguese Africa to know what will happen in America. They can conquer many strips of land, even in Mexico but probably will not enter deep into the new continent, their better chances are in Argentina, the Islands and in North America. If the butterflies dont mess everything and the european powers still develop to be the great powers they were in the 19th century America will fall to Europe at the same time as Africa and Asia.

Argentina? Increasing the amount of indigenous people who survive isn't gonna help much when most of them will end up being Mapuche or allies. Same goes with North America, where Europeans might find it difficult to get a foothold if a lot more East Coast natives are surviving.

To be fair, there's also the Mississippians to consider. Less losses suffered might really, really help their case, albeit at the same time their centralised nature makes them more vulnerable to Spanish conquistador efforts than other groups. If Spain still takes Mexico, then I can't see the groups north of the Valley of Mexico and perhaps the Puebloans too not falling to Spain...and at that point you're gonna introduce the horse onto the Great Plains and now you'll have thousands of more Plains Indians who aren't dying of smallpox surviving, adopting horses, and ready to raid you. But to be fair, without smallpox, the settled American Indian groups will be stronger too.

Really, from what I get, Indian diplomacy and native alliances are going to be HUGELY more important TTL, since EVERYWHERE the numbers of any potential enemy will be far higher, much more higher than your local colonists. And Indian diplomacy was often expensive too--it might be even more expensive this TTL with larger populations. For Spain, if the Pueblo Revolt still happens, they might just not even bother coming back to New Mexico. England will like
wise have issues colonising the East Coast. If King Philip's War was by all means the most threatening Indian War in US history, something like it is gonna be far, far worse TTL, simply because of the numbers involved.

Conversely, Indian slavery will be far more viable since there will be much larger numbers of potential slaves, although because of the inherent issues of Indian slavery, Africans will still be more important for slavery. The main destination for Indian slaves (perhaps many from Mississippian civilisations) will be the Caribbean as OTL.

So Montezuma was a 'glorious leader of Best Aztec' type? I didn't know that.

According to native chroniclers writing a generation or two after the fact, he was insanely incompetent when dealing with the Spaniards. To his credit, I've seen it suggested that Montezuma was not actually as bad a ruler as those native sources state (these arguments tend to rely on the natives placing all the blame for being conquered on him), but the sheer ridiculousness of a few hundred guys landing on the coast with such a riduculously beligerent mission (plunder wealth and convert people to our faith in the name of our king, who by the way we're effectively rebelling against through disobeying his appointed authorities), then finding massive amounts of allies to help them destroy what by all means is the most powerful state in the region makes me strongly suspect that something was desperately wrong with the Aztec Triple Alliance and Montezuma did not help it one bit.

Peru is more difficult, but still has issues with regular civil wars among different Inca claimants (even if Huayna Capac isn't killed by smallpox, he's not immortal; he has to die sometime), which opens up vulnerabilities, and the Spanish still have a strong technological edge (which was probably more important in Peru than in Mexico, as the climate is more conducive to wearing metal armor). Besides, after the wealth of Mexico, it's going to be really easy to keep recruiting would-be conquistadors for future expeditions, so they can always keep trying.

The Inca conquest is almost borderline ASB, and after two or three times, which by all means might as well fail, people will realise its a death trap. Spain's best idea (for any other European state wanting to conquer the place) is to find a way to keep causing civil wars amongst the Inca, but how many were there aside from the famous Atahualpa-Huascar struggle? Finding ways to provoke rebellions (Ecuador's a good spot for this at first at least) is good too. Problem is, this implies a peaceful co-existence as well as regular trade to create the links to make this intrigue to begin with which is also a great way to allow the Inca state to modernise and thus make conquistador expeditions always, always fail.

It wasn't just smallpox, influenza and Measles were major players as well. Measles has a awe-inspiring R-naught of 12-18. One person will infect 12-18 people. Once it is an unprotected population there is no stopping it and it has a remarkable fatality rate.

It certainly is, and it's a shame that smallpox tends to dominate these types of discussions. Measles alone will kill HUGE amounts of people, and that's not including any other disease that gets introduced. I'm pretty sure that after smallpox, it was the number two killer out of introduced diseases in places like the Americas, the Pacific, etc. There's also the effects of measles in pregnant women to consider, which has long term effects, along with the long-term debilitating effects of measles in survivors. Rubella is even worse in terms of birth defects if it occurs in pregnant woman, leading to a long-term societal cost. I'm not certain to what degree congenital rubella syndrome crippled populations in places like the New World during epidemics--probably just added to the misery, really and helped make the other effects associated with epidemics even more destructive.
 
The Inca conquest is almost borderline ASB, and after two or three times, which by all means might as well fail, people will realise its a death trap. Spain's best idea (for any other European state wanting to conquer the place) is to find a way to keep causing civil wars amongst the Inca, but how many were there aside from the famous Atahualpa-Huascar struggle? Finding ways to provoke rebellions (Ecuador's a good spot for this at first at least) is good too. Problem is, this implies a peaceful co-existence as well as regular trade to create the links to make this intrigue to begin with which is also a great way to allow the Inca state to modernise and thus make conquistador expeditions always, always fail.
The Inca never really developed a clear system of succession; struggles over the throne seem to have been the norm, rather than the exception (with the caveat that our sources on Inca history tend to have significant biases, even by early colonial standards). Keep in mind the Inca Empire was very young when it fell; Pachacuti (generally seen as the founder) was Huayna Capac's grandfather. And while our sources are again somewhat dubious, they do suggest that the rulers not infrequently had to put down rebellions in previously "pacified" areas.

More broadly, expeditions don't have to be full on wars of conquest; they can be simple raids and still be quite profitable. While Pizarro lucked out by capturing Atahualpa almost immediately on contact, he also suffered extremely poor luck in that Atahualpa's main army was near where he landed, just due to the civil war. In most cases, he would have been striking against an area that was very lightly defended, which he could have looted to his heart's content while waiting for Almagro to arrive with reinforcements. And of course, they only have to get lucky once. Remember that while the Inca will have more people, the Spanish will have more native subjects to call on as well (something that really provided the backbone of most of their successful expeditions).

"Modernizing" isn't particularly easy to do, as seen by the relatively small number of states that managed to pull it off. It's worth remembering that e.g. Malacca (which had a much better technological and military base than the Bronze Age Inca) also ended up falling to Iberian expeditions at more or less the same time. The Inca are better positioned than the Aztecs, but they still have vulnerabilities, and the more established the Spanish get in Mexico, the more likely they will eventually be able to exploit them. And once they do, the Inca state, much like the Aztec one, is perfectly situated for the Spanish to rule over by merely supplanting the Incas as the receiver of tribute. It's essentially what happened OTL (down to keeping most of the same administrators), and likely still happens with a larger native population to rule over.

Where you do see a big difference is more likely the various places that don't have a centralized state for the Spanish to coopt.
 
Assuming all the diseases the decimated the Incas and Aztecs were somehow butterflied away, the conquest would be much more difficult. Let's start with the Incas. They were already divided by the Civil War when the Spanish arrived, but the Civil War was a direct consequence of the last Inca and his succesor dying due to smallpox (IIRC). Without Civil War the Spaniards will find an united 12 million people strong Inca Empire. There were tribes that were still against the Inca, and the Spaniards could ally with them, but I doubt they would be able to help much. Now comes the great Spanish advantage, technology. That advantage is invalidated if the Incas are willing to sacrifice enough men in order to zerg rush the first small Spanish expeditions. After that the Incas would have to catch up, especially in metallurgy, but they stand a chance to succesfully repeal Spain until some power (most likely Britain) decides to ally with them and supply technology and trainning in exchange of causing problems to Spain and trade.

As for the Aztecs, well, many, and I mean many tribes were very angry with them due to the whole "we'll conquer, slave and them sacrifice you" thing, so the Spanish might be able to create an alliance of native tribes against them. Using divide and conquer strategies would be vital, but I think the Mayas will fall if Spain plays its cards right.

So, short answer: Most likely not for the Incas, yes for the Aztecs.
 
I thought I read somewhere that there was evidence that the disease that was responsible for wiping out many native populations was one that originated in the Americas. I think the estimate was like black death levels of population collapse before European contact and that old world diseases like smallpox and measles were just the nails in the coffin for the survivors, killing a large amount of them off. Could be wrong though.
 
When you consider the size of the "army" that first invaded the Inca Empire, European germs made a great difference. The "army" would have a problem carving out on enclave on the coast let alone starting to bring the Empire to its knees.

That is not to say that horses, gunpowder and steel weapons did not help. However, when you consider that 9 out of 10 of the New World population died from imported disease it is no brainer to what made the difference.

Horses and steel armor (not weapons) were more of a hindrance in the Andes than anything. Hiking in altitudes that Spaniards are not only not used to, but not genetically adapted to, with hot steel with no cloud cover, and with horses on these steep, winding, narrow Andean steps and highways.

For llamas and the Inka it was perfect, not for the Spaniards.
 
I thought I read somewhere that there was evidence that the disease that was responsible for wiping out many native populations was one that originated in the Americas. I think the estimate was like black death levels of population collapse before European contact and that old world diseases like smallpox and measles were just the nails in the coffin for the survivors, killing a large amount of them off. Could be wrong though.

Are you referring to cocoliztli?

This table below I find illuminating. But from everything I've read, it seems like cocoliztli was allowed to utterly decimate Mexico thanks to the conditions produced by European contact (the overturning of society combined with the diseases they brought).

Acuna-Soto_EID-v8n4p360_Fig1.png
 
Are you referring to cocoliztli?

This table below I find illuminating. But from everything I've read, it seems like cocoliztli was allowed to utterly decimate Mexico thanks to the conditions produced by European contact (the overturning of society combined with the diseases they brought).
Ahh, so it wasn't before contact, but rather after. Still though, it is very telling that European diseases were nowhere near as devastating. Still, I would think that even without diseases, the arrival of Europeans would have enough of a destabilizing effect to set in motion an epidemic such as this.
 
Without the diseases I imagine European attempts to take over the Americas would be kind of like European attempts to take over India: gradual takeover, beginning with economic influence and playing powers against each other. Though the population density in some areas (Argentina and Canada?) would still probably be low enough that at least some European settlement could occur.
 
Without the diseases I imagine European attempts to take over the Americas would be kind of like European attempts to take over India: gradual takeover, beginning with economic influence and playing powers against each other. Though the population density in some areas (Argentina and Canada?) would still probably be low enough that at least some European settlement could occur.

India is probably a workable high-level comparison. The disease burden doesn't strongly favour either population (so no Spanish advantage as OTL America, no native advantage as OTL Africa). Gradual conquest is still quite possible, but OTL's drastic population replacement with colonists and African slaves is quite unlikely.
 
Top