Did the Aztecs And/Or Incas Have a Chance?

Did the Aztecs And/Or Incas Have a Chance?

  • Both Did

    Votes: 42 33.3%
  • The Aztecs Did, But The Incas Did Not

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • The Incas Did, But The Aztecs Did Not

    Votes: 57 45.2%
  • Neither Did

    Votes: 27 21.4%

  • Total voters
    126
Also it should be noted that disease doesn't mean the Spanish can just waltz in and conquer everything. Disease struck the Yucatan around the same time as everywhere else, and it wasn't completely subjugated for hundreds of years!

But it does mean that there are 2 crippled empires with a shit ton of gold and sliver. As it was mentioned already the native american empires would have to deal with other European nations that feel in the vacuum of spain. Though I dont see why a failed first attempt would even stop them. Correct me if im wrong but weren't there failed expeditions into what is now Florida and the south west US.
 
I think that the impact of disease on the ability of the Aztec and Inca Empires to resist the Spanish has been a bit overrated. After all, the vast majority of the Spanish forces consisted of native allies, who were impacted just as badly as the rest of the native population.

And the long term death toll "By 1700" or the like is not the same as the situation in the short run.
 
I think that the impact of disease on the ability of the Aztec and Inca Empires to resist the Spanish has been a bit overrated. After all, the vast majority of the Spanish forces consisted of native allies, who were impacted just as badly as the rest of the native population.
Native allies became less and less relevant over time, because the overall number of natives was shrinking, allowing the European armies to gradually come to match them remaining hostile natives in numbers.
 
I think mortality would have been lower if the native americans weren't oppressed so badly. IOTL mortality caused by diseases was agravated by force labour, malnourishment, oppresion, and other stuff.

Doubtful. First there were pre-literate chieftain level societies which were apparently totally wiped out by the Columbian plagues before any conquistidors got there (such as in the Amazon). Secondly, African slaves kept in conditions as deplorable generally didn't die in large numbers. Indeed, in slave states where they imported a roughly equal number of men and women, they often had positive growth rates.

Also it should be noted that disease doesn't mean the Spanish can just waltz in and conquer everything. Disease struck the Yucatan around the same time as everywhere else, and it wasn't completely subjugated for hundreds of years!

Not comparable for two reasons. The Maya were not an empire, they were a collection of city-states, thus the sort of royal decapitation which happened with the Aztec and Inca could not work there. But more importantly, once malaria was introduced to the tropical lowlands in the Americas, the environment was nearly as deadly for Europeans as indigenous Americans. In contrast, the highlands of Mexico and the Andes remained relatively nice climates for Europeans - easy places to field an army.
 
Native allies became less and less relevant over time, because the overall number of natives was shrinking, allowing the European armies to gradually come to match them remaining hostile natives in numbers.

Knowing that the epidemics that ravaged native population, did the same for Europeans in Americas (even if their death tool was clearly lower) that had to suffer from new diseases (in their PoV) and tropical climate.
 
Doubtful. First there were pre-literate chieftain level societies which were apparently totally wiped out by the Columbian plagues before any conquistidors got there (such as in the Amazon). Secondly, African slaves kept in conditions as deplorable generally didn't die in large numbers. Indeed, in slave states where they imported a roughly equal number of men and women, they often had positive growth rates.



Not comparable for two reasons. The Maya were not an empire, they were a collection of city-states, thus the sort of royal decapitation which happened with the Aztec and Inca could not work there. But more importantly, once malaria was introduced to the tropical lowlands in the Americas, the environment was nearly as deadly for Europeans as indigenous Americans. In contrast, the highlands of Mexico and the Andes remained relatively nice climates for Europeans - easy places to field an army.

The Aztecs and Incas are not static themselves-a long-ish delay in the conquest(say, Cortez fails) could quite well allow the Aztecs to finish subjugating a lot of vassal states that helped the Spaniards win OTL (or fall apart, leading to a maya-like situation where the Europeans have to conquer city-state by city-state and allies and allow the Atualhaupla(spelt wrong almost certainly) to consolidate power after winning the civil war.
 
Native allies became less and less relevant over time, because the overall number of natives was shrinking, allowing the European armies to gradually come to match them remaining hostile natives in numbers.

And native numbers shrank because they were subjugated, enslaved, and killed off en masse on top of the disease. Without the aforementioned three, the disease death toll would have bounced back within two or three generations if it goes right for them.

And if you actually LOOKED at HOW the Spanish conquered the Maya and the Inca, you would see that it was absolutely impossible for them to do so without the considerable help they had from native allies. If the conquistadors didn't have these allies, there would be no subjugation, no enslavement, and no massacres. Not to mention the fact that European style armies can't work affectively in the Andes, especially against native tactics in those mountains.
 
But it does mean that there are 2 crippled empires with a shit ton of gold and sliver. As it was mentioned already the native american empires would have to deal with other European nations that feel in the vacuum of spain. Though I dont see why a failed first attempt would even stop them. Correct me if im wrong but weren't there failed expeditions into what is now Florida and the south west US.

Interestingly enough, most of the early Spanish expeditions found many towns and even cities in places as far afield as Arkansas which vanished without a trace by the next time Europeans passed through the area.

Although it's hard to say the exact threshold, even something like a 75% rather than a 90% mortality rate probably makes it impossible for a state to remain functioning. Too many people with non-transferable skills will be lost. Constant death among the ruling class will lead to political instability. So many people become ill that not enough are left to offer pallative care (hence more die of plague and even unrelated issues). The whole food distribution system may break down. Etc.

The Aztecs and Incas are not static themselves-a long-ish delay in the conquest(say, Cortez fails) could quite well allow the Aztecs to finish subjugating a lot of vassal states that helped the Spaniards win OTL (or fall apart, leading to a maya-like situation where the Europeans have to conquer city-state by city-state and allies and allow the Atualhaupla(spelt wrong almost certainly) to consolidate power after winning the civil war.

Given both the Aztec and the Inca were empires which grew large only within a century of contact, and had multitudes of ethnic minorities within their borders, it's almost certain that the dislocation caused by the plagues would cause any sense of "Aztecness" or "Incaness" to fall apart wholesale. I could see an outcome where Nahuatl is more widely spoken in central Mexico (similar to how Quecha is in the Andes today) however.
 
And native numbers shrank because they were subjugated, enslaved, and killed off en masse on top of the disease. Without the aforementioned three, the disease death toll would have bounced back within two or three generations if it goes right for them.

And if you actually LOOKED at HOW the Spanish conquered the Maya and the Inca, you would see that it was absolutely impossible for them to do so without the considerable help they had from native allies. If the conquistadors didn't have these allies, there would be no subjugation, no enslavement, and no massacres. Not to mention the fact that European style armies can't work affectively in the Andes, especially against native tactics in those mountains.
I never said that the Spanish weren't dependant on aid from native allies at times, but the fact of the matter is that they weren't always dependant on them, especially longer after initial contact, when native population had dropped and their societies were collapsing as a result of the epidemics. Without those allies, the conquistadors fail in their initial attempts, definitely, but the lower the population level drops, and the more native society collapses as a result, the easier it will be for the Spanish and others to carve out empires without significant aid. The Spanish technological advantage may not have been enough to defeat the Aztecs in situations where they were outnumbered thirty times over, but they did have a very real and significant advantage in combat, and post epidemic native society can't call forth the same incredible numbers the Aztecs did. Of course, there would still likely be a fair number of people willing to ally with European invaders anyways, so it really doesn't matter much whether the Spanish would ever be able to take control without native allies, but I believe they could have done so nonetheless.

I actually argued that the Andes would be a potential vehicle for salvation for the Inca, so I don't get why you are directing the comment about European armies having difficulty there at me.

I feel you are overestimating a population's ability to rebound from such a string of epidemics, and also ignoring the subjugation, enslavement, and mass killing that will likely occur among the natives themselves. Note that "European diseases" isn't one single plague that will sweep through once and be done with it. If the natives manage to survive an invasion and the diseases it brought with it, there is still the very real chance that the next invading force (or even a peaceful expedition, such as merchants or missionaries) will bring a new epidemic that they have yet to become immune to. Depending on how evenly dispersed the introduction of the major diseases is, it could keep the native population from even beginning to recover for centuries, and that is totally ignoring fighting among the natives and drastically reduced agricultural output from having so many less people tilling the soil for generations.
 
Highly unlikely with a PoD after 1500. Of the two civilizations, the Incas had the better chance because the Empire was more tightly organized and, even with the civil war underway, Pizarro did not have the large number of willing native allies that Cortez did. In either case, even had Pizarro or Cortez been defeated, the Spaniards would definitely return and face an enemy more depleted by disease and further internal confusion.
 
If Montezuma had opposed Cortez in the field after the Cholula massacre, instead of inviting him to the capital then I doubt Cortez could have decapitated the Aztec leadership. If Cortez was not in such a commanding position when De Navarez arrived then Cortez would really be in the shit.

As for Pizarro, I think that without Cortez' example of how to decapitate an American empire I doubt he would have tried such a novel and daring scheme as he did.
 
I voted that they both did, but with mixed feelings.

Incas could have lasted a bit longer if the Spaniards came later and they were able to sort out their civil war. They weren't as hated by other people in the area as the Aztecs. If the Tlaxcalan alliance falls through, Cortés will lose. Of course, the diseases may weaken them enough that they fall apart shortly afterwards. The Aztec Empire or "Triple Alliance" as 1491 author Charles Mann calls them is not the most stable.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
If the Tlaxcalan alliance falls through, Cortés will lose. Of course, the diseases may weaken them enough that they fall apart shortly afterwards. The Aztec Empire or "Triple Alliance" as 1491 author Charles Mann calls them is not the most stable.

No, but the Aztecs did display a great aptitude for adaptability, both in their pre-contact history and during the Spanish invasion itself. If they survive the invasion of Cortez, they might realize how dangerous their loose rule over their subject people is and decide that simultaneously treating their subjects like crap AND leaving local rulers in place might not be the best idea. We'd no doubt see changes to the way the Aztecs ran their empire.
 
No, but the Aztecs did display a great aptitude for adaptability, both in their pre-contact history and during the Spanish invasion itself. If they survive the invasion of Cortez, they might realize how dangerous their loose rule over their subject people is and decide that simultaneously treating their subjects like crap AND leaving local rulers in place might not be the best idea. We'd no doubt see changes to the way the Aztecs ran their empire.

They didn't always keep the local ruler in place. If the local ruler was not savvy to Tenochtitlan's interests or continually served as an obstacle to collecting tribute from a particular city, they were thrown out of office and replaced with a steward directly appointed by Tenochtitlan to administer the land and collect tribute. The calpixque themselves were under the authority of huecalpixque whom you can consider the equivalent of governors of provinces or viceroys in that they had many powers over the calpixque and made sure the lower officials did their job.
 
The Aztecs were toast. Even if the first wave was somehow repulsed, more would come. You can say a lot about the Europeans, but they didn't easily cut and run in their quest for world conquest.

Fully agree with this. The Europeans might not be able to launch another conquest within 10 years, but given that they were able to conquer sizeable holdings in Asia where hte population had a much better resistance to diseases and had weapon technology centuries ahead of the Aztecs and Incas, I have problems imagining the American natives resisting for long, even if Cortez and Pzarro fail - each of which would easily be possible.
 
Top