How to keep Mesoamerica from falling to the west?

I've actually been quite curious as to what'd happen if Nezahualcoyotl's little "cult" spread much more and became a major force in Mexican culture of the time. I heard somewhere that he created his own temple to a supreme, unknowable god that never demanded sacrifices, although he still tolerated other temples and their sacrifices. But then again, it does sound like the guy who wrote about that (a descendant of him in the Colonial Era) was just trying to make him look good. Nevertheless, Quetzalcoatl never had human sacrifices, just incense (or flowers?) and hummingbirds.
 
Source?

I'm very much curious.
Err... wikipedia. But I do vaguely remember reading about it somewhere else. See if I can find anything.

EDIT: Cursory search on the web seem to suggest that the god was just called the "Unknown God". Not much info. Some sources give "Tloque Nahuaque" as a name, but wikipedia seems to suggest that that was just an alternate name for Tezcatlipoca.
 
Last edited:
I've been thinking of doing something involving the mesoamerican civilizations of Maya and Aztec, and was wondering what exactly would be required to prevent the west (for as long as possible if such a fall is inevitable) from conquering/colonizing the region.

With the Maya, I'm not exactly sure where to start, and to a certain extent I am of the same opinion with the Aztec. The most obvious in the case of the Aztec would be to do something involving Hernán Cortés.

Any suggestions or comments?

To be honest, I'd throw the Aztecs to the wolves, and concentrate on the Maya and Inca. The Aztecs were too unpopular, they'd probably have fallen on their own in short order.

The Maya were decentralized, and the Incas young and still figuring out solutions to problems, plus had awesomly defensible territory.

There are several things that would have helped the mesoamericans. Something dealing with the diseases is by far the most important.

Prologed contact with the Vinlanders and exposure to European diseases before Colombus would help. Even better would be a Mesoamerican genius who figures out variolation/vaccination early enough that it disseminates through the cultures.

Vinlander contact may also help transfer ship tech. Being able to meet the Europeans at sea, and contend with them for the Caribbean islands would be a massive strategic step up.

Having the mesoamerican civilizations contacted from a slightly different point of origin would help. The Caribbean islands provided a strong base from which the Europeans could go for the throat of the mesoamericans.

Also, anything that lets the plagues burn through the mesoamerican populations before full contact will help. Particularily if there is some butterfly that could groinkick Spain and Portugal just after contact.
 
They were the most advanced civilization in the New World, probably. Granted, they didn't have bronze like the Inca (though they were working with copper), but they had pressurized water systems and more. Anyways, even if the Collapse did not occur they still have to have more political unity. Mayan history was always consisting of a patchwork of rival kingdoms fighting eachother for centuries. Assuming the political situation remains roughly the same by the contact era (not likely, but still) then the Spanish could take advantage of the Mutul/Kaan rivalry. But it'd still be difficult. OTL, even with the relatively minuscule (compared to 500 years earlier) kingdoms aligned into 3 factions with an intense hatred and rivalry of eachother to exploit, and a large host of Mexican soldiers at their command, the Spanish still took 200 years to conquer them.

Uhm, what?

Their lack of political unity was why they were the last major group in Mesoamerica to be conquered. The Mexicatl, the Tarascans, and later the Tahuantinsuya, all fell so completely (I wouldn't say easily) because the Spanish had the opportunity to attack more centralized states.

It's really not that complicated. Take Paris and the war is almost over, take Belgrade and it's about to start - against overwhelming force decentralized opponents actually have an advantage over unified ones.
 
Uhm, what?

Their lack of political unity was why they were the last major group in Mesoamerica to be conquered. The Mexicatl, the Tarascans, and later the Tahuantinsuya, all fell so completely (I wouldn't say easily) because the Spanish had the opportunity to attack more centralized states.

It's really not that complicated. Take Paris and the war is almost over, take Belgrade and it's about to start - against overwhelming force decentralized opponents actually have an advantage over unified ones.
Except their lack of political unity meant it was easier to take them because you could recruit one entire side to your force. Just like what happened in Mexico. There's a big difference between simply being decentralized and having 18 rival states all looking to destroy the others. The "Aztecs" weren't unified, the Nahua peoples were organized into several states as well that the Spanish turned against the Mexica. The Maya lasted so long because there was less in the Yucatan that the Spanish wanted (it became obvious early on that there was little gold to be had) and because the Maya were very good at guerrilla warfare.
 
Except their lack of political unity meant it was easier to take them because you could recruit one entire side to your force. Just like what happened in Mexico. There's a big difference between simply being decentralized and having 18 rival states all looking to destroy the others. The "Aztecs" weren't unified, the Nahua peoples were organized into several states as well that the Spanish turned against the Mexica. The Maya lasted so long because there was less in the Yucatan that the Spanish wanted (it became obvious early on that there was little gold to be had) and because the Maya were very good at guerrilla warfare.

That happens not to be the case.

Most of the states that turned on the Aztecs did so because they were Aztec tributaries. Rival states isn't really accurate - aside from the Tlaxcallans, all the Spanish allies seem to have been literal vassals of Tenochtitlan. And yes, the empire was decentralized for an empire, but there would have been much less interest in ganging up on the Aztecs had they not been dragging regular sacrifices from all those groups.

Further, the reason the Mayans were better at guerilla warfare, aside from the more forested terrain, was that they were not politically centralized. That's also the reason why the Aztecs had lots of gold and the Mayans little. Gold didn't have the status it did in Europe, but it was a valuable commodity. As such it naturally accumulated in the capital of the regions largest empire and was naturally scarce in a divided mass of warring city-states. It's not like there were gold mines ringing Lake Texcoco.

You can conquer a place by allying with a bunch of groups against others - but they have to have reasons for the alliance. Reasons like turning on the regional hegemon as being both oppressive and wealthy. If there isn't such a convenient target your allies will always be a fraction of the local groups and you'll simultaneously be fighting for fewer spoils.
 
That happens not to be the case.

Most of the states that turned on the Aztecs did so because they were Aztec tributaries. Rival states isn't really accurate - aside from the Tlaxcallans, all the Spanish allies seem to have been literal vassals of Tenochtitlan. And yes, the empire was decentralized for an empire, but there would have been much less interest in ganging up on the Aztecs had they not been dragging regular sacrifices from all those groups.

Further, the reason the Mayans were better at guerilla warfare, aside from the more forested terrain, was that they were not politically centralized. That's also the reason why the Aztecs had lots of gold and the Mayans little. Gold didn't have the status it did in Europe, but it was a valuable commodity. As such it naturally accumulated in the capital of the regions largest empire and was naturally scarce in a divided mass of warring city-states. It's not like there were gold mines ringing Lake Texcoco.

You can conquer a place by allying with a bunch of groups against others - but they have to have reasons for the alliance. Reasons like turning on the regional hegemon as being both oppressive and wealthy. If there isn't such a convenient target your allies will always be a fraction of the local groups and you'll simultaneously be fighting for fewer spoils.
Most of the Spanish allies were probably from the Tlaxcallan confederation (it consisted of more than just Tlaxacala) and a lot of their troops were actually from former members of the Triple Alliance, like Texcoco. Texcoco wasn't exactly a subjugated state. And the reason the Maya were good at guerrilla warfare is the jungle, and the fact that there were generally less of them than there used to be. And the Mayans had little gold because there wasn't all that much to be had in the first place! In fact, there is no evidence to suggest they even had any back in the Classic Era.
 
Most of the Spanish allies were probably from the Tlaxcallan confederation (it consisted of more than just Tlaxacala)

Hrm. Can you cite that? I don't have a source on hand that actively disagrees with that (because I'm in China), but it disagrees with what I've read about Spanish efforts. My reading indicated that they ended up at the head of quite a mix of the peoples north and east of Tenochtitlan.

Point on the Tlaxcallan government system? I'm not clear of the relevance.

[A]nd a lot of their troops were actually from former members of the Triple Alliance, like Texcoco. Texcoco wasn't exactly a subjugated state. And the reason the Maya were good at guerrilla warfare is the jungle, and the fact that there were generally less of them than there used to be.

Yes, as I said, the more forested terrain. I'll dispute the idea that having fewer people makes a polity better at any sort of war. Guerrilla wars have been accomplished quite successfully in densely populated areas. The real issue was that there was no clear enemy the Spanish were fighting with no clear center at which to strike.

And the Mayans had little gold because there wasn't all that much to be had in the first place! In fact, there is no evidence to suggest they even had any back in the Classic Era.

Just as there wasn't much to be had in the hills around Lake Texcoco.

The bottom line is a bit simpler, though. The Classic Maya collapsed in the first half of the 9th century. Their rise in the mid-late 5th actually predates intensive mining of precious metals anywhere in North America. There simply wasn't that much gold in use in the whole of Mexico at the time.
 
Top