less destructive disseases to the aztecs

HELLO!

What I wonder is not how to make the empiresof the aztecs and incas to survive, but how should the europeans react against that.

Everyone assumes that smallpox and other diseases were the main cause of the conquest of the Aztec and Inca empires. Everyone also assumes that for this reason they didn´t survive the Spanish. Everyone assumes that if, for example due to the Vikings, the Andalusian or ET, Americans have had previous contact with these diseases, giving them time to acclimate to this diseases, they could endure.

Well, what I would like to discuss is this: say that a Portuguese ship is diverted from its route to the Azores. All crew members are killed but not before having transmitted the smallpox to the Americans, say around 1440, allowing time for Americans to some recovery ... thereby having to endure the conquistadors arrived in the early sixteenth century in full swing so Cortes and Pizarro fail in their attempts. My question is what could be the reaction of Europe against two empires like the aztecs and inca if they could not be conquered by a few hundreds of men (and thousands of dissatisfied indians) and many more resources were needed to do that. How could evolve the european wars and economy without the american gold and silver? well and any questions you can think about the consecuences of this for Europe
 
First off, how do you manage to get people in Central America infected by smallpox by deaths in the Azores?:confused:

But for your whole point, I think that first Cortez would get a larger army of natives hating the Aztecs, and wold likely still lose even with guns. This slows down the colonization of the Americas considerably. They would instead probably go for more of an African colonization idea, (to start the colonialization that Europe probably needed with it being so crowded) with less developed empires at the time, and slowly conquer the Americas with a ridiculous technology advantage. With this, you may also see more of an ivory trade economy, and there really also is quite a bit of gold and other valuables (diamonds, rubies, Timbuktu) in Africa. You may also see more European colonization in Canada, as there are less natives for the most part. It would likely set back colonialization in the New World 75-100 years at least. But, European colonies in America would eventually be reached in the end.
 
First off, how do you manage to get people in Central America infected by smallpox by deaths in the Azores?

No, what he means is: if the ship is on it's way to the Azores but accidentally arrives in the Americas.

Well, the European technology was still higher than the natives'. Thus, the chance of colonialism still succeeding is, i believe, about 65-70%. But of course it will be greatly delayed and i think the first, maybe the only, successful colonies would be in eastern North America and maybe Brazil. The Inca and Aztec empires will be a bigger problem. Still, with so many natives surviving, there will likely be many revolutions and it is very likely that instead of the Latin American Independence Wars of OTL, you'll have native rebellions overthrowing the white government, and that way you'll see modern Native American nations surviving, likely having populations that are over 60% native.

-Korporal Nooij.
 
What Nooij said. Basically, the situation would likely resemble Yucatan's all across Latin America. Which is not good for the creoles or peninsulares. Not good at all.
 
Top