Meso american monotheism?

I remember reading somewhere that there was a King in the Mexico valley who was something of a philosopher, and that he flirted with the idea of monotheism. What if this caught on and such.
 
I remember reading somewhere that there was a King in the Mexico valley who was something of a philosopher, and that he flirted with the idea of monotheism. What if this caught on and such.

Well, I think the big change would be if human sacrifices are abolished (which I think this king proposed). Without human sacrifices, the empire that eventually rules Mesoamerica will be stronger, as they wouldn't need to have independent states within their territory with whom they can go to war in order to get captives (IOTL, one of these states, Tlaxcala, decisevely helped Cortez in his campaign). So, the Spanish will have to deal with a stronger empire.

However, they will probably still succeed, eventually, as they had many advantages. But the outcry against the conquest would be even greater than IOTL.

IOTL, priests like Montesinos and De las Casas loudly protested against what was being doing, even putting into question the right Spain had to conquer these lands. They weren't heard, but the sense of guilt and ilegitimacy of the conquests was soehow adopted by the Spanish in America, and survives even to this days. By reading Spanish chronicles, you'll get the idea that somehow, most Spanish conquerors always knew there was something wrong in their acts. This could be translated in better legislation concerning the treatment of Indians, for example, as they won't be able to use the excuse that Mesoamericans worshiped demons and sacrifeced victims to the Devil.

Also, I'm sure somebody would claim this king was a saint who had left the old world and had been preaching Christianity.

Finally, Spain and the rest of Europe will have a different image of Mesoamericans, more akin to the one they had of the Incas.
 
Hmmm, interesting. I would like to read more about this king... Reminds me a lot of Hiawatha.

This would make it easier to convert the natives to Christianity...
 
Actually the whole sacrifice thing was what made the conversion really easy. First of all as stated above some independent tribes/nations like the Tlascaltecas joined the Spanish as they were oppressed by the Aztecs who needed them for sacrifice. They willingly and hastily converted.
More importantly however was the fact that in Aztec mythology most gods had sacrificed themselves, or had shed blood, for humanity. The martyrdom of Christ made perfect sense to them as did the symbolic drinking of blood and flesh during the Eucharist. Aztec priests actually had a sort of communion but with real blood and flesh from the sacrifices. Also great importance given to the mother of many major deities, which later translated to the Mexican worship of La Virgen de Guadalupe.
Also monotheistic religions tend to have a stronger hold of people. It would actually make it much harder. If there is one true god for them already they wouldn't accept another one as easily. Just look at the history of monotheistic religions; they tend to admit others less than polytheism.
It would make the empire much more unified probably would not have the problem of large portions of the neighboring nations take sides with the Spanish. In the long run the Spanish would probably still end up conquering but to a lesser degree.
Also the fact that it is monotheistic does not mean it does not have sacrifice. So How would Europe react to a stronger unified nation that uses sacrifice? That is a totally different question.
 
I remember reading somewhere that there was a King in the Mexico valley who was something of a philosopher, and that he flirted with the idea of monotheism. What if this caught on and such.

I believe you are referring to Nezahualcoyotl of Texcoco. The problem is that all we know about his religious views comes from the writings of later Catholic scholars (including his direct descendents). These writers were apologists, both for Nezahualcoyotl in particular and for Mexican civilization in general, and it was in their interest to portray him in a light favorable to Catholicism.

But assuming there is a kernel of truth to this, it is more likely that Nezahualcoyotl's "monotheism" reflected something more akin to placing one god (his favorite) so far above the rest of the Mexican pantheon that he was , in effect, worshipping only one god. Obviously, this didn't stick, and it is hard to imagine how such a view could be transfored into a a pure monotheism in such a short time depth (less than 100 years before the Conquest)
 
However, they will probably still succeed, eventually, as they had many advantages. But the outcry against the conquest would be even greater than IOTL.

IOTL, priests like Montesinos and De las Casas loudly protested against what was being doing, even putting into question the right Spain had to conquer these lands. They weren't heard, but the sense of guilt and ilegitimacy of the conquests was soehow adopted by the Spanish in America, and survives even to this days. By reading Spanish chronicles, you'll get the idea that somehow, most Spanish conquerors always knew there was something wrong in their acts. This could be translated in better legislation concerning the treatment of Indians, for example, as they won't be able to use the excuse that Mesoamericans worshiped demons and sacrifeced victims to the Devil.

No the situation would be exactly the same. It was a dispute between the colonists and a school of thinking that allowed that so early as 1504 somebody like Antón de Montesinos questioned the methods of the conquest, then the laws of Burgos in the 1510s, but that was not enough and by 1534 we have Francisco de Vitoria's relectios in 1534 and finally Las Casas and the controversial of Valladolid in 1555 that led to the new Leyes de Indias.

The Leyes de Indias were something that would take very long to be seen in any other colonial power, the problem with them was that they were impossible to be put in the practice ("se obedece pero no se cumple") because of the communication and transportation of the era. The colonists even killed a direct representative of the king!

There would not be such an outcry because there was no public oppinion, the same scholars that denounced the conquest would speak, probably some more, and the crown would have to face the same dilemma: retreat leaving behind the new christians and the new territories open to other powers without those moral doubts such as the french, the portuguese or the english; and they would take the same decission that is it was better to remain and protect the natives with laws and the power of the crown.
 
But assuming there is a kernel of truth to this, it is more likely that Nezahualcoyotl's "monotheism" reflected something more akin to placing one god (his favorite) so far above the rest of the Mexican pantheon that he was , in effect, worshipping only one god. Obviously, this didn't stick, and it is hard to imagine how such a view could be transfored into a a pure monotheism in such a short time depth (less than 100 years before the Conquest)

Any clue about what this god was? I'm inclined to think Quetzalcoatl, as he often held a 'high god' place akin to Jupiter/Zeus. It would make sense, also, as Quetzalcoatl was said to 'dislike' human sacrifice, and Netzauhualcoyotl was said also to be against it. But I'm afraid that would not make many differences if the 'Quetzalcoatl will returm from the east' thing and the practice of greeting him with gold still exists.

Though naturally, there is people who think that all these statements might be false and introduced after the Spanish conquest so who knows.
 

Sachyriel

Banned
My own people have an idea that everything has a spirit, so it goes along naturally that everything would have a spirit collectively. Then again, Ojibwes were Great Lakes, not meso-american. But even we had supernatural creatures of myth.
 
Any clue about what this god was? I'm inclined to think Quetzalcoatl, as he often held a 'high god' place akin to Jupiter/Zeus. It would make sense, also, as Quetzalcoatl was said to 'dislike' human sacrifice, and Netzauhualcoyotl was said also to be against it. But I'm afraid that would not make many differences if the 'Quetzalcoatl will returm from the east' thing and the practice of greeting him with gold still exists.

Though naturally, there is people who think that all these statements might be false and introduced after the Spanish conquest so who knows.

I assumed that when the O.P. talked about a King, he was referring to the semi-mythical King Quetzalcoatl, which is usually confused with the god also called Quetzalcoatl. I think he is supossed to have been a Toltec King or something of the sort, who was quite humanitarian for the time.

But maybe he was talking abaut the historical king of Texcoco.

The God chosen could be anyone, except Huitzilopotchli (IF you don't want human sacrtificas, of course). Quetzalcoatl is a good candidate.
 
Top