so since I have been reading more about the conquest of the Aztecs won during the siege of Tenochtitlan the population is bloodied but the Aztecs can start rebuilding my question is would this lead to a slower conquest of Mexico as the Spanish don't want to try at the capital again so they go for the edges of the empire since its weaker and or can it lead to a rump state of the Aztec in the sense that the Spanish have conquered a lot of territories but cant take of this last hold out if something like this does happen Imagine with the Spanish taking more time in Mexico that delays southern American expansion for a time and maybe they don't attempt to conquer the inca assuming the aztec war is prolonged
Slower conquest of mexico or aztec rump state?
- Thread starter Silver01
- Start date
-
- Tags
- aztec conquistador spanish
Paladín Wulfen
Kicked
Ahmmm well. The Siege of Tenotichtlan was a Venetian mix stalingrad medieval battle. The Spanish countered almost every Aztec tactic.
Archers in boats - Spanish ships with gunners and cannons.
Barricades in the bridges - Cavalry charges or artillery.
Massive manpower - Aztec enemies who were attacked during years for slaves and want revenge.
Aztec CQC - Spanish Tercios Veterans
yeah hence the scenario of they win but there bloodied a scenario i can see is the assult in Tlatelolco ends in complete disaster with more forces and Cortes death
Paladín Wulfen
Kicked
Maybe with some difference... Cortes die and his lieutenants fight each other even someone attack his allies (olid for example)
Paladín Wulfen
Kicked
Maybe... 10 or 20 years. The Reign of Carlos I of Spain was notable for the colonial conquest. The word of a civilization with gold ensure a fast movilización for Expeditions.
The siege and reduction of Tenochtitlan was overwhelmingly accomplished by the Tlaxcalan allies; the guns, crossbows, horses, steel, dogs, and discipline of the Spaniards certainly aided, but the Aztec's local rivals were what enabled the conquest, as Cortez knew and appreciated full well. Not unlike Caesars campaign in Gaul, actually, now that I think of it, and IMO Cortez is somewhat underrated as a political and military leader given the magnitude of what he accomplished.
There are quite a few ways to derail Cortez' conquest- for instance, have the Tlaxcalans murder thr Spaniards instead of negotiating an alliance (IIRC the crown prince ended up dying fighting them, perhaps have his father die sooner?). I would also note that the Spanish were already in firm control over Hispaniola, Cuba, and settling Panama, all of which had gold IIRC, so even without Mexico (and Cortez did not end up there by coincidence- he in effect jumped the gun on his superior, since rumors of the Aztecs were already swirling about) Spain has colonial footholds, and the Aztecs are a rather unstable empire about to be hit by disease on tip of the Conquistador waves and local revolts and rivalries.
The biggest change vis a vis MesoAmerica is probably no Mexico City or unified Mexico, instead of a series of slow-growing colonies and outposts and several expeditions.
There are quite a few ways to derail Cortez' conquest- for instance, have the Tlaxcalans murder thr Spaniards instead of negotiating an alliance (IIRC the crown prince ended up dying fighting them, perhaps have his father die sooner?). I would also note that the Spanish were already in firm control over Hispaniola, Cuba, and settling Panama, all of which had gold IIRC, so even without Mexico (and Cortez did not end up there by coincidence- he in effect jumped the gun on his superior, since rumors of the Aztecs were already swirling about) Spain has colonial footholds, and the Aztecs are a rather unstable empire about to be hit by disease on tip of the Conquistador waves and local revolts and rivalries.
The biggest change vis a vis MesoAmerica is probably no Mexico City or unified Mexico, instead of a series of slow-growing colonies and outposts and several expeditions.