What countries/regions could have survived European colonization?
- Thread starter Kordo
- Start date
What is the POD? With the right one, everywhere east of the Americas; perhaps not even all of it should alternate colonisers appear
You know, a PoD doesn't have to center around Europe or making American civilizations on the same level of development as Europe so as to avert colonization. It's not as if the Spanish conquest of the Americas was preordained by God the second Cortez stepped off a boat into Cuba or something, even if most of the board seems to think so.
Parts of India definitely. The Middle East with a strong regional power (Turk, Persian or Arab). Major African empires could have stopped the Euros (Ethiopia for example).
I am not sure how true and deep it is, but I always heard Aztecs and Incas, since they where a form of imperialists (it's empires) faced local dislike to say the least, and who know, in a close future without european invasions, well... maybe one of those empires would have faced at least local invasions.
I means, I have by example a chilean buddy who told me the Incas's southern extension was stopped by the northern Mapuches. No love lost there.
Maybe one day, balkanization of the Aztecs by example...
I don't think balkanization of the aztecs could occur since thier empire was not cetralized at all, i would be more like a kingdom losing control of its principal noble or them turning into warlords. Aztec's was never an empire in the typical way, moreover, their governing structure was contructed from the union, IIRC, of noble families or similar tending to a council. The power was distrubuted from the middle of that. A structure created from a combination of other smaller ones rather than a system imposed from above.
Incas on the other hand were forming thier empire recently, their diminion had existed for a century before Cortés. Yes, they were extraordinary but the history hadn't put them to test yet too much or their empire had existed for long enough to enter a state of decay. Even it is arguable that no consolidation had come to the yet. Also, there is no such thing as Incas despised for their empire for expansionistic ways. Oncas were the upper nobility and warriors. The 90% of the population were locals who instead of paying tribute to A or to B they payed to the incas. Think about it as the osmosis of the empire rather than conquest, they used to send messengers to the borders to trying to bring the hegemony of their culture. OF COURSE there was war and domination, I don't deify what they did or anything nor i'm a fan of their history but it was not as bloody as most think. Mapuches didn't have a society complex enough nor even at least centralized (there was never a mapuche city, not even a town) to pay tribute or adapt to Incas costumes so they fought. That was not true for the north, due to the influence of the empire and commerce they developed with them their society more.
I don't know about the aztecs but in a full out war they could last a lot longer tha most people imagine; don't take it wrong, it was not invading russia in winter but i could be a lot harder for the spanish. Enough for the kingdom to let them be for left alone for some years and colonize around.
Incas on the other hand were forming thier empire recently, their diminion had existed for a century before Cortés. Yes, they were extraordinary but the history hadn't put them to test yet too much or their empire had existed for long enough to enter a state of decay. Even it is arguable that no consolidation had come to the yet. Also, there is no such thing as Incas despised for their empire for expansionistic ways. Oncas were the upper nobility and warriors. The 90% of the population were locals who instead of paying tribute to A or to B they payed to the incas. Think about it as the osmosis of the empire rather than conquest, they used to send messengers to the borders to trying to bring the hegemony of their culture. OF COURSE there was war and domination, I don't deify what they did or anything nor i'm a fan of their history but it was not as bloody as most think. Mapuches didn't have a society complex enough nor even at least centralized (there was never a mapuche city, not even a town) to pay tribute or adapt to Incas costumes so they fought. That was not true for the north, due to the influence of the empire and commerce they developed with them their society more.
I don't know about the aztecs but in a full out war they could last a lot longer tha most people imagine; don't take it wrong, it was not invading russia in winter but i could be a lot harder for the spanish. Enough for the kingdom to let them be for left alone for some years and colonize around.
Aztecs yes. The alliance with Tlaxcala was instrumental in Spanish conquest and control of the region. Without it, you could forget about Spain/Europe conquering Mexico for a few decades until diseases have killed off most of the population.
The Incas less so (they were a newer Empire created out of the alliance/merger of 4 previous entities). But they were just recovering from a nasty Civil War, which the Spanish used to their advantage. The population still put up a fight until the late 1500s, when diseases and war had taken such a big toll that they capitulated. More than the Aztecs, had the Incas been a united front against the Spanish, they might have kept their independence to some degree. And - though much less likely - had they had non-centralized economy capable of surviving a shift into free trade, they would have definitely stayed independent.
I think the Inca, or some successor state would have fared better than the aztecs. Could they have survived as a vassal of Spain?
They stopped Spain too. It wasn't until the later part of the 19th Century that the Chileans finally subjegated them.
They stopped Spain too. It wasn't until the later part of the 19th Century that the Chileans finally subjegated them.
I'm well aware, but while conquest wasn't pre-ordained, disease sort of was. I'm not an expert on diseases and how they transfer, so I'm not sure if there's a chance to avoid that mess, but if it's there, then absolutely a POD in the Americas themselves would be awesome indeed.
What is popularly known as the Aztec Empire was actually a triple alliance of three city-states and their nations/tribes (the Mexica, Acolhua, and Tepaneca who ruled from Tenochtitlan, Texcoco, and Tlacopan respectively) who together created a hegemonic empire they shared the leadership of. Well, mostly shared, Tlacopan only got 1/5th of the tribute whereas Tenochtitlan and Texcoco each got 2/5ths and Tenochtitlan was able to exert more power and influence thanks to their larger population and bigger army, as well as the fact they controlled the important trade city of Tlatelolco. Still though, the Tepanecs and Acolhua were still considered equals of the Mexica. And leadership of each city wasn't exactly a family-run oligarchy of the form you describe, though nobles maintained all the important positions and were often if not usually related to each other. The Huey Tlatoani was the paramount leader, with the Cihuacoatl as the sort of second in command and in charge of mostly domestic issues, like a sort of vizier or prime minister. Then there was the advising council of four generals. The tlatoani generally filled these slots with relatives and upon their death they'd choose someone among them to be the next tlatoani. So it wasn't really a hereditary monarchy, but yeah, it generally ran in the family.
The problem is that saying that the diseases were the biggest factor in the colonization of the Americas, while true, is an extreme simplification that tends to make people blind to what really happened. The existence of these diseases and the fact they killed millions doesn't mean that the Native-Americans were a doomed people as long as smallpox and the like existed in the world or they didn't have their own version or whatever. I find one of things AH.Commers get wrong is that history isn't composed of grand movements and deterministic themes or whatever. People here seem to too often forget that history is human.
There are so many little things that could be changed without being drastic like saving prehistoric megafauna (not to say twovulture's TL isn't good) or what have you to avert colonization, at least in specific events. What would happen if the slave girl Malinalli wasn't given to Cortez among the other gifts from the chieftains in Tabasco? Without a loyal translator willing to screw over the Mexica, how could Cortez take over the Aztec Empire? And if his expedition was seen not as a triumphant example of how adventurers could topple native empires to claim riches, but instead the third catastrophically failed attempt in a row, the impetus for colonization in the Americas takes a massive blow. People aren't as excited as gold and riches anymore, and people will be far more cautious or skeptical as to their chances of survival should they try to strike it out as some sort of conquistador. It's a ripple effect and it can't be ignored, humans aren't robots who during specific eras were programmed to destroy and plunder without regards to their own survival or success.
And another point, people here seem to ignore that the Americas have their own history before Columbus, or so it would seem as most people seem so extremely hesitant to have a colonization POD that occurs in American history rather than European or Asian history. Things happened in America that given the right ripples would result in a massively different New World that the Europeans couldn't exploit the way they did IOTL. It doesn't have to be extremely grand either. Change the result of a single battle in Maya history that took place in the year 695 AD, and you could avert a catastrophic social collapse that happened over a hundred years later, prolonging the highest period of development in the Mesoamerica region which would likely result in a much stronger (and different) Mesoamerica come 1500, and since European history wasn't changed it'd still be the first place on the mainland visited, which would change the way America was colonized to be sure.
Going by that era, having the American Revolution fail would probably help the Iroquois a lot, or at least the tribes that supported the British. They didn't all help the Brits so that might lead into some troubles. Going the other way, I wonder if some tribes would be given the same sort of independence owing to their alliance with France should the French and Indian War end differently. France had their own native allies who could possibly exert more independence at the expense of the British colonists in America should the French win.I was originally thinking of a later POD than being discussed here, closer to 1600 or 1700 than the Spanish conquest of the Americas. BUT please keep the Inca/Aztec discussion going! I find it interesting
Perhaps the introduction of syphilis from the New World could have been more prominent?
-South East Asia
-South Asia
-Africa
I think there is a chance for MesoAmerica and the Inca areas..
-South Asia
-Africa
I think there is a chance for MesoAmerica and the Inca areas..
MarshalBraginsky
Banned
Ethiopia comes to mind, although didn't Siam survived European colonization?