WI a British Mexico and a British Peru?

What makes you think the English can't do deals with the Aztecs' enemies just as easily as Cortes did?
The main thrust of the argument was meant to be that the English if they did invade are likely to have to have the help of native allies to achieve an early victory like the Spanish did on OTL (The Spanish did occupy Tenochtitlan early on, but only by seizing Moctezuma and holding him hostage. They were later thrown out, so I don't think that was the victory people portray it as. To me the real victory came later at the siege of Tenohctitlan which destroyed the Aztecs.) without a much larger force than Cortez's. It is clear to me now looking back at it that my comments weren't clear to you that this was the point. I am sorry.


Cortes and his group of what 400 soldiers conquered an empire of millions. I'm going to throw it out there that ANY european country would be able to repeat the feat.
No he didn't conquer an empire with 400 soldiers. Cortez held the capital city of a loose empire hostage by holding the Emperor hostage after being invited in by him, then was thrown out of the city by a rebellion. Then to recapture Tenochtitlan he had to go back with an army of tens of Thousands of natives (plus Narvaez's troops) and then hold a siege for months. The conquest of the rest of the empire lasted for another couple of decades and that only after the overwhelming destruction of an independent coordinated defense and the arrival of man more Spanish. Yes, the English could have repeated this feat, but much of it had to do with luck (his path just happening to meet the Tlaxcallans, being able to ally with them, then him being able to capture Moctezuma and a host of other implausible things)


The English merchants realize just how backward these peoples' weapons are, reports are relayed back to the English metropolitan, and some of the Hispaniola or Cuba English garrison invades Mexico.
I have no idea about what England would be likely to do in this situation, but I do think (that as above) It would likely beharder to conquer the Aztecs as fast as the Spanish if they choose to invade.

The Spanish didn't trade with the locals because they realized that they could just conquer the locals. Trading requires you giving the locals stuff, while the better option is just killing some of them and stealing their trade goods (i.e. gold and silver).
See, I wasn't assuming that the English would just invade and succeed in the invasion as quickly as the Spanish did, and might therefore choose to trade. if they did conquer it then obviously yes they wouldn't trade with the Inca. I was only responding to some people's thoughts that the Inca would be better trade partners than the Aztecs.
 
I agree with the idea that the English may not have the luck that the Spanish did, for all of the reasons that you mention. And I further agree that the Inca may be better trading partners. But the major role that human sacrifices play in Aztec religion, and the huge wealth and power that the Aztecs hold, is going to force an English invasion. These people are not just practicing a strange or infidel religion, like Muslims or Hindus, they are killing hundreds of people in public ceremonies. To the European mind these people are without a doubt worshipping the devil, and they have tons of gold. Would the initial invasion be successful? Perhaps not, but in the end an English invasion would succeed, and with this success in mind the Inca, no matter how good of trade partners they may be, will in all likely hood also be successfully invaded by English forces. Again I think the overwhelming reason that any European force would succeed is because in the end the vagrancies of fate are no match for disease. European disease killed off mind-boggling numbers of people, knocking the native societies into chaos, and making the inevitable outside invasion assured of success.
 
One thing to recall....

The plagues will shatter Mesoamerica as badly as anything. Even if the English were willing to leave the Aztecs alone (fat chance), they are going down simply because thier surviving vassals will trade eagerly with the English while thier own army is shattered.

HTG
 
Cortez didn’t really conquer the Aztecs using a few hundred men. He actually had tens upon tens of thousands of Mesoamerican Indians on his side. If you take the situation and turn it sideways and squint a little bit you can say that Cortez was the determining factor on who won an ongoing civil war. His adventure almost failed at several junctures and is an amazing and unlikely success. Please; lets stop with the "If the Cortez could do it, any one could" talk.​

As mentioned up-thread, the recoquista gave early 16th century Spain a very different character than other nations. During the Recinquista local nobles, acting on their own, would organise military groups (perhaps not large enough to be called armies) to take nearby land. They enticed others to join their cause with the lure of spoils and promise of titles. These engagements were done with out the approval of or even knowledge of the king (much less financing from the king). If the effort failed, that failure was its own punishment. But if they succeeded they then received authorization for their actions, provided they gave 1/5 spoils and future revenue to the crown. This was a no-lose situation for the king. The Castilian tradition then encouraged small military groups to act on their own initiative. They were used to acting without prior authority, to being motivated by spoils, to organizing themselves and so on. This is exactly the behavior they continued when they reached the New World. Most of the famed Spanish expeditions were actually failures, and very few of them were financed by the crown. England had plenty of soldiers, but they did not have the same Reconquista traditions.​

It is interesting that both England and the Castilians both used "settlement strategies" in the New World. Actions in the New world that came from other areas (southern coast of Spain, Genoa, France, Dutch for example) often used a "mercantile strategy". Time proved the "settlement strategy" to be much more successful. So even though England lacked the tradition of the Reconquesta they were probably the group second most likely to succeed in the Caribbean.​

The English tended to want land to settle. If Indians were already on that land, then the English moved them out. This is not very nice, to be sure, but it is also very different from the things the Conquistadors did. The English would probably settle Espanolia (or whatever they chose to call it), grow sugar and develop a need for slaves. Slowly they would expand, pushing locals out as needed.​

---​

To be sure, a huge amount of silver and gold were gained from the conquest of the Aztecs, but the really massive amounts of wealth started flowing to Spain in 1530-1560 from the silver mines in Peru. In the 1560’s this already large amount quadrupled when new chemical techniques were developed for extracting silver. In the 16th century the amount doubled again. Lots and lots of money - but most of the "Aztec gold" was really silver from Peru. So the question may not be who conquers the Aztecs, but is who controls the mines in Peru.​

Without this money Charles V would not be able to fend off the Turks to the east nor the Protestants to the North. We have been talking about what an English Columbus might do to the New World, but the changes to the Old World may be more staggering.​

. . . but maybe not. Let’s imagine that Columbus’ first, and even his second, expedition follow the rout used in OTL. But then what? Spain would surly take note. They would send expedition of their own and make claims of their own. Due to geography, England would have a harder time with the colonies than Spain. Charles V also has more influence with the pope and his claims are more likely to ultimately be considered legitimate.​

So we would have English settled on Espanola, and Spain would settle somewhere else (Cuba?). The Castilian Conquistadors would still get a base to stage their adventures and things would follow the rough same lines as OTL.​

Maybe you need an different POD. One where the Reconquista is not over, and the Castilians are too distracted by local wars to become involved in the New World.​
 
Cortez didn’t really conquer the Aztecs using a few hundred men. He actually had tens upon tens of thousands of Mesoamerican Indians on his side. If you take the situation and turn it sideways and squint a little bit you can say that Cortez was the determining factor on who won an ongoing civil war. His adventure almost failed at several junctures and is an amazing and unlikely success. Please; lets stop with the "If the Cortez could do it, any one could" talk.​


So obviously the Spanish just rolled total sixes twice. The Spanish system was so outrageously good at producing soldiers that it produced the diplomatic-military geniuses of both Cortes and Pizarro. I don't buy that. I think that the history shows that the arrival of Old World diseases combined with pre-existing political conflict among the natives, made the Aztec Empire very unstable. Cortes arrived at a particularly good time, and conquered the whole thing before the Aztec Empire had a chance to fly apart, so maybe a different European power takes longer to take over, but take over they will. Not once in the history of Native American resistance were the natives able to hold out in the long-term against the Europeans.

As mentioned up-thread, the recoquista gave early 16th century Spain a very different character than other nations. During the Recinquista local nobles, acting on their own, would organise military groups (perhaps not large enough to be called armies) to take nearby land. They enticed others to join their cause with the lure of spoils and promise of titles. These engagements were done with out the approval of or even knowledge of the king (much less financing from the king). If the effort failed, that failure was its own punishment. But if they succeeded they then received authorization for their actions, provided they gave 1/5 spoils and future revenue to the crown. This was a no-lose situation for the king. The Castilian tradition then encouraged small military groups to act on their own initiative. They were used to acting without prior authority, to being motivated by spoils, to organizing themselves and so on. This is exactly the behavior they continued when they reached the New World. Most of the famed Spanish expeditions were actually failures, and very few of them were financed by the crown. England had plenty of soldiers, but they did not have the same Reconquista traditions.

So the soldiers were trained to be good small unit fighters. That must have come in handy when commanding those armies of tens of thousands of Mesoamericans.

The Spanish had a strong system for creating soldiers, but the disease and technology, not soldiering ability, was what gave the Spanish (and indeed all Europeans) the overwhelming, civilzation crushing, edge in OTL.

It is interesting that both England and the Castilians both used "settlement strategies" in the New World. Actions in the New world that came from other areas (southern coast of Spain, Genoa, France, Dutch for example) often used a "mercantile strategy". Time proved the "settlement strategy" to be much more successful. So even though England lacked the tradition of the Reconquesta they were probably the group second most likely to succeed in the Caribbean.
The English tended to want land to settle. If Indians were already on that land, then the English moved them out. This is not very nice, to be sure, but it is also very different from the things the Conquistadors did. The English would probably settle Espanolia (or whatever they chose to call it), grow sugar and develop a need for slaves. Slowly they would expand, pushing locals out as needed.​


And the English had the experience of settling Ireland, a process in which they established themselves as overlords of the Irish. They did move some of them out for settlement, but they did not commit large-scale genocide on the scale witnessed on the Anglo-American frontier. The Spaniards on the other hand drove out the Muslims, and they kicked any that remained out of the country. If anything I would think that the English history in Ireland would point to them being the less brutal occupiers. Afterall, the Irish have their own country, but Muslims of Andulusia are no where to be seen . . .

To be sure, a huge amount of silver and gold were gained from the conquest of the Aztecs, but the really massive amounts of wealth started flowing to Spain in 1530-1560 from the silver mines in Peru. In the 1560’s this already large amount quadrupled when new chemical techniques were developed for extracting silver. In the 16th century the amount doubled again. Lots and lots of money - but most of the "Aztec gold" was really silver from Peru. So the question may not be who conquers the Aztecs, but is who controls the mines in Peru.

Once the Aztecs fall, I think that the example would drive further conquests, as per OTL.

Without this money Charles V would not be able to fend off the Turks to the east nor the Protestants to the North. We have been talking about what an English Columbus might do to the New World, but the changes to the Old World may be more staggering.
. . . but maybe not. Let’s imagine that Columbus’ first, and even his second, expedition follow the rout used in OTL. But then what? Spain would surly take note. They would send expedition of their own and make claims of their own. Due to geography, England would have a harder time with the colonies than Spain. Charles V also has more influence with the pope and his claims are more likely to ultimately be considered legitimate.​

So we would have English settled on Espanola, and Spain would settle somewhere else (Cuba?). The Castilian Conquistadors would still get a base to stage their adventures and things would follow the rough same lines as OTL.​

Maybe you need an different POD. One where the Reconquista is not over, and the Castilians are too distracted by local wars to become involved in the New World.​

Charles V's rise to become "Universal Emperor" was so improbable that he is going to be butterflied away, at least as King of Spain.

The Americas aren't interesting until one finds the gold. And whomever finds the gold will then defend it. There is a reason that the Spaniards maintained control over their empire against other European powers for so long, that kind of wealth motivates you to defend it. If the English happen upon Aztec Gold and Inca Silver first, then they will have the wealth and motivation to make sure that it stays English.
 
England had a very different culture, a different religion (predominantly Anglican and Protestant) compared to Roman Catholic Spain. England also had a very different way of establishing and governing her colonies, a very different view of them as a commercial enterprize. The Spanish seemed too tied to just one comodity, gold. The British seemed much better at being commercially prosperous at getting a variety of comodities from their colonies. Many of the former British colonies were and are more prosperous and stable than most of the former Spanish colonies both before and after they became independent, at least England's North American colonies plus Australia and New Zealand.

I think because of the differences between Spain and England in terms of culture, religion, government, commerce, a British Mexico and Peru would have resulted in a very different Mexico and Peru today in TTL.
 
So obviously the Spanish just rolled total sixes twice. The Spanish system was so outrageously good at producing soldiers that it produced the diplomatic-military geniuses of both Cortes and Pizarro. I don't buy that. I think that the history shows that the arrival of Old World diseases combined with pre-existing political conflict among the natives, made the Aztec Empire very unstable. Cortes arrived at a particularly good time, and conquered the whole thing before the Aztec Empire had a chance to fly apart, so maybe a different European power takes longer to take over, but take over they will. Not once in the history of Native American resistance were the natives able to hold out in the long-term against the Europeans.

History shows the opportunity was there, not that it was easy or pre-destined. Cortez and Pizarro fought against overwhelming odds. The longer to take over a European power takes, the more resistant and organized the natives become. Even if epidemics continue because of European contact, at some point they are not as psychologically devastating as they once were.

I also wonder if an English discovery of the New World would prompt England to go North, rather than South in its conquests. Explorers would quickly find OTL New England, Newfoundland, and Canada which are far easier to reach from England than Mexico is. Also, will England's position be secure enough to make devoting significant energies to such a peripheral theater a good idea?
 
Not once in the history of Native American resistance were the natives able to hold out in the long-term against the Europeans.
The new Maya on the Yucatan held out for a couple of centuries, the Mapuche held out for 350 years or so. If this isn’t "long-term" then we don’t yet know if the USA will become a major power in the "long-term".​

So the soldiers were trained to be good small unit fighters. That must have come in handy when commanding those armies of tens of thousands of Mesoamericans.
Well these "small units" had hundreds of men or thousands of men in them - similar to the size of expeditions in the New World.​

-----​

A lot has been made of the Cortez and Pizarro arriving when the Aztecs and Incas were fighting "internal" wars. But the thing is, they were usually fighting wars. The same is true in North America. What did the Europeans do up there?​

The French were friends with the Huron and supplied them with guns and other goods. But the Mohawks were still able to completely wipe out the Huron. A little later the French became friends with the Mohawk. -- The behavior is very different than the Spanish (but then the Iroquois didn’t have a central empire flush with gold and silver either).​

When the English came to America they settled in separate non-unified colonies. Local tribes tried to use alliances with nearby English factions to gain advantage in their long historical fights against other tribes. The English factions used alliances with some tribes to help them against other tribes and to inconvenience other English factions.​

If the English did this sort of thing in Mesoamerica then one English settlement/faction would ally with the Tlaxcalans, another with the Aztecs, another with the Cholula and so on. The English would be happy to see local tribes fighting each other but may not necessarily venture out to topple the whole kettle of fish. There was a great deal of loot to be had in the New World and there are a lot of strategies that could be used to get it.
 
Top