WI: Aztecs slaughter the Conquistadors?

Bronze is not stone. The inca, given a decade would be catching Europe up, with its huge manpower (due to compulsory civil cervace), gold and resources to trade.

Inca would stomp any civilisation upto the romans, which were advanced for their time, and some of its successors.

A decade? Seriously? Please explain how the Incans would be able to, in a decade, go from tinkering with bronze to major production of weapons-grade steel, a process which took Eurasia two thousand plus years.


This is one of my pet peeves about this site. It is assumed that if the Aztecs and/or Incans can beat off the first European attack, they can cram a few thousand years of military technological development (because in this context, that is what matter) in about .1% of the time.
 
Last edited:
A decade? Seriously? Please explain how the Incans would be able to, in a decade, go from tinkering with bronze to major production of weapons-grade steel, a process which took Eurasia two thousand plus years.


This is one of my pet peeves about this site. It is assumed that if the Aztecs and/or Incans can beat off the first European attack, they can cram a few thousand years of military technological development (because in this context, that is what matter) in about .1% of the time.

It must be said the Mesoamericans need to resist the Spanish, not to walk the whole two millennia. If you tell me "without contact, the Incas would have reached European tech level in twenty years" I am going to laugh in your face. If, instead, you tell me "with prisoners, models, and a couple of decades, the Incas might have had the means to better resist the Spanish"...you probably are right. They aren't going to reach much beyond that any time soon, though. They are still racing against time, and after denying the initial invasions they will need to use everything to get to semi-modern levels before the second great wave of colonization happens.
Sadly, societies rarely have that kind of focus. But it can happen.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Next time I'm in Guatemala with the gente,

This the thing is south of the border natives did a lot better at resisting Europeans then is commonly believed in the u.s.

Next time I'm in Guatemala with the gente, I'll ask about that.

In Spanish.

Probably over by the Cathedral.

After Mass, of course.

Best,
 
Next time I'm in Guatemala with the gente, I'll ask about that.

In Spanish.

Probably over by the Cathedral.

After Mass, of course.

Best,
Yeah, because this guy totally screams "Devout Catholic saint":

320px-Maximon_-_Lago_Atitlan.jpg
 
For the record, I'm not trying to say that a Spanish/European victory overall is a fluke when it comes to Mesoamerica and the Inca, but how it went down in OTL was through a lot of sheer luck. There are plenty of plausible scenarios where the Natives can come out on top or not suffer so much the brunt of colonization. And it really gets old when people write it off, especially in a smug matter. Yet gods forbid someone suggest the Mongols could have burned Europe to the ground...
 
Last edited:
For the record, I'm not trying to say that a Spanish/European victory overall is a fluke when it comes to Mesoamerica and the Inca, but how it went down in OTL was through a lot of sheer luck. There are plenty of plausible scenarios where the Natives can come out on top or not suffer so much the brunt of colonization. And it really gets old when people write it off, especially in a smug matter. Yet gods forbid someone suggest the Mongols could have burned Europe to the ground...

You know what? I agree; this is a matter of bias, and I'm sorry if I'm making other people angry with this accusation.
 
You know what? I agree; this is a matter of bias, and I'm sorry if I'm making other people angry with this accusation.

It wasn't directed at you, or even anyone necessarily in particular. Overall it was meant for those who just write off Americas' indigenous powers, and disregard any exploration of a different outcome even in the aftermath of a Spanish victory, or perhaps a lesser one. This debate has been argued over and over, and I've seen it argued 3 times since the later half of this past year alone.
 
It wasn't directed at you, or even anyone necessarily in particular. Overall it was meant for those who just write off Americas' indigenous powers, and disregard any exploration of a different outcome even in the aftermath of a Spanish victory, or perhaps a lesser one. This debate has been argued over and over, and I've seen it argued 3 times since the later half of this past year alone.

I was agreeing with you, Othryside.
 
Yeah, because this guy totally screams "Devout Catholic saint":

Yeah, given that Catholicism is already arguably a merger of European paganism and Christianity, it's spread into the New World simply allowed Native paganism to be added to the mix.

What I think people don't realize is that the Spanish in many instances weren't trying to destroy Native culture. Missionaries tried to learn Native languages and gain converts by working with the local cultures, and while the Spanish themselves were brutal, Indians were worth far more alive to them than dead due to their need for labor. Not exactly an image of joining hands and singing "we are family" but not a recipe for 'wiping out' the larger indigenous cultures either.

Dragos Cel Mare said:
You know, I don't think that this statement, while true, would stop TFSmith from being the smug and rude jerk I pointed him out for.

While I understand that it's easy to get frustrated in these debates, I think it's best to keep a degree of sangfroid (which I admit is hard to do for something as emotionally troubling as the colonization of the Americas). TFSmith may not mean to come across so strongly. And if he does, it's a matter for the mods to adjudicated, not for us to flip out about.
 
Yeah, given that Catholicism is already arguably a merger of European paganism and Christianity, it's spread into the New World simply allowed Native paganism to be added to the mix.

Oh, wow. Glad I'm only nominally in the Church, then.

While I understand that it's easy to get frustrated in these debates, I think it's best to keep a degree of sangfroid (which I admit is hard to do for something as emotionally troubling as the colonization of the Americas). TFSmith may not mean to come across so strongly. And if he does, it's a matter for the mods to adjudicated, not for us to flip out about.

I thought that merely pointing out bad behavior was within the rules.
 
Oh, wow.

/filler.

I should hasten to add that I am a lapsed Catholic, and my opinion does come from 'the inside' rather than reading Chick tracts or other such nonsense.

But it is my personal opinion that asking saints to pray to God on your behalf is ultimately a thin Abrahamic theological drape laid over a long history of polytheism. For that matter, I believe the same about Muslim pilgrims in Mecca praying around the large black stone that just happened to once be the center of a pagan temple, and who knows what gods were once worshipped alongside YHWH at the temple mount?
 
But it is my personal opinion that asking saints to pray to God on your behalf is ultimately a thin Abrahamic theological drape laid over a long history of polytheism.
Then again, living people were also asked to intercede on the people's behalf (even Protestant branches do this), to the point it became a sort of weird industry. So it's not exactly the same as paganism (though it certainly didn't hurt in converting pagans; then again, many pagan gods were also converted into demons, as well).
 
Top