WI : Cortez is killed during the Siege of Tenochtitlan

For context


There seems to have been a moment where Cortez nearly died during the battle - I'm genuinely curious as to whether or not this could have led to an outright panic and failure of the siege and the consequences of that for OTL Mexico - would this still mean the end of the Aztecs? Or would they reform as a result? Would the Spanish have made a dangerous enemy in the New World?
 

samcster94

Banned
For context


There seems to have been a moment where Cortez nearly died during the battle - I'm genuinely curious as to whether or not this could have led to an outright panic and failure of the siege and the consequences of that for OTL Mexico - would this still mean the end of the Aztecs? Or would they reform as a result? Would the Spanish have made a dangerous enemy in the New World?
The outcome would probably be the same, but the Spanish have a harder road.
 
Unless the Aztecs realised they had to get their act together re subjects and managed to avoid giving the Spaniards native allies next time around.

If they can survive long enough they could even possibly play the Spanish and others off one another...

Likelier than not they are eventually defeated but the really interesting WI happens if they give the Inca enough time to recover from the plagues...IOTL it took the Spanish decades to conquer them entirely and that will definitely start to change if the English start propping them up...imagine Drake discovering them and later bringing them a bunch of guns (treasure fleets would still happen once Mexico is conquered b/c China trade)
 
Unless the Aztecs realised they had to get their act together re subjects and managed to avoid giving the Spaniards native allies next time around.

If they can survive long enough they could even possibly play the Spanish and others off one another...

Likelier than not they are eventually defeated but the really interesting WI happens if they give the Inca enough time to recover from the plagues...IOTL it took the Spanish decades to conquer them entirely and that will definitely start to change if the English start propping them up...imagine Drake discovering them and later bringing them a bunch of guns (treasure fleets would still happen once Mexico is conquered b/c China trade)

To be honest, I personally quite love the idea that a failure by Cortez leads to the English engaging in a trade relationship with the Aztecs. Aztec warfare in its own way wouldn't mesh with guns so well, but I reckon in a survive-or-die scenario, it is better to be able to win and then get captives.

Just imagine - English Iron being used to make cannons, that are then used by the Aztecs to maintain a new hegemony in terms of gunpowder-equipped fortifications in exchange for granting the English safe ports to trade in - and from which to dominate the Caribbean (easier pickings than the Aztecs being the rationalisation). Who doesn't like lots of Mexican gold for no effort? Sure the Aztecs are brutal to their subjects, but they're heathens anyway.
 
To be honest, I personally quite love the idea that a failure by Cortez leads to the English engaging in a trade relationship with the Aztecs. Aztec warfare in its own way wouldn't mesh with guns so well, but I reckon in a survive-or-die scenario, it is better to be able to win and then get captives.

Just imagine - English Iron being used to make cannons, that are then used by the Aztecs to maintain a new hegemony in terms of gunpowder-equipped fortifications in exchange for granting the English safe ports to trade in - and from which to dominate the Caribbean (easier pickings than the Aztecs being the rationalisation).

Who doesn't like lots of Mexican gold for no effort? Sure the Aztecs are brutal to their subjects, but they're heathens anyway.

Alternatively, Inca don't have the sacrifices problem. They also probably have more reliable saltpeter sources.
 
To be honest, I personally quite love the idea that a failure by Cortez leads to the English engaging in a trade relationship with the Aztecs. Aztec warfare in its own way wouldn't mesh with guns so well, but I reckon in a survive-or-die scenario, it is better to be able to win and then get captives.

At that time England was not a noticeable maritime (military or commercial) power so this is a pure anachronism. As for the sudden modification of Aztec warfare, things like that can't be changed overnight especially when they have well-established religious roots. Besides, the Spaniards ended up being just a "nucleus" of the force destroying the Aztec Empire: the bulk of the army were natives (mostly but not exclusively from Tlaxcala) who were so p---ed off with the Aztecs that they joined the Spaniards as soon as they demonstrated themselves as a strong military force. The Aztecs could not win against that combination and it is questionable if they could survive while loosing the vassal tribes. Of course, it is going without saying that after loosing the subdued areas they would not have any access to the sea coast making the whole notion of the English trade preposterous (their own land is red on the map below).
450px-Aztecexpansion.png



Just imagine - English Iron being used to make cannons, that are then used by the Aztecs to maintain a new hegemony in terms of gunpowder-equipped fortifications in exchange for granting the English safe ports to trade in - and from which to dominate the Caribbean (easier pickings than the Aztecs being the rationalisation). Who doesn't like lots of Mexican gold for no effort? Sure the Aztecs are brutal to their subjects, but they're heathens anyway.

An idea of the benevolent English interested exclusively in trade, helping to the "natives" and supplying them with the firearms is something from the old Hollywood movies or the books by H. Rider Haggard. Drake (who lived well after the events and as such is irrelevant), in case people forgot it, was a pirate, not a peaceful merchant and so were Walter Raleigh and the rest of the bunch all the way to Henry Morgan. The "peaceful" settlers (plantation owners of the Caribbean or those of New England) were not excessively friendly toward the natives either, especially as arming them and helping them to fortify their territories was involved so this idyll does not look very convincing.

Which "safe ports" the Aztecs would grant to anybody is another question: AFAIK, they did not have any ports and were not engaged or interested in any noticeable trade activities, just looting the subdued tribes and taking their members for massive human sacrifices. There were few pre-Cortes attempts to establish some contacts with the coastal tribes and all of them failed: the natives had been attacking the intruders.
 
As per the comment above, the Aztecs will still find themselves in dire straits*, seeming as they have no proper ports for trade with Spain's enemies, except for maybe the unreliable Chinese, even if they have learned valuable lessons for pragmatic warfare after fighting Cortez.

*Money for nothing, and the Tlaxcallans for free.
 
The Aztec would still likely fall. Everyone hated the Aztecs (it's no small coincidence that 50,000 or so natives sided with Cortes), and smallpox will ruin them.
 
Alternatively, Inca don't have the sacrifices problem. They also probably have more reliable saltpeter sources.

Care to expand on this?

At that time England was not a noticeable maritime (military or commercial) power so this is a pure anachronism.

Except we're on the cusp of its rise, and well into its interests to explore for new trade partners, at least 30 years into it since that was as much part of John Cabots mission as exploration.

Are they the most likely? No. But I was expanding on @Arcavius 's idea.

As for the sudden modification of Aztec warfare, things like that can't be changed overnight especially when they have well-established religious roots. Besides, the Spaniards ended up being just a "nucleus" of the force destroying the Aztec Empire: the bulk of the army were natives (mostly but not exclusively from Tlaxcala) who were so p---ed off with the Aztecs that they joined the Spaniards as soon as they demonstrated themselves as a strong military force. The Aztecs could not win against that combination and it is questionable if they could survive while loosing the vassal tribes. Of course, it is going without saying that after loosing the subdued areas they would not have any access to the sea coast making the whole notion of the English trade preposterous (their own land is red on the map below).

There were plenty of neutral parties who only joined them late into the Siege of Tenochticlan, well after when Cortez was nearly killed. If Cortes died, that could be deeply significant. It wouldn't the first time in history that a siege has collapsed after its leadership fell into disorder. Is it a guarantee, no. However brief the interlude as they determine leadership gives the Aztecs more time to destroy brigantines (as they had apparently figured out how to do), which radically improves their chance at surviving the siege.

However, yes - I would agree that even a surviving Aztec State, it isn't about to jump back into being an Empire, that would entirely depend on the post-siege diplomatic situation. My only assumption I'd be willing to make would be that the Spanish forces already on the ground are discredited, either leading to an unstable Spanish Mexico, a new Post-Aztec Coalition that dominates, or a return to the previous order minus the Aztecs - excluding the rise of an Aztec State.

An idea of the benevolent English interested exclusively in trade, helping to the "natives" and supplying them with the firearms is something from the old Hollywood movies or the books by H. Rider Haggard. Drake (who lived well after the events and as such is irrelevant), in case people forgot it, was a pirate, not a peaceful merchant and so were Walter Raleigh and the rest of the bunch all the way to Henry Morgan. The "peaceful" settlers (plantation owners of the Caribbean or those of New England) were not excessively friendly toward the natives either, especially as arming them and helping them to fortify their territories was involved so this idyll does not look very convincing.

As you said, the English aren't a power yet - but this is a timeline where (in one scenario, the one that I'm exploring) the Spanish have been defeated - and as you stated, the English don't have the same maritime power to project force to the Aztecs. Whilst I don't believe in a lovey-dovey English Empire, a trade relationship with whoever is the strongest Mexican force post-Spanish invasion is a wise move, and probably as far as they can go - and works to set up an ally in the New World against their long-term enemy in Spain.

Plus, we have examples of the English doing just this. The Triangular Trade. Whoever partners with a Mesoamerican player could well take advantage of their wars to buy captives from their wars. Closer source of slaves. Slaves and Gold for guns is still a good trade relationship. As for all the "Idyll" talk, uh - not going to disagree. However, there were also groups like the London and Plymouth companies.

Which "safe ports" the Aztecs would grant to anybody is another question: AFAIK, they did not have any ports and were not engaged or interested in any noticeable trade activities, just looting the subdued tribes and taking their members for massive human sacrifices. There were few pre-Cortes attempts to establish some contacts with the coastal tribes and all of them failed: the natives had been attacking the intruders.

However now we've had diplomatic relationships that have worked - even if we go with a "Spanish Failure" scenario. The chances Post-Cortes are different. They've seen the remarkable power of gunpowder, and even if we throw the Aztecs out the equation, anyone peripheral to the conflict would likely be interested in their own rise as a gunpowder empire.

TL;DR - I don't think you have the only scenario, but I'll happily accept different Mesoamericans and different Europeans being involved. (Even the Spanish potentially).

As per the comment above, the Aztecs will still find themselves in dire straits*, seeming as they have no proper ports for trade with Spain's enemies, except for maybe the unreliable Chinese, even if they have learned valuable lessons for pragmatic warfare after fighting Cortez.

*Money for nothing, and the Tlaxcallans for free.

(Heh, heh, heh).

True. In retrospect, short of some sort of rampage to the coast (revenge campaign to the coast? It'd be a fun timeline.) it'd likely be someone else partnering to buy weapons, but I still reckon that is a plausible scenario.
 
Care to expand on this?

Gladly.

Firstly, the religions aspect. While human sacrifices weren't exactly unknown to the Inti faith, there definitely was a quality vs quantity aspect relative to the Nahuatl--i.e. the Aztecs would sacrifice 40k captives, the Inca a royal child. Geopolitically, of course, this tended to piss off the subjects much less, while furthermore enabling the Inca to have a bit more flexible military doctrine since they didn't have to take so many captives. Not that it would matter for a little while...

Secondly, my point about saltpeter. There are two ways of getting the stuff: mining and by processing ammonia, i.e. by leaving urine and ash in a compost pile. Both methods are much easier for the Inca than the Aztecs. If they can figure out mining earlier than IOTL--likely if they have the opportunity to learn from the English--the rich mineral deposits of the Andes will be their friend. If they can't, but figure out the secret regardless, they have much more urine due to domesticated llamas and so can actually manufacture saltpeter.

So here is what I'd think would happen. Charles V, having heard of the annihilation of Cortez' expedition and not exactly enthusiastic at the idea of private citizens conquering themselves empires in the first place, bans conquistadoring in order to launch an assault on the Mexicans with massive force when he can be certain of victory. Of course, some still happens, but it can never really get anywhere.

Unfortunately for Charles, though, there's a rather incontinent German monk giving him problems at the moment, not to mention the Great Turk. Events play out in much of the 1500s as OTL, though maybe a little slower, with Spain--still rich from the Chinese trade via the Philippines and bases in Panama--fighting wars in Germany, Italy, and the Balkans. Finally, after the Peace of Augsburg and defeat of the Turk at Lepanto, Charles is ready to mount sustained offensives in Mexico. His troops conquer the balkanized Mexico in about 1580. Soon, they begin to hear reports of another fantastically wealthy kingdom to the south. But England and the Netherlands are giving the King problems, and once again he decides to focus only on Europe.

Yet in 1578, an English pirate by the name of Francis Drake had discovered the Inca already and--through Spanish-speaking natives or extremely lost conquistadores--established rudimentary relations with them. After the Armada is defeated as IOTL, Elizabeth recognizes that this kingdom is likely Spain's next target and begins selling them arms. Likely England colonises Argentina around the La Plata to facilitate, but sticks to the river only and does its utmost to avoid problems with the Mapuche. They begin selling arms to the Inca, as well as iron tools. The Inca, not being dumb, soon realise they're sitting on massive metal deposits and, due to this influx, begin a "metallic revolution". They wipe out the first Spanish expeditions that come calling, and the rest is history...
 
Secondly, my point about saltpeter. There are two ways of getting the stuff: mining and by processing ammonia, i.e. by leaving urine and ash in a compost pile. Both methods are much easier for the Inca than the Aztecs. If they can figure out mining earlier than IOTL--likely if they have the opportunity to learn from the English--the rich mineral deposits of the Andes will be their friend. If they can't, but figure out the secret regardless, they have much more urine due to domesticated llamas and so can actually manufacture saltpeter.

Very interesting but rather irrelevant dur to the fact that both Incas and Aztecs had been in the stone age and did not have any metallurgy.

So here is what I'd think would happen. Charles V, having heard of the annihilation of Cortez' expedition and not exactly enthusiastic at the idea of private citizens conquering themselves empires in the first place, bans conquistadoring in order to launch an assault on the Mexicans with massive force when he can be certain of victory. Of course, some still happens, but it can never really get anywhere.

The main problem with the above is a complete disregard of the existing realities. Spain could issue any number of the edicts but the fact remained that situation both on Hispaniola and Cuba was demographically explosive: too many Castilians waiting for the grants of land which was not available on the islands. Add to this that there were very few available occupations for the Spanish noble and that demand for the bird cages, and dancing lessons was limited what they were supposed to do? If one add to this a fact that Cortes' expedition was the 3rd (2 previous failed miserably) and that it was at least partially done against the governor's wishes (Cortes simply ignored governor's order to cancel expedition), the premise is anything but convincing. And if Cortes is dead during the siege of Tenochtitlan (AKA, after the riches of the land became known), it would be just a matter of the very short time before the next expedition is sailing (actually, it did sail before Cortes reached Tenochtitlan, he just took over the leadership). BTW, Cortes did not conquer empire for himself: from the very beginning the subdued/allied tribes had been swearing loyalty to Spain and as soon as Tenochtitlan was conquered Cortes claimed it for Spain.

But England and the Netherlands are giving the King problems, and once again he decides to focus only on Europe.... Finally, after the Peace of Augsburg and defeat of the Turk at Lepanto, Charles is ready to mount sustained offensives in Mexico. His troops conquer the balkanized Mexico in about 1580.

Taking into an account that Charles abdicated in 1556 and died in 1558, this is a plain nonsense. The same goes for the Battle of Lepanto (1571).

Yet in 1578, an English pirate by the name of Francis Drake had discovered the Inca already and--through Spanish-speaking natives or extremely lost conquistadores--established rudimentary relations with them.

The only reason why Drake was on a Pacific coast of the South America was his intention to loot the Spanish colonies there. No colonies, no Drake. Plus, all existing port cities on that coast had been founded by the Spaniards so how exactly the pirate would discover the Inca? Where these Spanish-speaking natives would come from if there is no Spanish conquest and why would the "extremely lost conquistadores" (whatever this is supposed to mean) act as go-betweens between the unconquered Incas and English heretics?

The rest is requires combination of the friendly ASBs, Elizabeth being an earlier version of Mother Theresa and the English pirates being converted into the Peace Corps volunteers. :winkytongue:
 
Last edited:

1. Both the Aztecs and Inca at least had enough knowledge of metalwork to create goods from gold--the stuff that brought the Spanish there in the first place after all--and my point was that the latter would quickly figure out more from the English if and when they started trading.

2. Sure that expedition has got pretty far but at the same time its complete annihilation so late into the game would greatly change what the conquistadores thought of their job. They thought that basically all of the Americas was filled with gold in many cases and were superstitious enough to believe in a fountain of youth, so I could easily see their own fears leading them in directions other than Mexico. If the King refused to recognize any of their conquests as legitimate colonies and instead declared any illegitimate conquistadores to be traitors to the crown conquistadoring would be highly discouraged. After all they knew that Spain would come someday and it makes more sense to wait for when you can join the King's army than give up all hope of ever getting to do anything with your gold among a massive population of people who don't speak your language and who eventually will mount large enough rebellions against you that you can't quash without regular reinforcements. See also how successful things like Pope's rebellion and the like in territories now part of the US were IOTL, and then put that situation in the entirety of Mexico. Hell, maybe conquistadores do illegitimately conquer Mexico, but I doubt they can hold it if the King refuses to send reinforcements, administrators, etc., and ultimately the area gains a reputation as a death trap.


3. My bad. Consider Charles V a poor metonymy for Spain as a whole.

4. Drake would still be on the pacific coast to get to Panama, which was a Spanish colony and a colony that would still need to be created in order to trade with China via the Philippines without having to go through oceans which, per Tordesillas, could not have established Spanish trade posts on their coasts. The idea of him communicating with the Inca through lost conquistadores might be a stretch but still, if he kidnaps an Inca and said Inca learns English he'll figure out a lot about the civilization he sailed by. From there, England has no capacity to conquer the region without a forward base, but every incentive to trade even if that trade is rather risky. Trade across Argentina via the Rio de la Plata might solve a lot of the issues in the long run; the English will recognize that they get a lot more for the investment trading than organizing a conquest. After all the Spaniards had a run of luck in the Americas with low-cost, high-risk expeditions, luck England--after Roanoke especially--didn't have. From there, the Inca can learn metallurgy either formally from English visitors or by trial and error. That, or the English try to conquer the Incas, fail (likely since they had more difficulty pitting various native factions/groups against each other), and let their weaponry and such fall into Inca hands that way. Any captives taken wouldn't be immediately sacrificed, so the Inca could learn metallurgy that way (the English at least knew enough to send skilled miners to the Americas, even if as it turns out you can't mine for food). The Apache and Mapuche both were largely able to modify their tactics in response to the Spanish; I see no reason the Inca could not do the same in response to the English. If anything they would have an easier time of it due to their more organized government structure.
 
1. Both the Aztecs and Inca at least had enough knowledge of metalwork to create goods from gold--the stuff that brought the Spanish there in the first place after all--and my point was that the latter would quickly figure out more from the English if and when they started trading.

The Aztecs would not start trading due to an absence of the sea ports (and because they were not into the trading to start with) and the same goes for the Incas. Then, of course, the whole scenario is based upon an assumption that the coming English ships are filled with the specialists in metallurgy ready to help the natives to discover the deposits of <whatever except for the gold> and ready to show how to make them into bronze and iron, how to make gunpowder, how to make the bombards and arquebuses, etc.

An idea of the Aztecs being fast learners is a very optimistic one: by 1521 they learned little and modified their tactics even less. They were still trying to capture the Spaniards with a purpose to sacrifice them while the battle was going on.

2. Sure that expedition has got pretty far but at the same time its complete annihilation

The thread name asks for Cortez death, which was probable, not for a complete annihilation of the whole Spanish force, which was not. At the worst (for the Spanish) case scenario the detachment personally led by Cortes could be pushed back (as it was) with Cortes being killed. However, this was not the whole Spanish force: for the attack it was divided into 4 divisions and some of the Spaniards had been on the ships which they built on Tlaxcala territory and brought to Tenochtitlan. Even if Cortes is killed during the attack shown in the video (earlier attack by Alvorado also had been repulsed but it did not mean annihilation of his division), there are still 3 divisions (plus whatever was left of Cortez detachment) and the ships with their commanders. They are either continue the siege (with the aqueduct being cut off by Alvorado, the defenders are in a very bad situation for a long-term defense because water in the lake is salty and poisoned by the corpses) or retreat (as they already did earlier after La Noche Triste), regroup, get reinforcements and attack again.

so late into the game would greatly change what the conquistadores thought of their job.

They thought: "we are going to get all that gold no matter what". Otherwise, they'd leave after the 1st offset. It is too late for the information to disappear because it is already had been communicated, the Indian allies are still there and ready to keep fighting and there are more Spaniards sitting on Cuba and Hispaniola with nothing to do and nothing to offer besides the military skills.

If the King refused to recognize any of their conquests as legitimate colonies and instead declared any illegitimate conquistadores to be traitors to the crown conquistadoring would be highly discouraged.

The main problem with this scenario is that it lacks any obvious logic. Why would Charles V do anything of the kind if expeditions cost him nothing and the 1st riches already reached him (IIRC, Cortes sent him some of the gifts before he reached Tenochtitlan)? Only decades later when the Spanish colonial empire already grew huge Phillip II ordered to stop the further explorations fearing that Spain is going to be depopulated. But this was after not before and Charles had different problems and priorities and a problem of the depopulation of Spain was not a pressing one.

Of course a picture of Francis Drake as a peaceful trader (slave trade excluding) is a very touchy one but it is completely divorced from a reality. BTW, colony in Panama was (at Drake's time) "was the point at which the silver and gold treasure of Peru had to be landed and sent overland to the Caribbean Sea, where galleons from Spain would pick it up at the town of Nombre de Dios." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Drake#Career_at_sea

Spanish galleons had been sailing to from Panama with the Peruvian gold to exchange it in Manila for the Chinese goods. In other words, no Peruvian gold, no meaningful Panama colony and no multiple Spanish ports along the Pacific coast. Nothing for Drake to loot. And definitely nothing for trade with the presumably interesting Incas (who could not be found anywhere close to the coast).
 
Last edited:
snippity-snappity-snip

1. I meant the Inca more than the Aztec for learning from the conflict. The latter had the issue of believing that the world would die if they didn't feed the gods every human heart they could, obviously discouraging tactical innovation. This was simply not a factor for the Inca. However I said both because I do not think it completely impossible for the Aztecs to learn.

2. Without Cortez I find it very unlikely that the Spanish forces manage to survive in anything other than ragged clumps making it back to the coast, whose stories would be quickly discredited more likely than not IMO. Furthermore I think it likely that one or more of the small groups of survivors treats the Natives rather terribly, discouraging them from the whole alliance thing.

3. Yes, but they think that the entire continent is filled with gold whilst one particular corner of it is filled with savages who can wipe out small armies of Spaniards. Thus the Spanish go elsewhere looking for gold, but consistently come back empty handed. Ultimately Mexico becomes a second Florida in a sense, but its unrealized value lies in gold rather than good agricultural land.

Alternatively, maybe the Conquistadores do conquer the Aztec. The question remains, can they hold it if the King explicitly refuses to lend any veneer of legitimacy to the colony and its simply rule by the strong? That's not a recipe for internal stability, and we know that the Spaniards will have to deal with revolts eventually further complicating matters.

Which brings me to 4. The King has a very strong interest in not allowing territories beyond his control. Why should he accept a little bit of gold now when he could get all of it, as well as a much more permanent power in the Americas, by waiting (what he thinks) is a couple of years, before of course things get out of hand (cf. Martin Luther)? Why should he take the risk of letting any man's word in the colonies acquiring more strength than his? Power and prestige are important in addition to gold, you know.

5. The first colony in Panama was founded in 1519 and by the early 1520s transisthmian roads were being constructed, well before the conquest of the Inca was any sure thing (particularly if you accept that ITTL the boldest of the Conquistadores will be in Mexico). This, in turn, suggests that a greater focus was initially thought to lie in the transpacific trade, rather than in stripping the Andes of resources. Thus Drake would still be sailing up the Peruvian coast to get to Panama and cross the Pacific from there along the Galleon trade routes and would likely make contact with the Inca at some point. Now, I do not dispute that Drake was perfectly capable of perfidy when the situation called for it. If anything, his first contact with the Natives in the Andes would be by kidnapping. But at the same time, I doubt that he or the English generally would refuse to trade with the Inca once it became obvious to them that, due to lack of a suitable base, they had no real hope of conquering them.

Down the road, I could see something like the following playing out:

1. Virginia is founded in OTL Argentina, with Jamestown at OTL Buenos Aires, with the Virginia co. thinking that they'll be able to find the same gold that the Inca are getting. Ports are established in OTL Chile to facilitate trade.

2. They realise that, due to the Atacama desert, it would still be rather hard to conquer the Inca, and trade begins with the English selling guns and food in exchange for gold.

3. Inca become something like a South American Iroquois, but have a much more defensible position. The Iroquois show that even a native group with extremely unreliable access to firearms can still be a major player, and I think that the Inca would figure out metallurgy much faster than the Iroquois did. Furthermore they have much more access to natural resources.

4. For a while the Inca serve as a buffer state between English and Spanish territory. Neither side really wants to provoke a war over it. Eventually someone might conquer them esp. in TTL independence movement but it's very hard to predict so long after POD.

This scenario essentially requires the Inca to survive ~80 years longer than IOTL. IMO, this is not a hard proposal. Remember that even IOTL, it took the Spanish almost fifty years to conquer Peru entirely, and they had a massive advantage in that they showed up just as a civil war was starting.

Assuming, as you insist, that Mexico is still conquered fairly soon after Cortez is killed, which I doubt for the above reasons, I would imagine that it takes the Spanish at least another 5 years to organise a new expedition and conquer the Aztec and 10 years, possibly closer to 20, to pacify the territory to the point where there are enough conquistadores who want to fight for Peruvian gold rather than Mexican Encomiendas that an expedition into Peru starts entering the cards. Without an ongoing plague and civil war, the Sapa Inca can crush the first arrivals at least four times out of five. Furthermore the Inca, unlike the Aztecs, have no religious reason not to adapt to Spanish warfare, and even if they don't adopt firearms the use of crossbows (bullets are easy to figure out relative to powder) and metal weapons and armor by the "King's guard" massively change the picture, as does the fact that the Inca can now prepare to counter the kind of warfare they will face (esp. basic anticav tactics). Thus, the Inca can consistently rebuff small Conquistador expeditions, building up their inventories of metal weapons/armor each time. The very system of conquistadoring that enabled low-cost expeditions to take out the two empires IOTL now plays against the conquistadores, none of whom want to wait until enough people have gathered for a full-scale army. Thus, the Inca can IMO easily last until the early 1620s for trade with England to come into play.
 
Last edited:
1. I meant the Inca more than the Aztec for learning from the conflict. The latter had the issue of believing that the world would die if they didn't feed the gods every human heart they could, obviously discouraging tactical innovation. This was simply not a factor for the Inca. However I said both because I do not think it completely impossible for the Aztecs to learn.

Taking into account that your "thinking" about the Aztecs is not supported by any evidence, it can be safely ignored.

2. Without Cortez I find it very unlikely that the Spanish forces manage to survive in anything other than ragged clumps making it back to the coast, whose stories would be quickly discredited more likely than not IMO. Furthermore I think it likely that one or more of the small groups of survivors treats the Natives rather terribly, discouraging them from the whole alliance thing.

Again, your "thinking" is not supported by any facts. Cortez' division at the moment when it could be killed amounted only to a fraction of the total Spanish force and there were numerous Indian allies hating Aztecs' guts. Spanish fleet on the lake (13 brigantines with artillery) was operational and Cortez' captains had been capable and experienced people. Death of Cortez would be an offset but not an ultimate disaster: the tactics was well-established, the resources were available and the stimulus was there.

Regarding "discredited" stories, it is too late: Spaniards already got a lot of treasure and some of it already had been sent to Charles.

Maltreating of the natives by the "small groups of survivors" assumes Spanish idiocy well beyond the reasonable limits. Besides physical impossibility, there was no reason to mistreat the allies whom you need (nothing of the kind happened after they were expelled from Tenochtitlan). Besides, even a normal "mistreatment" would be nothing comparing to what was expected from the Aztecs.

Alternatively, maybe the Conquistadores do conquer the Aztec. The question remains, can they hold it if the King explicitly refuses to lend any veneer of legitimacy to the colony and its simply rule by the strong? That's not a recipe for internal stability, and we know that the Spaniards will have to deal with revolts eventually further complicating matters.

Taking into an account that this would be a complete insanity justified only by your attempt to push through this schema of the Indian-friendly English, it does not make sense to discuss it seriously. Charles, who is always in debt, voluntarily rejects the treasures .... yeah, sure.

Which brings me to 4. The King has a very strong interest in not allowing territories beyond his control. Why should he accept a little bit of gold now when he could get all of it, as well as a much more permanent power in the Americas, by waiting (what he thinks) is a couple of years, before of course things get out of hand (cf. Martin Luther)?

Because there was no risk. All these territories had been claimed in his name and Luther had nothing to do with the Spanish colonial conquests. Oh, BTW, the initial loot sent to him was anything but "a little bit of gold" and conquest was promising much more on a steady base without any serious human or financial expenses.

<snip the rest>
 
Taking into account that your "thinking" about the Aztecs is not supported by any evidence, it can be safely ignored.

I have not disagreed with you that it is highly unlikely. However, given that this is an alternate history and we do not know for certain exactly what might have happened, I am not as reckless as you in saying that it would not happen with absolute certainty.


Again, your "thinking" is not supported by any facts. Cortez' division at the moment when it could be killed amounted only to a fraction of the total Spanish force and there were numerous Indian allies hating Aztecs' guts. Spanish fleet on the lake (13 brigantines with artillery) was operational and Cortez' captains had been capable and experienced people. Death of Cortez would be an offset but not an ultimate disaster: the tactics was well-established, the resources were available and the stimulus was there.

Yes but AFAIK there was none who could directly and immediately take command after Cortes' death, if only due to the fact that they wouldn't have learned of it for quite a while. We know from OTL that there were plots to depose and replace Cortes, so any vacuum of power would likely result in a succession crisis. Even if the Spaniards do not directly fight one another, there also will not be the leadership and coordination that were so vital to the final assault on the city. The tactical outcome of the battle is unchanged, but the siege and its aftermath are greatly altered. Perhaps the Spaniards can still take Tenochtitlan, perhaps not. Either way, discipline begins to break down as soon as leaders begin arguing over who should fill Cortes' shoes. Unless there is a unanimous choice, which there will not be, somebody will be sending assassins...

Regarding "discredited" stories, it is too late: Spaniards already got a lot of treasure and some of it already had been sent to Charles.


Maltreating of the natives by the "small groups of survivors" assumes Spanish idiocy well beyond the reasonable limits. Besides physical impossibility, there was no reason to mistreat the allies whom you need (nothing of the kind happened after they were expelled from Tenochtitlan). Besides, even a normal "mistreatment" would be nothing comparing to what was expected from the Aztecs.

The Spaniards even IOTL were known to enslave "traitors" from their native allies without consultation. IOTL, their advantages outweighed this heavy-handedness to their native allies. ITTL, with the Spanish fighting amongst themselves and not a tactically reliable, cohesive force, they become much more of a liability. Assuming they take Tenochtitlan, they have already destabilized the Aztec enough that the other natives can likely finish the job without them. There are still situations where the Spaniards take Mexico nonetheless, but without Cortes it becomes less likely and takes much longer to pacify.

Taking into an account that this would be a complete insanity justified only by your attempt to push through this schema of the Indian-friendly English, it does not make sense to discuss it seriously. Charles, who is always in debt, voluntarily rejects the treasures .... yeah, sure.

Because there was no risk. All these territories had been claimed in his name and Luther had nothing to do with the Spanish colonial conquests. Oh, BTW, the initial loot sent to him was anything but "a little bit of gold" and conquest was promising much more on a steady base without any serious human or financial expenses.

Ummm...do you mean other than the risk of the fact that the conquistadores are now alienating a potential ally/willing subject (as Charles will see it)? The Conquistadores have shown that they will send gold, but not more gold than Charles can get himself with much more security once he's dealt with the European issues. Furthermore, if he sends expeditions himself he will guarantee long-term control of the colonies lies with him and not with a rowdy band of independently-minded commoners. The long-term cost-benefit analysis works out much better for him if he puts the kbosh on royally sponsored conquistadores.

And I am fully aware that the English could be very savage when they wanted to or when the situation seemed to call for it (Pequot war, anyone?). But at the same time, they did show that they were willing to trade with natives whom they could not conquer outright, from their early relationships with the Powhatan and Narragansett to their later Haudenosaunee alliance. I see no reason why the Inca would be different, if they end up colonizing/conquering Argentina to provide a base to get to Peru with a secure flank in Portuguese Brazil.

And after their succession crisis was wrapped up, make no mistake, small bands of conquistadores couldn't conquer the Inca. IOTL they benefitted immensely from a country exhausted by civil war and without a prestigious and fully legitimate Sapa Inca. And even then, it took them until the 1570s to pacify the Quecha and establish full control over Peru. If the expedition is delayed even half a decade or less, which it will be with a less pacific Mexico, they will lose. The Inca, for the reasons I have mentioned several times, will be able to adopt their metal weaponry. Even if they never figure out mining, steel will last a long time when well cared for, and captured Spanish weapons or armor--as well as knowledge of and preparation to face cavalry--will greatly change the equation in the future. As populations recover from the Smallpox epidemic, things likewise get harder for any invader. The Inca surviving an extra 100 years at least is certainly not ASB, and if anything is the likelier outcome ITTL.
 
Top