WI: Original population in Spanish Mexico

So, Mesoamerica was apparantly very populated before the Spanish came along. The Tarascans, a rival state of the Aztecs, managed to raise 100,000 warriors when a party of Spanish came along and the Aztecs had around 300,000 themselves.

So, what if the smallpox and other diseases hadn't eradicated most of the Mesoamericans? You might say that it'd be impossible for the Spanish to control such a large population, but this is a what if scenario that's about Spain controlling Mesoamerica, despite everything, even if it's impossible for them to do so, even if it wasn't very clear in the title. What kind of effect would it have on Spain to have full control of a fully populated, rich land like pre-Spanish Mesoamerica?

Also, some off topic questions:

Why were the Mesoamericans and other isolated peoples susceptible to European diseases but not the people of Subsaharan Africa? Besides some contact at the coast, I thought there were never any contact between Europeans/Arabs and Subsaharan Africans.

Also, could you compare pre-Spanish Mesoamerica to say, Greece, when it was still in its city-state form? The Aztec Empire reminds me of the Delian League and there were lots of city states in Mesoamerica apparantly.
 
Last edited:
So, Mesoamerica was apparantly very populated before the Spanish came along. The Tarascans, a rival state of the Aztecs, managed to raise 100,000 warriors when a party of Spanish came along and the Aztecs had around 300,000 themselves.

So, what if the smallpox and other diseases hadn't eradicated most of the Mesoamericans? You might say that it'd be impossible for the Spanish to control such a large population, but this is a what if scenario that's about Spain controlling Mesoamerica, even if it wasn't very clear in the title. What kind of effect would it have on Spain to have full control of a fully populated, rich land like pre-Spanish Mesoamerica?

I doubt they would be able to maintain control for too long. Even in OTL the first 2 generations or so were rather nominal. And it took them much longer to subdue the Incas. If the Mesoamerican does not suffer the severe drop in numbers it did, the moment a leader arises to rally/unify the natives against the Spanish, they will win.


Why were the Mesoamericans and other isolated peoples susceptible to European diseases but not the people of Subsaharan Africa? Besides some contact at the coast, I thought there were never any contact between Europeans/Arabs and Subsaharan Africans.

Because the diseases were not European per-se, they were Old World diseases. Diseases come from living in close proximity to animals. The Old World, had pigs, horses, cattle, sheep, etc. In this case Africa had more disease to give to Europe and the New World than vice-versa, hence Malaria and Yellow Fever (which wrecked as much havoc in the New World as Small Pox).

Without living close to any large domesticates, the New World population never adapted to such diseases. The Andes had the Llama, but for some reason that wasn't enough. (Though there is some debate whether or not syphillis was a New World disease that made the jump the other way around).
 

Seraphiel

Banned
Yeah not exactly going to happen, the diseases were old world, the native americans simply had not adapted to the diseases like the Europeans.

That reminds, isnt there a TL of a Native American cilization domesticating small pigs and growing accustomed to a certain diseases, I think by tuovulture.
 

PhilippeO

Banned
Several large islamic empire exist in Sahel. also there are internal trade route connecting the coast with internal subsaharan Africa.

There are also problem of genetic diversity, Americans genetic diversity is very low, which make their immune system weaker when dealing with disease.
 
Top