WI: Pre-Columbian cultures survive or avoid the Conquistador period

[Viola]

Let's say that Cortés' expedition ends up in a total failure, as it might have had if the native allies Cortes found in Mexico were less friendly or if he failed to find a decent interpreter, and the Spanish authorities in Cuba care little since Cortes was a mutineer at that point. Let's then say that Cortes' failure leads to a less bold attitude from the Spanish in America, it obviously butterflies away Pizarro, and the Pre-Columbian civilizations in the Americas avoid being subjugated almost overnight and have their culture and society devastated (although the devastating European plagues are still coming for them).

What are the prospects for the surviving Amerindian civilizations?
The Incas have probably the best odds thanks to their good bureaucracy and safe geographical position (although they may end up isolated), but the Mesoamerican people are more divided and also with Spanish forces pretty close to them in Cuba. The Aztec Empire may still probably collapse on its own between the plagues and the pre-existing internal unrest that Cortes historically took advantage of, and at that point another league of city states may take over (Mesoamerican politics always reminded me of Classical Greece) but that would also leave them vulnerable to European adventurers. Is some kind of European expansionism in Mexico inevitable or can the Mesoamerican city states retain their independence through strategic conversions to Christianity or an alliance against the Europeans (a la Greco-Persian Wars, to repeat the similarity)?

Are the Mississippian Cultures boned anyway since it seems that weather changes and plagues did most of the work with them?
Could other Pre-Columbian people that aren't in the Andes or Central America grow in their own ways thanks to these changes?
How long would it take for Pre-Columbian nations to put themselves on par with Europeans considering that they start with considerable delays in metallurgy and shipbuilding?

And, culturally speaking, what would be the consequences and reactions worldwide in the short and long period to the Andean and Mesoamerican cultures surviving instead of being taken over and almost wiped out?

 

[BELFAST]

I am not sure them becoming Christian would make any difference.
Europeans were there to steal land and loot the place no matter what religion people had.
Repeated waves of disease would make any surviving states vulnerable to conquest.

 

[Umbral]

Disease is indeed the 800-pound gorilla here. Maybe a Nepal like hermit Inca state in the mountains. But either some way of dealing with the epidemics is needed, or slowing down European interest significantly.

 

[Lusitania]

Sorry even if the Inca or Aztec had not been conquered the effect of old world diseases would of eventually destroyed the empires and regardless of conquistadors would of conquered they be destroyed from within or by their native enemies.

 

[Silver01]

Sorry even if the Inca or Aztec had not been conquered the effect of old world diseases would of eventually destroyed the empires and regardless of conquistadors would of conquered they be destroyed from within or by their native enemies.

Disagree with the Inca atahualpa and hussars civil war was the biggest thing that occured
Sure the inca had populations that hated them but it's not like they didn't also suffer from the plague
The empire even despite the plagues and the conquistador and their native allies where 1 battle and siege away from driving the conquistadors to the coast and maybe even the sea.

The inca empire may expirince a crisis like the one of the third century with spliting but it's no assured that the empire would fall .

 

[Abd ar-Rahman II]

Sorry even if the Inca or Aztec had not been conquered the effect of old world diseases would of eventually destroyed the empires and regardless of conquistadors would of conquered they be destroyed from within or by their native enemies.

I mean the Inca have a descend chance of surviving the diseases weakened and destabilized but surviving . Best best case for the Aztec is them falling back to their core region and hoping managing to continue their hold onto it all their other tributary are lost .

 

[riggerrob]

What if conquestadors were weakened by a New World disease?

 

[Lusitania]

I case that Spanish are not as successful the fact is that Native Americans will still be greatly weakened due to old country diseases and many tribes will either be destroyed or greatly weakened and nothing can prevent that.

Many stories of tribes that comprised of tens of villages with advanced structures being reduced to few villages basically just surviving a few generations later. If no conquistador then that be the date of many of the tribes that Spanish conquered.

The conquest may not happen iotl but will happen

 

[snerfuplz]

Disease is indeed the 800-pound gorilla here. Maybe a Nepal like hermit Inca state in the mountains. But either some way of dealing with the epidemics is needed, or slowing down European interest significantly.

Disease is indeed the issue. The Inca were in theory the best suited but they were weakened by small pox that also triggered a civil war of succession

 

[Insane Ranter]

What if conquestadors were weakened by a New World disease?

What would be a good candidate? I think you just get the English, French, Dutch, or another European power to replace the Spanish if just Spain is affected.

 

[Gabingston]

What if conquestadors were weakened by a New World disease?

Didn't syphilis spread from the New World to the Old World?

 

[SunKing105]

Somehow get Variola Minor evolve earlier(though that might be ASB), and spread through the Americas first, giving them immunity to the deadlier form of the virus. While there are a whole host of other diseases that will greatly reduce native numbers, you might not see a total-collapse scenario, "merely" a severe strain on native social structures and societies. Also get Pachacuti to institute better succession laws, to prevent the destructive effects of civil war, and have the Aztecs make serious reforms to their empire, to keep their tributaries in line. Nezahualcoyotl's idea of "Lord of Everywhere" gaining popularity as an alternative to the human sacrifice demanding gods of the traditional Mesoamerican pantheon would also help.

 

[GameBawesome]

If Aztec and Inca survived, I believe it would has have to pull a OTL Kingdom of Hawaii, which leads to risks. Diseases will take a major, MAJOR, toll on the Native Population, and if they want to Westernize, they would have to make trade treaties and concessions with European. But like I said, it could lead to a Hawaii, in which European merchants and settlers may outnumber the Native Population, who died off because of disease

(off topic, but Cortez dying is a POD in a timeline I’m writing in the ASB forum, I should really get back into that)

 

[SunKing105]

If Aztec and Inca survived, I believe it would has have to pull a OTL Kingdom of Hawaii, which leads to risks. Diseases will take a major, MAJOR, toll on the Native Population, and if they want to Westernize, they would have to make trade treaties and concessions with European. But like I said, it could lead to a Hawaii, in which European merchants and settlers may outnumber the Native Population, who died off because of disease

(off topic, but Cortez dying is a POD in a timeline I’m writing in the ASB forum, I should really get back into that)

Absolutely no way that's happening. Despite the tolls of disease and colonization, the indigenous population of Mexico wasn't outnumbered until 1590, and a significant factor due to Mestizos. Native labor was still extensively used in Peru, heck, the mass graves at Potosi alone proves that. And the Spanish colonization model wasn't even to settle the place, but simply exploit it using a small ruling class and extract as much gold and silver as possible, so outnumbering the natives would be a hard task, at least in the early days. With unconquered Aztec and Inca, where Europeans are not likely to settle and may be restricted to the coast, it would be even less likely. The circumstances surrounding Hawaii were very different.

 

[GameBawesome]

Absolutely no way that's happening. Despite the tolls of disease and colonization, the indigenous population of Mexico wasn't outnumbered until 1590, and a significant factor due to Mestizos. Native labor was still extensively used in Peru, heck, the mass graves at Potosi alone proves that. And the Spanish colonization model wasn't even to settle the place, but simply exploit it using a small ruling class and extract as much gold and silver as possible, so outnumbering the natives would be a hard task, at least in the early days. With unconquered Aztec and Inca, where Europeans are not likely to settle and may be restricted to the coast, it would be even less likely. The circumstances surrounding Hawaii were very different.

You make a very good point. I may have underestimated the population of Natives in Mexico.

On that note, if Europeans only settle the coast and set up trading posts, and no Europeans try to conquer the larger native kingdoms, how the Columbian Exchange be altered? Like how would livestock and food effect independent Mesoamerican and Andean cultures and diet, and how much would Christianity take hold in Native kingdoms

 

[Lusitania]

Absolutely no way that's happening. Despite the tolls of disease and colonization, the indigenous population of Mexico wasn't outnumbered until 1590, and a significant factor due to Mestizos. Native labor was still extensively used in Peru, heck, the mass graves at Potosi alone proves that. And the Spanish colonization model wasn't even to settle the place, but simply exploit it using a small ruling class and extract as much gold and silver as possible, so outnumbering the natives would be a hard task, at least in the early days. With unconquered Aztec and Inca, where Europeans are not likely to settle and may be restricted to the coast, it would be even less likely. The circumstances surrounding Hawaii were very different.

But Hawaiian example is over a long period and people trying to compare that to Mexican conquest in the 16th century. What people are saying is that we will have a conquest and settlement at different pace and may take to 18th-19th century but it will happen as disease, war and disease will weaken the natives no matter where they are and Europeans or native groups associated with Europeans will invade and conquer them.

 

[SunKing105]

You make a very good point. I may have underestimated the population of Natives in Mexico.

On that note, if Europeans only settle the coast and set up trading posts, and no Europeans try to conquer the larger native kingdoms, how the Columbian Exchange be altered? Like how would livestock and food effect independent Mesoamerican and Andean cultures and diet, and how much would Christianity take hold in Native kingdoms

I think that Jesus get's incorporated as another god in the Pantheon in Mesoamerica, and certain aspects will be syncretized, comparison can be made with the Eucharist and the sacrifice the gods made for humanity in Aztec myth. Coastal altepetl might accept Christianity to further define themselves in opposition to the Aztecs or whoever else replaced them. Human sacrifice will eventually be discarded, priests will find that no matter what they do the disease is still ravaging their lands and tributaries are breaking away. European animals and metallurgy will likely eventually be adopted, though at relatively slow pace. As for the Andes, the state religion of Inti-worship and the emphasis on the divinity of the Sapa Inka as the son of the sun and his representative on earth, as well as the importance of their mythology in their ideology and rule, will not fade, and I see a Japan-like situation as more plausible, a Christian undercurrent in a pagan society, especially since disease and potential societial collapse would motivate people for finding an alternative, but Andean religion is too integral to the Incas and maintaining their empire to be compromised, and can't be sacrificed for a nebulous promise of "better relations" with the rapacious and untrustworthy Spaniards anyway. I imagine we see similar trends among cusine that we saw with conquest IOTL, except with lesser European influence. The crops that the Mesoamericans and Andeans have are more efficient in terms of calorie-per-acre, and they have thousands of years of experience in cultivating them, but I can imagine that European animals would be adopted and would be popular among the elites. And the post-contact environment could lead to all sorts of new cults and religions emerging as well.

 

[Gwyain]

Sorry even if the Inca or Aztec had not been conquered the effect of old world diseases would of eventually destroyed the empires and regardless of conquistadors would of conquered they be destroyed from within or by their native enemies.

This is far too deterministic. The Americas are going to have a huge problem with diseases, but that doesn't have to mean they'll be bulldozed. Diseases and population loss are recoverable given enough time. The Americas had the double whammy of disease and conquest at once from which there was little they could do. Without the example of Cortez, Spanish Conquistadors may be slower to expansion. His conquest of Mexico and the wealth and fame it brought him were significant influences on the Pizarro Brothers for example.

For my part, I do think most of Mexico and Central America will eventually fall to the Spanish. Once there's known to be gold there the Spanish will be interested regardless of Cortez's success or failure and the Spanish can launch expedition after expedition from their launch point of the Caribbean. With that said, their were Maya holdouts until nearly 1700, so with a slower conquest its quite possible to see more holdouts that make it longer. The Andes are another matter, both the Inca and the Muisca have secure positions that are far from the Spanish centres of power and held on for a while OTL. The Inca in particular only fell after a specific serious of events that Pizarro took advantage of. If he isn't there at the right time, then the conquest of the Inca will be much more difficult. Europeans aren't destined to take over everything they set their gaze on after all.

The other important thing is, if Spanish effort is being focused on Mexico until later in time, that means disease has time to hit population centres in the Andes and Central America where they can become endemic. Avoiding huge losses isn't going to happen, but the population decline can't solely be blamed on disease either Spanish slavery and warfare were huge confounding factors. Without those, the population has time to recover some before the next hypothetical Conquistador comes down to the Andes.

 

[Lusitania]

This is far too deterministic. The Americas are going to have a huge problem with diseases, but that doesn't have to mean they'll be bulldozed. Diseases and population loss are recoverable given enough time. The Americas had the double whammy of disease and conquest at once from which there was little they could do. Without the example of Cortez, Spanish Conquistadors may be slower to expansion. His conquest of Mexico and the wealth and fame it brought him were significant influences on the Pizarro Brothers for example.

For my part, I do think most of Mexico and Central America will eventually fall to the Spanish. Once there's known to be gold there the Spanish will be interested regardless of Cortez's success or failure and the Spanish can launch expedition after expedition from their launch point of the Caribbean. With that said, their were Maya holdouts until nearly 1700, so with a slower conquest its quite possible to see more holdouts that make it longer. The Andes are another matter, both the Inca and the Muisca have secure positions that are far from the Spanish centres of power and held on for a while OTL. The Inca in particular only fell after a specific serious of events that Pizarro took advantage of. If he isn't there at the right time, then the conquest of the Inca will be much more difficult. Europeans aren't destined to take over everything they set their gaze on after all.

The other important thing is, if Spanish effort is being focused on Mexico until later in time, that means disease has time to hit population centres in the Andes and Central America where they can become endemic. Avoiding huge losses isn't going to happen, but the population decline can't solely be blamed on disease either Spanish slavery and warfare were huge confounding factors. Without those, the population has time to recover some before the next hypothetical Conquistador comes down to the Andes.

The idea that war was solely the product of European actions is incorrect. The Aztec and the other native natives in North America for example were weakened by disease but their empires and nations were destroyed by rival native tribes. These wars were influenced and a direct result of European meddling.

There is evidence that a few explorers or traders were sufficient to bring diseases to “virgin” area. The tribe’s social structure snd strength would be affected by the disease and as both you and many of us have stated on their own they would of recovered. Unfortunately every tribe had an adversary or enemy and at time of weakened they were besieged and attacked. The attacking tribe then got contaminated too and took the disease to their villages and towns. This repeating the cycle.

To simply say that tribes would recover is wrong. That they would not be decimated by Spanish conquistadors is correct (at least not in same time as iotl) but the cards were stacked against them and they would suffer repeated attacks of disease well into the 18-19th century like iotl.

 

[Wendell]

Nature abhors a vacuum, particularly one in which a massive deficit of technology and tactics exist.