There's a big difference between "The Aztec reacted ineffectively to Cortez, they might also screw up a response to something else" and "The Aztecs were overstretched weaklings and hated by their subject people so fiercely that its amazing they lasted long enough for Cortez to show up". This is getting old. As stated by a more knowledgable man than myself: The only reason they rebelled because they weren't the ones doing it to the Aztecs. Considering the amount of years this gives the Aztec Empire to not worry about the white man in giant "wooden mountain" and using giant beasts of war for several decades, it gives the Aztecs a lot of time to eliminate the Tlaxcallans, their main nemesis besides the Purepecha, and to further centralize their empire. Then again, collapse is also a possibility but I wouldn't say it's guaranteed no matter what. And this: https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=5779618&postcount=51 Seriously, why are you so insistent on the idea that the Aztecs are a sickly weakling of an empire? Why would a victorious general automatically be disloyal to the emperor, to use one of the things you seem to be throwing out just because?