would the Aztec empire have endured until present day if it wasn't for the Europeans?

T-rex blood

Banned
suppose a virus wipes out most of the old world in 1450 or something, do you think the Aztec empire would still be here today?
 
Last edited:
Not likely, or at least not in a particularly recognizable form. All empires are ephemeral, and I doubt the Triple Alliance would be any exception to that rule. That said, it was particularly well-run, and it covered a larger amount of territory than previous Mesoamerican states... I could see it become something along the lines of a Mesoamerican Rome, it's culture and administration serving as a template for later empires and Classical Nahuatl remaining as a prestige language. You could even have "Byzantine" analogues breaking off of it as it grows larger than its administrative capacity can handle.
 

NothingNow

Banned
suppose a virus wipes out most of the old would in 1450 or something, do you think the Aztec empire would still be here today?

Probably not. There would be a sucessor state, but I doubt the Triple Alliance itself would still be around today. 500 years is a rather long time for things like that, especially considering the fractiousness of the valley of Mexico, and the manner in which the Empire was conducted. Just look at what happened to Azcapotzalco if you want an example.
 
Nope. Not at all. If it weren't for Cortez or some other European explorer arriving on the coast, I suspect the Aztec Empire was doomed to fall at some point in time. As to who overthrows them and takes up the mantle of being the dominant power in Mexico, I suspect either the Tarascans or the Tlaxcallans to be the ones to replace them. I don't really think there was much of anyone within the Aztec Empire's sphere of influence that could replace Tenochtitlan.
 
Nope. Not at all. If it weren't for Cortez or some other European explorer arriving on the coast, I suspect the Aztec Empire was doomed to fall at some point in time. As to who overthrows them and takes up the mantle of being the dominant power in Mexico, I suspect either the Tarascans or the Tlaxcallans to be the ones to replace them. I don't really think there was much of anyone within the Aztec Empire's sphere of influence that could replace Tenochtitlan.
I wouldn't be so sure. The Tarascans were not as strong as people give them credit for. Sure, they had bronze knives, but they also weren't exactly populous and their prowess really only laid in defeating Aztec expeditionary armies sent to their land. They weren't exactly the kind of people I can see taking Central Mexico. Nor are the Tlaxcallans, for that matter. They were in a worse position, surrounded by the Triple Alliance and militarily weaker. The Mexica were just whittling them away for quite a while until Cortez showed up. I cannot see a way for them to suddenly take Central Mexico. Cholula IIRC already turned their backs on them and once things got really rough I can see Huexotzingo doing the same. The only place that could possibly replace Tenochtitlan as a seat of power in Central Mexico was Texcoco, which was already one of the leading cities of the empire.
 
I actually agree with Hummingbird. The Tarascans and Tlascalans seem to be the obvious go to alternatives if the Aztec Empire were to fall.

Tlascala might enjoy some expansion and perhaps be the major power in Central Mexico, that is if nothing else replaces Tenochtitlan in Central Mexico. The Empire might simply be reformed into something new, Texcoco is a good candidate her.e

But I would look outside the Aztec sphere of influence to find a true new power. The Aztecs connected most of Mexico and trade would have by now brought products and innovations to some of the fringes that would otherwise not have them. Judging from how they fared against Spanish cultural assimilation, a Zapotec revival would be an interesting path. The Oaxaca valley has a more reliable climate pattern than central Mexico, and easier access to both coasts, if something were to develop here it could become something quite interesting.
 
I actually agree with Hummingbird. The Tarascans and Tlascalans seem to be the obvious go to alternatives if the Aztec Empire were to fall.

Tlascala might enjoy some expansion and perhaps be the major power in Central Mexico, that is if nothing else replaces Tenochtitlan in Central Mexico. The Empire might simply be reformed into something new, Texcoco is a good candidate her.e

But I would look outside the Aztec sphere of influence to find a true new power. The Aztecs connected most of Mexico and trade would have by now brought products and innovations to some of the fringes that would otherwise not have them. Judging from how they fared against Spanish cultural assimilation, a Zapotec revival would be an interesting path. The Oaxaca valley has a more reliable climate pattern than central Mexico, and easier access to both coasts, if something were to develop here it could become something quite interesting.
The Zapotecs were a shell of their former selves, the Mixtecs were more powerful by this time. But I have heard that the heirs of 8 Deer Jaguar Claw intermarried with the Zapotec rulers, fusing the most powerful Mixtec and Zapotec lineages, so they might be considered a single grouping in general. And I guess they would be, other than the Triple Alliance members, the most likely people to dominate Central Mexico.
 
The Zapotecs were a shell of their former selves, the Mixtecs were more powerful by this time. But I have heard that the heirs of 8 Deer Jaguar Claw intermarried with the Zapotec rulers, fusing the most powerful Mixtec and Zapotec lineages, so they might be considered a single grouping in general. And I guess they would be, other than the Triple Alliance members, the most likely people to dominate Central Mexico.
Zapotecan revivalism?

I could see several pacific coastal city states arising in that region (or maybe a little further south) conducting large-scale trade between the Incans, Mayans, and Aztecs (or whatever succeeds those polities). Similar to the ancient Phoenicians.
 
I rate Aztec survival for another nearly 500 years as unlikely but not impossible. Their structure required a long series of strong rulers and really needed continued expansion. On the other hand, the Assyrians managed to hold together an empire that was structurally not too much more advanced than the Aztecs for an awful lot of centuries, so I suppose it isn't impossible.

The Tarascans were a near-term threat to at least block further expansion to the west, though some historians claim that the Tarascan strategy of absorbing subject people was less efficient than the Aztec one of hegemony, given the poor transportation available to the powers.

Over five hundred years I think the Aztecs would have to worry about (1) Innovations coming from South America to Western Mexico. There was an intermittent seaborne trade between Ecuador and some of the poorly known but reasonable civilized groups of Western Mexico. There would be a continued flow of new technology, such as metallurgy. Peruvian civilizations had a long lead over Mexican ones, and the flow to Western Mexico would have given that area an edge. Eventually, I suspect that llamas would make the trip to Western Mexico, though as highland animals it would take a while for them to adapt to the lowlands and be integrated into Ecuadorian culture enough to make the leap to Western Mexico. Llamas would revolutionize the cultures that adopted them, and the Aztecs would probably be late adopters.

(2) Chichemics, which is an umbrella term for tribes that were outside of or on the northern fringes of the civilized areas. The term sometimes included tribes like the Cazcanes who were quite populous and, as the Spanish found out in the Mixton rebellion, quite good at this whole war thing. Chichemics would be a continuing challenge for the Aztecs, partly because of the north-south gradient in quality of bows. There were several centuries worth of innovations in bow quality stored up in North America that hadn't reached Aztec Mexico yet. The Chichemics would probably adopt those innovations first, or get pushed aside by tribes like the Apaches who did. If llamas got to Mexico, they would probably be eagerly adopted by the nomads to the North of the Aztec area, who would grow more powerful and more populous as they adopted this meat source/beast of burden. As they gained population they would become a more formidable threat to the Aztec.
 
My question is, would Nahuatl speakers continue to dominate Anahuac? My understanding is that the Nahuatl dialects were widespread in the region for centuries before the Aztecs rose to power, which undoubtedly worked in the Aztecs' favor. Would that factor hinder the rise of an outside language group, like the Purepecha-speaking Tarascans? If not, could an outside language like Purepecha actively replace Nahuatl, or would they to languages be forced to live alongside as with Quechua and Aymara under the Incas?
 
My question is, would Nahuatl speakers continue to dominate Anahuac? My understanding is that the Nahuatl dialects were widespread in the region for centuries before the Aztecs rose to power, which undoubtedly worked in the Aztecs' favor. Would that factor hinder the rise of an outside language group, like the Purepecha-speaking Tarascans? If not, could an outside language like Purepecha actively replace Nahuatl, or would they to languages be forced to live alongside as with Quechua and Aymara under the Incas?

My idea was that Nahuatl dialects would eventually diverge and live alongside or absorb the languages of the Empire's eventual invaders/dismantlers, with Classical Nahuatl remaining as a prestige language (preserved by the phonetic Maya-like-in-structure writing system the Mexica were very close to developing). Think of it like Latin, its descendants, and the languages of the peoples who invaded the Roman Empire.
Of course, that's just if you buy my "Mexica as Mesoamerican Romans" theory :p
 
My question is, would Nahuatl speakers continue to dominate Anahuac? My understanding is that the Nahuatl dialects were widespread in the region for centuries before the Aztecs rose to power, which undoubtedly worked in the Aztecs' favor. Would that factor hinder the rise of an outside language group, like the Purepecha-speaking Tarascans? If not, could an outside language like Purepecha actively replace Nahuatl, or would they to languages be forced to live alongside as with Quechua and Aymara under the Incas?

The Purepecha-speakers were an extremely small minority that ruled a mixed population of Nahuas and other Indian groups. I think it would continue to exist but it'll decline gradually in use like Aymara.
 
The Purepecha-speakers were an extremely small minority that ruled a mixed population of Nahuas and other Indian groups. I think it would continue to exist but it'll decline gradually in use like Aymara.

They did eventually assimilate the other groups under their rule, didn't think? Would they be able to accomplish the same with additional control over the much larger Aztec territory? Might they perhaps go the route of the Manchus under the Qing dynasty, adopting the language and culture of their conquered subjects?
 

Thande

Donor
Absolutely not. This is one of the biggest clichés of AH. The Aztecs were on their way out long before Cortez showed up.

The great irony is that, if Europeans had arrived in Mexico even 50 years later, nobody nowadays except specialists would know about the Aztecs--they would be an obscure footnote in Mexican history no better known to the general public than the Olmecs or Toltecs.
 
Absolutely not. This is one of the biggest clichés of AH. The Aztecs were on their way out long before Cortez showed up.

The great irony is that, if Europeans had arrived in Mexico even 50 years later, nobody nowadays except specialists would know about the Aztecs--they would be an obscure footnote in Mexican history no better known to the general public than the Olmecs or Toltecs.
Actually, this is one of the biggest cliches on AH.com. The Aztecs were not nearly as close to collapsing as people generally try to make them look, and they weren't exactly obscure, in addition to create what is probably the largest Mesoamerican state since Teotihuacan (possibly larger, hard to tell how big Teo's empire was), they also had the largest and most advanced city and an advanced society. In any case, they may have had a lot of enemies but they weren't on the verge of collapse. Who'd destroy them? The Tarascans were a frontier people desperately fighting off repeat Aztec invasions. The Tlaxcallans were on the verge of being destroyed by the Aztecs, having been surrounded and being bled out slowly through all the Flower Wars. Without Cortez and his goons they are surely doomed to be crushed.
 
It would almost certainly fall, but its fall would have more to do with a period of sustained drought and crop failure than popular rebellion.
 
Fifty years is a little early - I'd say the empire would probably be around then - but five hundred years is a fairly intense stretch. What evidence I've seen indicates that large-scale states were short-duration things in Meso-America. And even in Eurasia where the technology was better for it the six-hundred year empire was an uncommmon beast.
 
Top