If the natives had immunity to European diseases, would the Spaniards still have taken down these two empires?

If the natives had immunity to European diseases, would the Spaniards still have taken down these two empires?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Australia_(1788–1850)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Australia_(1788–1850)
anyforums.com/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

bump.
I don't know much about this topic myself, hoping to see some interesting discussions.

It's not like indians were wiped out in those places.

Well I don`t know nothing about the Incas but Aztecs were doomed because every other tribe hate them and they allied with the spanish.

If you analyze it. Native americas were at one point the most widely dispersed human race in this world. All of them having O+ blood type. That speaks a lot especially if the survival of a race depends on the size of the area they occupy.

That itself is a way larger area than the land the greeks, romans and mongols ever occupied.

Knowing that war allies have more often than not have been groups of the same group---and humans have loved wars been-- than the american aboriginals have for the most part feuded with outsiders and must have had mastery over weapons and water vessel construction. Than they by nature should be very defensive of their homeland. History and geography explains it.

Unlik their European counterparts, that are not european aboriginals by history but by faith alone. This is speaking in the light of fossils that have revealed that the earlier european settled people were olive skinned. It has always been speculated by anthropologists with european knowledge that the groups that incorporate the Modern european race were driven there by the tribes of the south and the tribes of the east. The old testament, if you observe the lingo, saw fair skin as disgusting and disease carriers. And white people are spoken of with such raunchiness that that earlier bible editors had to correct it. They say if you want to trace the origin of the white people all you have to do is trace the domestication of the pig.

>They say if you want to trace the origin of the white people all you have to do is trace the domestication of the pig.

:^)

>The old testament, if you observe the lingo, saw fair skin as disgusting and disease carriers. And white people are spoken of with such raunchiness that that earlier bible editors had to correct it. They say if you want to trace the origin of the white people all you have to do is trace the domestication of the pig.

Source?

Now going into war tactic. The most powerful war tactic to date is for all human beings in one area to be homogenous. It means they are self sustaining geographically and biologically. However that means they are also prone to the same diseases, the most famous disease they were wiped out by is the small-pox virus. However this can be a racial slander as it can denote their shorter statures.

What is not explainable would be their lack of immunity to the "small pox." You see there are way more viruses in the tropics than in europe and asia combined. Why wouldnt a similar virus to the small pox virus, originating in their region, not immunize them?

Some viruses form protection from other Viruses. Meaning if you catch virus a, virus b and virus c will not harm you. And interchangebly...and so forth.

>we wuz profits n shit

It is said that in the middle east and africa pig farming was not tolerated even prior to the introduction of the abrahamic faiths because it was seen as an outside custom. So those who raised pigs, by logic, mustve come out of a similar group.

I know people who come out of a scientific christian group whom through the centuries have believed that the pig is the first genetically modified animal, and that science has always been advanced. So they never eat it because it is forbidden or allowed. They dont eat it because it was the first blemish caused by science in the world. The second blemish to them is the ignorant faith of conquest. They believed we have come out of a recent tabula rasa and those in authority have been selectively picked to fulfill the conquest that needs to occur.

Yes, they would have collapsed, just not at the same speed and in the same numbers. Their civilizations were very weak socially and technologically speaking.

Dubt it, desease played such an important role in the conquest of America, in most cases it was smallpox what secured the safety and success of Cortes and Pizarro's enterprises.

ie. the Incas and the Aztecs would have crushed the spaniard expeditions if not because their emperors died either before contact with europeans (Huayna Capac) or right in the middle of war (Cuitlahuac)

I think the Aztecs were ready to collapse due to ongoing strife. The spaniards were just a trigger to push them over the edge.

I think they would have much less success with the Inca, though conquest would still be inevitable sooner or later.

>spaniards would have had a hard time with a Glorious Maya Empire if they hadn't been retards that divided themselves and kill each other and mix with other unpure mexican cultures before they could even face the spanish faggots

Nah. Both the Aztecs and Incas were in a civil war. Cortez and Pizarro used mainly cunning in their conquest,that plus a superior martial tradition were enough to take the cake for themlselfs.

>if they hadn't been retards that divided themselves
>other unpure mexican cultures
Never go full divide m8

in my speculation, I doubt it would have happened without the diseases. I don't know about the Inca, but I know that the Aztecs actually defeated Cortez in Tenochtitlan when he first tried to take over, and it was only after the city was in shambles from disease several weeks later that he was able to come in and destroy the city. Of course, the Spaniards could certainly have taken over if they'd really wanted to, but they had other stuff going on which would probably have prevented them from attempting it. Who really knows though.

it would be like Africa with coastal colonies and independent tribes on the continent

Probably not. The Spanish had a lot of native allies.

Definitely, the Incas didn't have metal weapons, and were easily defeated by the Spanish in combat.

I'm Peruvian, I don't have a source but apparently in one battle just 100 spanish soldiers were able to defeat thousands of Incan Soldiers.

The Spanish came in peace to an incan ruler, in the middle of a civil war mind you, the incans had minimal ceremonial weapons, the incan king was greeting them and Spanish attacked, decapitation strike took out any coordination.

Incan kings were also divine, just attempting to touch him was meant to be unlucky, as you can imagine this also confused matters.

It's hard to say which side would win.
1. Aztec empire would fall, but Spain wouldn't conquer Mexico. Imported animals like pigs would mean population boom and horses would help with centralisation of post Aztec nations. Central America would look like pre colonial Africa. Europe would have trading post on shores but wouldn't expand inward.
2. Incas would be conquered anywa. They were centralised, so it would be easy to just kill Inca emperor or replace him with someone who would be loyal to Spain.
PS. Sorry for my English. Me no good at Englishe.

These people didn't even have swords, deal with it suducas

...

Nope

Cortes had already been kicking ass in mexico before the first person carrying smallpox, an African slave, arrived with Narvaez. Tenochitlan was already under siege by the time smallpox began to take effect and the city was starving. Without smallpox, perhaps the city would have lasted a few more weeks. The Spanish walked a knife's edge in Mexico and any small change in how things went down could have doomed the entire affair.

Smallpox took place right after La Noche Triste, in fact the Aztec emperor died 40 days after the battle.

It certainly would've cost them a lot more resources and manpower. And the Spanish certainly had those resources and manpower, but may not have thought it was worth it.
Although I personally think they would've.

Where exactly this notion that the aztec empire was crumbling comes from? Sound kinda memeish if you ask me, considering it was a relatively young empire constantly expanding right before european contact.

Also hell no, the aztecs alone had way more soldiers at one city than the entire spanish military force in Mexico, Cuba and the Caribbean.

>hell no, the aztecs alone had way more soldiers at one city than the entire spanish military force in Mexico, Cuba and the Caribbean.

And the Spanish had tens of thousands of native allies who hated the Aztecs with them.

Yea they had a lot of soldiers, poorly equipped soldiers not trained for fighting heavy infantry. And most of their "soldiers" were peasants who thought that they are going against gods with four legs, fire sticks and indestructible armor.

North America would be really interesting. If most of natives weren't killed by small pox, there would be probably some epic war between Europeans and Americans. Instead all we get is natives getting fucked from all sides and biggest fights is one idiotic US cavalry charge and few Apache partisans.

Of course.

Both Aztecs and Incas weren 't taken down by spaniards or diseases. They were taken down by thousands of natives who allied with spaniards.

Yes, the disease epidemics generally came afterwards.

Yeah, what he said. Narvaez forces were seduced be Cortez after some politic/bribing and a swift night atack , he put Pedro de Alvarado as the chief of the 80 Spaniards in charge of Moctezuma(great mistake btw) to oversee the city,he had some sway with the natives because he was touhgt as a sun touched individual, and was called Tonatiuh (the sun god) because his gold hair, at that point the Spaniards had lived with the natives for months in Tenochtitlan , Alvarado was a hot blooded warriors, and killed the nobles of the city after he tought they were preparing for war (the bounty of them was another factor). After that the city rage flared, Cortez then entered the city and tried to squash the rebellion but he didn't have enough troops even with the new narvaez reinforcments (and the little nig with the smallpox), he used Moctezuma, and he was killed be his own people. After a week of siege in the palace/temple of Axayacatl, they tried to scape in the night with a canoe bridge, but they were discovered and the Aztecs atacked . From the Thousand Tlaxcalans only a hundred survived, and the Narvaez troops were only fixed in the bounty of gold, so after they had to evacuate the city they were the ones to lose they lives in droves because they pillaged so much gold than couldn't swim or run fast enough, so cortez lost 600 hundred of his Spanish host plus nearly all the bounty.

And nearly all his artillery and what was worse, the horses.

What this user is saying is absurd mostly but there is some truth to it. The biggest factor in Europe's eventual domination of the world wasn't homogeneity but diversity (as sjw as this sounds). Every region spoke a different dialect. The only thing a person from Norfolk hated more then someone from the Midlands was any foreigner. The entire continent was in competition with each other and when it spilled to lands outside of Europe... Well the rest is history.

England didn't colonise it's empire because it thought it was important, they literally and self admittedly (if you read into guys like Pitt the Elder) did it to fuck France

It's counter intuitive but then so was what was once the poorest part of the world outside of Africa becoming the richest

there are a lot more viruses but not more plagues

the difference is that a plague is a disease that is actually for an animal but it infects a human. This can only happen when the animals and humans live closely to each other and even than the chance is really small. In Europe a lot of easy to domesticate animals were present and they lived in the cities so we had plagues. in the Americans they had the lama that lived high up in the mountains with 1 or 2 herders around so they had almost no chance to get a plague so European plague won easily

When we look at whether Spain would have still won.
On one hand Spain got the better weapons.
On the other hand a lot of the villages and towns of the Americans where in mountain regions who were harder to attack.

I personally think they would have still won

if diversity is the most important factor to become rich an mighty then africa should be better off then europe no?

Not necessarily, sub Saharan Africa was as far as I know left to its own devices with the only contact being slaving parties and the odd trader, with notable exceptions

Europe's strength was that there was no identifiable centre and they could adapt easily. Foreigners could influence and monopolize parts of Europe without ever damaging other parts (it actually seems this made the other parts stronger).

Every time someone lost, another got stronger, and the continent continually rejuvenated itself this way. Because they actually had foreign contact Europeans were able to appropriate foreign technology, making it better, using it in new ways. Intense local pressures made this process faster than elsewhere. Eventually a wheel got spinning and it just didn't stop

I know I'm not doing a very good job of defending myself, I recommend Carol Quigley if you're interested, even just the first few chapters of Tragedy and Hope should make what I'm getting at clear

Reading first hand accounts of The Conquest of the Aztecs I think it would still have been taken down. It was a masterstroke by Cortez who essentially cut off the head of the snake or in more modern terms, disabled the central command of the empire by killing the emperor and taking the capital. To do this he used theatrics and shrewd diplomacy to unite a large group of natives.

...

Cortez was such a based man, shame he is only portrayed as an EVIIIIIL men. The only shame is than he didn't try to make himself king of Nueva España, but then I don't know if his Spaniards would have followed him.

He did kinda get arrested and was to be brought back to Spain in chains.

To be honest most Spanish and Portuguese explorers/conquistadors were a bunch of poor freebooters led by slightly less poor tyrants and hillbillies. There is this myth going around that most were gentry or nobles but this is not really true, nor was the Spanish crown very enthusiastic about them establishing foreign states outside his sphere of influence, the vice royalty thing was supposed to change this.

They would have been militarily defeated eventually but get better conditions and keep their state and religion, even fair trade.
As Japan and China did, meh.

cortez did nothing wrong, he probably saved the mayans and tlaxcalans from being completely slaughtered by less disciplined men

Probably not, although they still woills have caused lots of trouble. Both the Inca and the Aztec leadership were taken down by treachery and that works not be different. Buti serially doubt the Spanish could HOLD those two vast empires - especially the Inca - without their whole societies collapsing from the epidemics.

There was never a mayan empire friend, they were always divided. Like greeks.

They would have been conquered, that doesn't change. What changes is the widespread death of the natives that ensued from disease. Without that, European colonization wouldn't have been so successful. The Americas might look something like South Africa does today; mostly native but with a significant White minority, rather than being almost entirely white or at least having some white genes.

Also, the Trans-Atlantic slave trade probably wouldn't have boomed as much as it did, since the Europeans could simply enslave the natives rather than import African slaves at a greater cost.

What made the spanish queen protest Columbus vile behaviour, but seemingly condone Cortez and the other conquistadors? Was it the fact that the aztec were just too extreme with their sacrificial rites and shit for Spain to condone?

Both those empires were invaded taking advantage of the political situation of the place. The americas were mostly conquered by the americans (amerindians) thanks to the cunning of men like Cortés or Pizarro.

The king literally wanted to arrest Cortés, he wasn't even supposed to conquer the aztec empire to begin with.

>Empires
Literally only the Incans had an empire.
The Mayans were a collection of city states, and the Aztecs were a collection of city states ruled over mostly from Tenochtitlan who had made a ton of pissed off neighbors.
The only difference desiese might have made would be that it would have taken longer to topple the Aztecs and Mayans. The Incans fell due to a great amount of luck, and not necissarily disease.

Even if the Spaniards failed they would have been conquered sooner or later by other European or maybe even Asian forces, because even the most advanced Americas' civilizations were still neolithic, so around 4000 years behind in technological achievements compared to Eurasian civilizations.

Fascinating, were there any more conquistadors that didn't behave in the king's interest? Was part of the motivation of the conqustadors to carve out their own land and be ruler over it, but then ultimately failed, or what was the motivation? None of them were sent to trial when they returned to Spain right? They were all pardoned.

That's not entirely true, the majority of Spanish conquistadores were from the lowest gentry, the Hidalgos, than had a little patch of dirt and perhaps some peasants than worked it if lucky (Think Don Quijote) than made the bulk of the Spanish military, plus some sailors, whores and slave porters. Hidalgos tended to be very poor because it was outlawed for them to be employed in menial work, so they only way out was be the sword, studies or clergy if they didn't have great swats of terrain. Cortez himself studied to be a lawyer for example and was an hidalgo of some means thanks to his father family, like his distant cousin Pizarro (another
hidalgo, this one the son of one of the most important captains of Gonzalo de Cordoba, El Gran Capitan).

> were there any more conquistadors that didn't behave in the king's interest
many, some declared themselves kings

Pizarro was executed by his fellow Conquistadors.

>the majority of Spanish conquistadores were from the lowest gentry, the Hidalgos,

Not even that according to some, at any rate I don't think the percentage of gentry would exceed 10% in those groups. I believe guys like Bernal Diaz had no land to their name and spend their only bit of money on a voyage to Hispaniola

The Mayas resisted until 1697 and this continued well into the 1990s in Chiapas.

The Aztec defeat was not inevitable either, Cortes was lucky on many occassions.

> EZLN
> maya resistance
meme guerrilla and tourist attraction

The term Hidalgo was different in some parts, in the South they were normally landed, but in the north the Hidalgos were as common as to be 80% of the population, in Vizcaya and Guipozkua existed the Hidalgui universal, so if they so choosed everyone born there could be an hidalgo. You had then different kinds of Hidalgos, the Solariegos than were hidalgos be all they grandparents, the servicio than did something than merited they entry in the hidalgos, then you had weird things like the Hidalgos de Bragueta than were made thus because they spawned 7 consecutives legitimate sons (Spain was ever in need of more people) or depending of the fuero, the son than was born in a determined stone (like in Caspe) was made Infazon/Hidalgo or the Hidalgos de gotera, than couldn't abandone they town to live in another if they wanted to be Hidalgos. Also I correct myself, not all Hidalgos had lands, but all the Hidalgos had the right and duty to wear arms, and were exempt of determined taxes, while Pecheros/ramenza/Pagesos/Villanos didn't have that right. Spain was weird like that.

Even if you disregard that you have the Caste War that officially ended in the 20th century.

Ah that clears things up. In Northern Europe the barrier for Gentry status around 15-20 pounds annual income which amounted to at least one manor. Gentleman or Yeoman which earned as much as city craftsman were closer to the 5 pound region and those folks formed a significant part of many European armies around this time. In England at least the right to own arms was extended to everyone while the right to bear them varied per county.

What currency did late 15th early 16th century "Spain" use? Do we have exchange rates to Pounds or Denier/Franc

Fair point

The biggest ones were the Doblones/Escudos, than were of gold, but the Reales were the most widespread be far, tough Maravedies were still plentiful in Spain at late 15th century the Real was the more important one, I'm sure you have heard about Real de a Ocho/Piece of eigh, or Spanish dollar, the base of nearly all the Americas coins, plus some others. A doblon, than was two Escudos was I think 12 Pounds and 15 shilling, while a Real de Ocho or 8 reales were echanged for 1 pound and 10 shilling, so a real was 3 shilling with 9 pences more or less. A Doblon contained 800 maravedies, while a Real 50-51 maravedies.

Aztecs and Incas were devastated by disease before the Spaniards arrived and powerful kings were killed and replaced by weaker kings.

So they MIGHT have still fallen to the Spanish, but it would have been harder. They certainly wouldn't have been depopulated like they were though and replaced by Iberians like happened in most of Latin America.

>Replaced.
That didn't happen m8, apart of the people in Cuba and Dominica than were outbreeded be the black slaves, the majority of Latin America are descendends from the same people, the only difference is the strong Iberian influence and the fuckload of mestizos. Plus the Cubans/Dominicans have a very marked Arawac gene influence, but too much blacks for farming sugar and the Iberian culture homogenization made them lose the rest of they culture into the whole.

We might have seen a much stronger indigenous identity and nationalism in these countries. I wonder how that would affect cultural things like food, architecture, arts and even forms of government coming out of here.

Look at Bolivia then, even when they had a very little Spanish elite ruling them they have a very strong iberian influence over the andine one. People tend to follow the big strong dog, if he shits that way they do it like that etc.

Or the Filipinas, than was never habitated for more than 15.000 Spaniards at the same time, and the majority of the colony for a 7-5000, mainly clerics and soldiers. Clearly the Iberian influence is strong even when the elites were minuscle.

Dude, genetically Latin America is like 70% European. The idea that they are more than 20% Amerindian on average is a meme to make them feel more native. Americans do the same thing when they brag about being 5% Cherokee on their mother's side.

Except the Philippine example, the natives kept their language.

Aztecs would've fallen with or without the Spanish in a few generations, no one liked them and their largest enemy, the Tarascans, were on the rise. If not replaced by a different version of the same thing as the Aztecs, maybe the Tarascans could've successfully unite Mexico.

Without disease, and maybe also by avoiding the civil war, the Inca, would've, without a doubt, have fended off the Spaniards. People don't really give them much attention and dismiss them as savages (as they do with most New World cultures while hailing Ancient Germanic culture).

Based Andeans.

Jews hate white people you say
This comes as a shock to me
Honestly

No we aren't that white you stupid cuck I am 60 percent Indio and I am light skinned only a few Latin American countries are 70% white on average

Maybe Argentina, but most countries have about 40-60% indigenous and/or african.

Look at the numbers again. Latin America is mostly European unless you count a being partly native or African as being full native or African, which a lot of people do.

No chance. There was no power in Europe strong enough to endure long-term intercontinental war over the Atlantic.

your propaganda book told u spanish used disease they didnt
the british used smallpox in USA and Australia look into it
the french were decently successful in Canada although they had to abandon colonies they later returned
the spanish were given the title conquistadors because they conquered with the sword and religion

here's the link for AUS
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Australia_(1788–1850)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Australia_(1788–1850)

>Caste War reference on Veeky Forums
>Not one made by me personally
I just want to thank you

That isn't true for Brazil, though.

>I personally think they would have still won
Though the Americas would probably more closely resemble modern India if it hadn't been for disease wiping out so much of the native culture

You actually make a good point: competition between western nation-states drove political innovation. This is due predominantly to the terrain; between the Mediterranean, the Alps, and the Many rivers and impenetrable black forests, it was far more difficult for permanent political hegemonies to be established the way they could in the Indus River or the Yellow River valley, and rather than merely swapping one ruling dynasty for another, Europeans could form regional powers in ways that a Chinese province never could have.

Political innovation means more stable societies, which means more complex markets which means more organized military-industrial complexes, which means ever greater need for politico-economic expansion and colonialism

Marrakech wasn't significantly affected by the loss of Baghdad any more than Ireland was affected by the loss of Kiev. I'm sure you can claim "oh, but it was a huge blow to morale", but that isn't going to stop someone in Marrakech from building a windmill or forging steel.

>foreign domination stifles progress
The destruction is unnecessary though it is short term and often foreign rulers weren't much more oppressive than the native rulers and they introduce technology. So as much as I don't want to offend anyone sensitive about their colonial past I have to question this assumption.

>intense local pressures
Nearly every political entity was in constant competition with its neighbors.

>Carroll Quigley
>muh western exceptionalism
hmm, this explains a lot

It was overwhelmingly due to technology and economics, not political quirks or random superficial cultural differences.

>everything revolves around not defining political entities by the ruling dynasty
Europe didn't have dynasties?

>Europe didn't have dynasties?
The Roman Empire disintegrated into regionalism due in part to pressure from the steppe migrations and from that point on in European history the closest thing that Europe had to a central bureaucracy was the Roman Catholic Church, whose authority was far less absolute than that of a Chinese Emperor

>history board
>knows shit about history
>still post

The south cone would still be the same shit, though.