What would America continent look like today if European just leave it alone?

>Murderers
kek White people lack self-awareness. Your people murdered an entire civilization.

I'm saying that the Aztec empire was a time bomb waiting to explode with or without European interference.

Incans would've slowly took up anything of worth in South America. Since they liked to banish rogue leaders to far edges of their empire, I could see them throwing a particularly charismatic enemy into somewhere nice like Argentina's plains (they would've discovered it eventually) and accidentally creating a small but fast-growing competitor. As for the Aztecs, they could either continue to prosper and get ahold of southern USA or they could fall and their successor does that. Either way, they or whoever comes after has it set up to make an empire since they have a tradition of exploring and if they discover the fertile Mississippi plains/delta they've got a nice setup.

Now, a more interesting notion, how does the Old World do like this? China's economy, without all that Peruvian silver, is going to falter and maybe collapse. Spain's Conquistadors focus on taking North Africa and maybe the Middle east if they can conquer far enough since they aren't interested in the New World (they knew an entire continent stood between them and trade routes with China, I guess, so they decide it's nobler to slay the Muslim dragon blocking their path rather than try to go around them?) and of course, where do persecuted Puritans go now that North America isn't going to be their "City on the Hill"? This raises all sorts of interesting questions.

And we also did it by accident.
In the Amazon.

>Considering the Americas was already a post-apocalyptic wasteland
lmao
>"Moctezuma possessed out of the city as well as within, numerous villas, each of which had its peculiar sources of amusement, and all were constructed in the best possible manner for the use of a great prince and lord. Within the city his palaces were so wonderful that it is hardly possible to describe their beauty and extent ; I can only say that in Spain there is nothing equal to them."
- Hernan Cortes, Second Letter of Relation to Charles V

>The Aztecs would have been thrown down by primitive tribes sick of their shit
here, an account of a random town of the primitive aztec neighbors
>Our route now lay across the territory of the township Xocotlan. We sent before us two Indians of Sempoalla to the cazique, to acquaint him of our approach, and beg of him to give us an hospitable reception. As the inhabitants of this district were subject to Motecusuma, everything wore a different aspect, and we marched forward with the utmost precaution and in close array. For the rest, we were as much pleased with this spot as with many a Spanish town, on account of the numerous and beautifully whitewashed balconies, the dwellings of the caziques, and the elevated temples wholly built of stone and[Pg 140] lime. We, therefore, called it Castilblanco, which name it still retains; for a Portuguese soldier, who was among our troops, assured us, the place was very like the town of Casteloblanco in Portugal.
- The True History of the Conquest of New Spain by Bernal Diaz del Castillo, Chapter LXI

A lighter brown Africa.
Commanche riding around the south west on technicals raiding and raping their neighbors.

>we
Speak for yourself, faggot. Also amerindians civilization is alive and well in central and South America, albeit in a diffused form with southwestern European civilization. has no understanding of how cultural diffusion works.

North America is another issue entirely. Unlike the Spanish and Portuguese, the anglos DID destroy north Amerindian civilization. All that remains is drunken red men in trailer parks, peyote religion and Elizabeth warren.

>aztecs had nice stuff, therefore the creeping social ills which caused hundreds of thousands of their neighbors to fight with the Spanish to overthrow their empire don't matter
Kek.

>where do persecuted Puritans go now that North America isn't going to be their "City on the Hill"?
Hell, preferably.
Along with all the other heretics and marranos.

95% of the civilization in South America has been wiped out. So many died that they could not sustain their cities and had to flee into the out of control jungle of their own creation to live in small tribes. The only remains of this civilization being their Earthworks outlining their cities.
There used to be a thriving metropolis in the Amazon, but it took one European to spread a plague.

You realize South America doesn't exclusively consist of the amazon, right? 95% is a number pulled straight out of your ass.

There is very little left of this civilization other than legends told by the Amazonian Tribes, and these earthworks which may have accompanied structures throughout the Amazon.

Intact my ass. It's so ruined that when we returned to South America we chased after cities of gold that no longer existed!

I'm guessing based on the size of these structures and the communities they may have housed.
Given that what remains of a civilization with a network of roads has been reduced to isolated tribes in the jungle.

There is very little left of this civilization other than stories told by British tribes. What's your point?

>It took the Aztecs 200 years to build their Empire.
The Inca Empire didn't start with the foundation of the kingdom of Cuzco, neither did the Aztec Empire with Tenochtitlan in 1325. The Aztec Triple Alliance began in 1428.

just lake any empire ever?
it didn't mean the end of the empire was near

>The Spanish were Europeans, therefore the fact that they were at war with everyone of their neighbors (namedly Portugal, France, Italians, Germans, Netherlands, British, Ottoman Empire, Berbers, etc) and all of them were willing to join and overthrow them had a new faction with a decisive technological advantage had showed up doesn't matter

Much like modern day Central and Andean parts of America.

As for sparely populated regions like north America or Argentina, it's really hard to say.

Though Central America and Andean parts would be much similar to Southeast Asia since they had kingdoms etc.

North America would have to transition from a completely African tier society.

I think most of inland America would be poor but areas like Louisiana basin, great lakes, California would host great cities similar to Bangkok or Jakarta

The Amazon basin probably would have no cities.

>Considering the Americas became a post-apocalyptic overgrown wildlife after Europeans arrived I doubt it'd be very bad.
FTFY

My point being that we previously had firsthand accounts of there being a civilization from a few explorers. The legend of El Dorado and so forth. With Stonehenge we have evidence of people being in the area already, the Romans, the Britons, etc.
But South America? There's the Inca, there are the ruins in Central America, civilization in the Amazon? No just a bunch of small tribal people who don't know shit and talk about their ancestors who built towers into the sky.

>the creeping social ills which caused hundreds of thousands of their neighbors to fight with the Spanish to overthrow their empire don't matter

Why should that be treated as a unique occurence? If you think the fact that neighboring tribes allied with the Spanish is crazy, you're going to lose your mind once you read about both World Wars.

95% is a number throw around often, although it refers to the percentage of native inhabitants throughout the Americas that perished following the European's arrival.

Spanish and Aztec empire aren't comparable. Just because Protestant Dutch didn't want to be under Spanish catholic rule doesn't mean that if a small group technological advanced Aztec warriors arrived in Iberia during the 16th century hundreds of thousands of basque, Castilians, Portuguese etc would gleefully aid in overthrow of Spanish kingdom.

95% because we're not going to do a headcount before and after, and good luck counting all the skulls.

>What would America continent look like today if European just leave it alone?
Hardly stargates in outer space, but not third world tier that's for sure

>Much like modern day Central and Andean parts of America.
you understimate euro administration

>Tenochtitlan was founded on an islet in the western part of the lake in the year 1325. Around it, the Aztecs created a large artificial island using a system similar to the creation of chinampas. To overcome the problems of drinking water, the Aztecs built a system of dams to separate the salty waters of the lake from the rain water of the effluents. It also permitted them to control the level of the lake. The city also had an inner system of channels that helped to control the water.

>During Cortés' siege of Tenochtitlan in 1521, the dams were destroyed, and never rebuilt, so flooding became a big problem for the new Mexico City built over Tenochtitlan.

>Mexico City suffered from periodic floods. Under the direction of Enrico Martínez, a drain was built to control the level of the lake, but in 1629 another flood kept most of the city covered for five years.

>Eventually the lake was drained by the channels and a tunnel to the Pánuco River, but even that could not stop floods, since by then most of the city was under the water table. The flooding could not be completely controlled until 1967, with the construction of a Deep Drainage System.

>The ecological consequences of the draining were enormous. Parts of the valleys were turned semi-arid, and even today Mexico City suffers for lack of water. Due to overdrafting that is depleting the aquifer beneath the city, Mexico City is estimated to have dropped 10 meters in the last century. Furthermore, because soft lake sediments underlie most of Mexico City, the city has proven vulnerable to soil liquefaction during earthquakes, most notably in the 1985 earthquake when hundreds of buildings collapsed and thousands of lives were lost.

You realize certain countries like Guatemala have an Amerindian population of 30%, right? 95% of Amerindians dying is utter bullocks.

If I recall current estimations based on the number of settlements found in the amazon, put the number at around 5 million, which is higher than todays population. Goes to show how that place never recovered from the diseases and war that followed 500-400 years ago.

It's going off the guestimation that the Americas had a significantly higher population before. Certainly there could have also been a dip, followed by a boom in population.

Amazon ≠ all of Central and South America.

Well then clearly Mexico and the Aztecs are a global superpower to be reconciled with and never suffered from an extreme event where thousands of their people died in a plague. You know what? They also traded with china and built huge megaliths in the Pacific!

No, fuck that. They all died in a plague and never really recovered.

Survivors got raped by stronk Sons of Europe too.

Is trading with China suppose to be impressive now?

Which is why they kept fighting back

It's not unreasonable at all. For arguments sake lets assume 10 million were in Guatemala. 95% dying would put the survivors at about 50,000. Assuming say that Europeans, african slaves and all other immigrants is 70% of the total new population. We have 50,000 natives and 116,666 non natives. Assuming this number fluctuated a bit to present day population totals it seems in the realm of possibility certainly. Especially considering how densely populated mesoamerica was.

The inca empire was even more populated, what my point is, is that there was a shitload of people here prior to europeans arriving.

t. demographicspro

>What is pax-romana
They didn't keep fighting back. A few uppity groups like the Jews and Druids had the boot thrown on them. Bedises conflict with Germanic tribes Rome really didn't have too much revolt of it's subjects.

It would have been.

invaded by Russia, China or Japan

>plague in the Americas
>Aztec Empire plays the favorite game of civilizations play during plague
>the blame game
>fight and alienate surrounding tribes and hoard all the resources
>god shows up as a spainiard and wants all the shit for the king of Spain
>Aztecs get fucked
>meanwhile South America dies from the plague
>???
>Aztecs stronk
>30% Guatemalans Amerindian
Whites win without even trying

Pretty irrelevant to his point. Sounds like you just wanted to sound smart and throw in your pointless 2c there. Thanks anyway though.

>>god shows up as a spainiard
kek, WE

>Whites win without even trying
exactly, didn't even bother to domesticate horses, invent steel and gunpowder, inlike the aztecs, they had the central asians, western and eastern asians for those technological advantages respectively

What did he mean by this?

Now, let's say plagues and shit don't exist and there's an unbreakable wall between the Americas and the rest of the world only allowing the Indians to cross over.

Constantinople never falls to the Turks and remains a center of trade.
The Amerindians flourish and trade with their northern and southern neighbors before eventually the Aztecs start moving north and south.
They get blown the fuck out in the Amazon by overwhelming numbers before getting blasted by the Iroquois.
They remain in Central America until such a time that their technology advances. Though they never do figure out gunpowder or metalworking. They do however have their armor.

Everything develops here really slowly until their population demands movement.
So they eventually develop a canoe to cross the ocean.

Where they meet the Europeans in about 30 years from now with the German Empire in control of Europe. They get their asses blasted and their boat confiscated.

The Aztecs now believe the world is flat and there's no other landmass other than their own.

>Now, let's say plagues and shit don't exist and there's an unbreakable wall between the Americas and the rest of the world only allowing the Indians to cross over.
>they meet the Europeans in about 30 years from now with the German Empire in control of Europe.

>Aztecs domesticating horses
Nope

>Constantinople never falls to the Turks and remains a center of trade.

wat?

Oh right

With the Russians in control of Europe.

No reason to go to the Americas to find a shorter route to China with Constantinople still around.

>unbreakable wall
>cannot into chyna
>forced to fight the Turks for control over Constantinople

I still don't get it.

Constantinople trade was already getting wrecked by Italian city states and Muslims from the 11th century onward.

If we never went to America communism would have won.

That's false. Spain and Portugal looked Westward precisely because the Ottomans conquered the ERE. Without that fatal event they would be far less reason for it.

Maybe my history teacher was retarded.

developed hubs near modern Mexico and Perú and its surroundings
maybe other developed hubs around the great lakes
but "developed" in the sense of they'd have writing, some schools of thought and nothing more

...

Then why did Portugal start four decades before constantinople fell?

this has to be either bait or a typical display of (latin)american ignorance

Africa isn't westward. Regardless you could chalk it up more to opportunity and curiosity than need.

Kek

Is it factually wrong? Wiped out civilizations in America.

Yes. Unintended genocide and conflicts with survivors who had a resistance to smallpox.

This isn't really murder. It's like an abortion.

it was diseases like smallpox who did the job
not mass murdering as your commie, severely underprepared history teacher from high school told you

>During the French and Indian War, Jeffery Amherst, 1st Baron Amherst, Britain's commander in chief in North America authorized the use of smallpox to wipe out their Native American enemy. In his writings to Colonel Henry Bouquet about the situation in western Pennsylvania,[12] Amherst suggested that the spread of disease would be beneficial in achieving their aims. Colonel Bouquet confirmed his intentions
White people have contributed a lot but they are not saints like /pol/ says. They can be as cruel as any "savage".

t.old world intellectual

>”These people had no letters nor script, neither knew to write nor read. They communicated with images and paintings and all their history and books were recorded in figures and images, with which they knew about their ancestors and had memory of what they did and what they left recorded for more than a thousand years before the Spanish arrived to this land.”

>”Most of these books and recordings were burnt as other idolatries”, but many of them are still hidden. ”After we came to this land to preach our fate we gathered many young men in our homes and taught them to write, read and sing. As they did well we ensured to teach them grammar and a school in Santiago de Tlatelolco was built for this purpose. This school received the most able young men from all the neighboring towns. ”

>”The Spanish and clergymen who knew about this laughed and mocked, being sure that no one could teach grammar to people so unskillful, but working with them for two or three years they came to understand every art and subject of grammar and speak Latin, both written and spoken and even to write heroic verses. ”

>”As the secular and ecclesiastic clergymen saw this they became frightened of such thing being possible: I was the one who worked with them for the first four years and taught them about Latin and its knowledge. ”
>”As they saw that this project would continue and that they were improving, and they had ability for more, the clerics started to disapprove the school and object about the risks of idolatry this implied. ”
- Florentine Codex by Friar Bernardino de Sahagun, Tenth Book, Inform of the author
The College of Tlatelolco closed 5 years after Sahagun's death

Dude, nobody's denying that the European colonists frequently took advantage of the epidemics - for fuck's sake, Tenochtitlan couldn't have been conquered if it hadn't been hit hard by disease - but the point is that the vast, vast majority of the native deaths were accidental, not deliberate.

75-90% of the natives would still have died even if the Europeans had left them COMPLETELY ALONE.

But they're way better savages too.

You only say Spaniards are white when we're discussing this topic. Every other topic Spaniards for some reason become moors. I fint this very interesting.

Satan please Its by comparison. Also I'm not one to call a Spaniard a moor unless he's legit from North Africa.

>they are not saints like /pol/ says.

Of course not, but it's /pol/ we're talking about here. The same group of people who have unironically asserted that the Aztecs lived in mud huts and that the Spanish gave them proper sanitation techniques, even though the Aztec peoples valued cleanliness, showered daily, and had sophisticated aqueduct systems in place. Meanwhile, many European societies at the time figured bathing to be unhealthy, considering changing into fresh clothing to be more effective, and were still dumping their buckets of shit out onto the streets. Queen Isabella I admitted to bathing only twice in her lifetime.

Anyone who is well-informed and aims to make un-biased conclusions probably wouldn't make that type of mistake. A sweeping amount of native casualties died due to disease, whether European intervention played or role in it or not is likely not up for debate, but the full extent of that is still up for speculation. Still it's certainly not like they didn't gladly reap its rewards, though.

>the Aztecs bathed
Well that explains why there was sex.

Actually the population of pre-columbian Andean america dropped by 70 to 80% according to moderate estimates, with some tribes and cultures being completely decimated or wiped out, as a result of disease, and those numbers are only for the initial contact between the new world and old world.
Smallpox is a hell of a disease, especially if you don't have an stronger immune response to it built over many generations of your ancestors being exposed to it surviving it.

The number of the remaining surviving native Americans in the Andes were even further reduced from the collapse of their governing entity, which was the incan empire, that upheld the laws/rules established in the land and brought stability as well. Also with the dramatic loss of population and the sudden absence of the main governing body that brought stability and oversaw the rules of transactions or deals in the area, the main markets throughout the empire likely also shrunk or collapsed completely. Which means that any trade of needed or valuable resources was also mostly to completely annilhated. If you lived in the mountains and relied on trading whatever resource you could collect easily in your area with a surplus food source in case of draught or some natural disaster, that option is now gone because trade in the area has collapsed since most of everyone is dead or dying from disease.
Also, slavery, forced harsh manual labor and displacement from areas with good soil for farming also contributed to further decline the population. One good example I can think of where that happens is the mining of silver from Cerro Rico for the spanish empire in colonial Bolivia.

Overall, it's not at all far-ferched that there can be a population decline of that magnitude over even as large of an area as a continent.

Actually, the moderate estimate is around a 80 to 90% drop.

>Whites win without even trying
Spanish people are not white. Only anglos.

Just like 2000 years ago

That's not true.

The French and Indian war was over 200 years after Europeans arrived in colonial fashion. Genocide. By definition, can't be unintended. A random case of smallpox blanket over 200 years after old wolrd disease hit the americas is not a genocide.

Always the same. western europeans thinking they somehow are better, when they were shit for all of history.

Western Europeans are god tier. What you post is from Northern Europeans.

They went to the Americas because the failed at expanding into Africa.

Native American Studies professor Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz says, "Proponents of the default position emphasize attrition by disease despite other causes equally deadly, if not more so. In doing so they refuse to accept that the colonization of America was genocidal by plan, not simply the tragic fate of populations lacking immunity to disease. In the case of the Jewish Holocaust, no one denies that more Jews died of starvation, overwork, and disease under Nazi incarceration than died in gas ovens, yet the acts of creating and maintaining the conditions that led to those deaths clearly constitute genocide."[61]

Historian David Stannard writes that by the year 1769, the destruction of the American aboriginals population down to just one-third of one percent of the total American population of 76 million was the most massive genocide in world history, and "there was, at last, almost no one left to kill."[48] According to anthropologist Russell Thornton, for the American Indians "the arrival of the Europeans marked the beginning of a long holocaust, although it came not in ovens, as it did for the Jews. The fires that consumed North America Indians were the fevers brought on by newly encountered diseases, the flashes of settlers' and soldiers' guns, the ravages of "firewater," the flames of villages and fields burned by the scorched-earth policy of vengeful Euro-Americans."[62] David Quammen likened colonial American practices toward Native Americans to those of Australia toward its aboriginal populations, calling both genocide.[63] Some authors, including Holocaust scholar David Cesarani, have argued that United States government policies in furtherance of its so-called Manifest Destiny constituted genocide.