Was the aztek society condemned to fail if they wouldnt had been conquered?

so i recently had a debate about if it was either good or bad the conquest of america

one of my classmates said that mexico and most of latin-america would be most advance at this time if the conquest of america,would not have happened

obviously i disagreed, saying that natives were savages and didnt have a well constructed society that could allowed them to prosper

apart from the fact that they slaughtered a shit ton of people, they also genocide natives groups of the surroundings for their own profit


-of course the ways implemented thiis structure and the goals of the spaniard werent good
but they atleast improved some aspects of aztek society
and open mexico to globalization

mexico would probably be a more shittier and less developed country by this time

was the aztek society condemned to fail if they wouldnt had been conquered?

Other urls found in this thread:

desuarchive.org/his/search/text/amerindian/page/1/
desuarchive.org/his/search/text/higher development rate/
desuarchive.org/his/search/text/so you agree with Amerindian superiority/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

The Aztecs were more like the other tribes in North America than the Incas. They built a city and temples of stone, yes, but their civilization didn't have all the trappings of empire, it was just a network of tributary tribes.

If they could have avoided war with a technologically advanced society and somehow gotten a vaccine for those diseases I'm sure they would have advanced as fast as any other civ. The aztecs were not locked in their traditions any more than any other nations.

Also they never genocided the surrounding groups of people. If your referring to the flower wars that was more of a willing contest between men where combatants are captured then killed later and they would burn up a temple in the city. The flower wars were to show political domincw and also for for the individual to advance their social status. Genociding wouldn't have made sense to the aztecs because there would be no more people to sacrifice or demand tribute of later

I think most people don't realise in what stage of development were the different groups of people living in the Americas. The most advanced societies (Aztek, Maya, Inca) were in a similar technological stage as pre-iron age Mesopotamia while the rest were still tribes growing out of hunting gatherer societies. We can only speculate how much advanced they would be now but without the continuous exchange of technology, ideas and goods that happened between Europe Asia and Northern Africa we can presume that their development would be slower. Thus the forceful implementation of an already developing culture (Western culture) can be seen as an ultimate good thing.

Op, how did the Spanish improve the lives of the aztecs?

The Vikings brought European diseases to American during the period where Vinland and other trading colonies were still inhabited, and the slow burn that is epidemic in a continent without horses or sea trade was working it's way through the new world before Colombus ever mistook Cuba for India. The Spanish, French, and English certainly sped up the spread of epidemic in the Americas, but it would have reached Central America soon enough, and when it did, it would have strained Aztec society to it's breaking point, just as it did during the Spanish invasion.

They stopped murdering each other for the corn god

Got pretty hard to make enough corn once that happened though, huh? Really rolls my balls if you know what I'm saying. Maybe Xaplataniqtatarczuma was onto something there. Gotta give some hearts to the corn god otherwise the world ends. Ever since we stopped worshiping Qartarclamotenoctlapoca Mexico has never been the same. Hmmm anyone else seeing something here? Me too.

Oh come on ! they weren't murdering THAT many people. It was a few murders a year and it was no big deal. Seriously

They only sacrificed pussys from other tribes who got captured. Imagine some guy who is such a bitch you can just pick him up and carry him off the battlefield. The modern equivalent would be a soy boi or r9k guy. It was No big loss and was actually healthy for the population to remove these weak genes during ritual scrimmages like the flower wars

the neighbouring tribes had "agreed" to meet the aztec armies at the ritualized combat where putting a hand on someone meant that he was now defetead and captured. Its like a sports event only with lethal consequences for losers.
Why did they agree? Because if not the more numberous Aztec armies would have waged real war upon them and killed them all.

They have found thousands of skulls, including those of little children. It's not about the amount, it's about a practice that's detrimental to the the well being of a people

Right, because burning people at the stake or getting into wars and razing cities just over how people worshipped god the wrong way in europe and the middle east was any better. Pic related, and this is even using super inflated numbers for how many people the Aztecs sacrificed.

The Aztecs weren't saints but they weren't any more sinister or bloodthristy then the bloodier Europeans or asians were, and The Aztecs were the only mesoamericans to really go super far with it. The Maya only really pierced themselves for bloodletting and maybe sacrificed one person every few years, and that's it, for example.

Yes, thousands of skulls from over the course of hundreds of years

>imagine being this butthurt
kill yourself barbaric amerindian lmaooo

I'm european though, and i'm not the one making bullshit claims without knowing what i'm talking about.

Just about everyone in this thread is talking out of their ass.

mesoamerica-eaboo here, I plan on responding in detail and setting everybody straight once I get the time

>aztecs today
We just know that Amerindians had a higher development rate compared to europeans. They would be less technologically advanced, they would be like 1000aC indoeuropeans, while south-Americans would live like ancient chinese intense farming lives with an authoritarian military control over peasants. Also, the quality of life would be better to what it is Peru and Bolivia today on Amerindian villages.

>Amerindians
Nobody respond to this guy, well known troll that shits up every thread he is in

Tell me what's wrong with what I said then.

Are you including mesoamerica in south america here?

>They would be less technologically advanced, they would be like 1000aC indoeuropeans,

The Mesoamericans and Andeans were already at a level compared to 1000 AD/CD europeans in many respects though. I'll respond to this in more detail too when I do what I said in , but I wanted to go ahead and say that.

For instance, Teotihuacan was one of the largest cities in the world at the time in around 500 AD/CE, and had urban apartment complex and an actual grid structure to the city layout, flush toliets, etc. It would have absolutely been comparable to roman cities from a few hundred years prior, though perhaps not the absolute largest ones. Pic related wasa map made of the site in the 1930's, and there's been plenty more found structures or remnants therofre since then

These weren't a bunch of people living in villages with huts, they had actual urban cities with complex social and political systems and actual state goverments and beuacracies in many cases.

I know the engineering works were middle-ages tier yet some areas of technology, like spread of information, transport technology, unified religion was still developing or spreading (south-america), such changes would trigger a domino effect of development in the economic currency and family units. For example, there was a massive change between babilonic times and roman times. Even the middle-ages is a great example of a reformation of the social classes and economic systems. If you know about aztec societies I would like to know more about them.

They lived in a fairytale cut off from the rest of the world and they would have been conquered by whoever decided to show up if the Spanish didn’t do it first. This fantasy world of statistics and arbitrary “development” levels is nonsense, their military structure was inferior to their contemporaries and their political structure was completely unstable, so much so that half of their subjects immediately jumped ship to literally the first power that showed up, they would have rebelled against the Aztecs for literally anyone else too because everyone around them hated them and wanted their grip on power toppled; it is pure fantasy to use some vague arbitrary statistics and the myth of progress to imply that this shitshow was ending in any other way besides their inevitable conquest by somebody else

>arbitrary
Nope. It starts when Amerindians started existing.
>military structure
>inferior
So much that Incas BTFO spaniards most battles they fought.
>political structure
>unstable
Because 20+ disease epidemics with a 90% death rate wouldn't scrath political systems nowadays?
>myth of progress
>denying consensus
Hmm...?
>inevitable conquest
Thanks to the 90% death rate of diseases actually.

>savages and didnt have a well constructed society that could allowed them to prosper
>slaughtered a shit ton of people
>genocide natives groups for their own profit

yep, sounds like spaniards

How is he butthurt? He linked actual historical evidence of his claim. I mean you guys are arguing over an extinct civilization who couldn't compete so they died out. People who try and justify that the native americans were good or bad are on the same level as those who contantly obsess over defeated/collapsed nations that were "so great" like Rome and Nazi Germany.

>amerindians were x!
>actually, Amerindians had a higher dev-
>fucking troll!
Hmm...

he is just another troll shitting up every native thread because he feel threatened that the truth is spreading like FIRE, yasss

It’s arbitrary because the myth of progress is a fucking myth, there I countered every single one of the thousands of identical posts you’ve made.
Seriously for anyone interested, search the archives for “Amerindian” and take a gander at this retard.
He thinks that an Incan empire fighting defensively on mountain passes against a literal expeditionary force a fraction of their size is impressive, he blames the disease on all of those incredibly crushing tactical victories against larger forces, he thinks his arbitrary “development rate” was going to save his shit society from a hungry Europe ready to tear the world into pieces like a pack of angry dogs, your ancient-tier societies that are inferior to Ancient Rome would not have survived despite whatever the Spanish did, maybe if they weren’t so pathetically isolated and incapable of long distance travel they would have built an immunity like Europeans did, that’s a strategic and logistical advantage that was earned, you act like disease is arbitrary when in isn’t, Europe had to deal with disease and they did it like a scientist would: taking it a little at a time and building an immunity. If the natives were incapable of long distance travel and were never going to build that immunity, then they were always going to fail, so your stupid headcannon about American Indians being superior is all semantics and no bite, it means nothing when they were going to inevitably fail one way or the other, you have yet to make a real point in thousands of posts, just little pointless semantics greentext wall gotcha moments designed to instill pride in your obviously Latin American heritage, a typical Incaboo desperate for historical significance and validation clinging to straws

>started existing
True and I think there culture and technology should be studied but that doesn't mean you need to glorify it.
Spain was able to subject their ruler with a force of ~170 men against a force of 3-8,000 unarmed/lightly armed guards.
The reason why Spain couldn't compete in every encounter probably has more to do with geographical positioning and the ability for Spain to project force to such a remote part of the world.
>using disease to justify an already unstable political system
I'm not saying that they didn't have an effective/advanced political system but that doesn't mean it wasn't unstable. Many European political systems have been incredibly unstable over the ages but that doesn't reduce their contributions or advancements.

Yes inevitable conquest.. You think they would have survived European industrialism if they indeed survived early colonialism? Should we have just given them all the tech and advice they asked for allowing them to steal all our hardwork? Nah that's not how the world has worked ever. If the situation was reversed then there is no reason to assume that the inca were unjustified.

>obviously i disagreed, saying that natives were savages
Nice history skills bruh.

>didnt have a well constructed society that could allowed them to prosper
Civs in that area had been extant since the Toltecs/Zapotecs/Mixtecs. Aztecs were late comers. There was society there before, and would have been there after if no colonization had occurred.

>they also genocide natives groups of the surroundings for their own profit
Flower Wars were ritualized shifting alliances that were often more for show than anything else. If they were genociding anyone then there wouldn't have been any coalition against them for the Conquistadors to overtake.

>but they atleast improved some aspects of aztek society
The hacienda and encomienda systems were objectively worse than than the system of labor extraction in use. We can see this in wealth concentrations in architecture.

>was the aztek society condemned to fail if they wouldnt had been conquered?
Seems like you're:
1) Just ill informed at a baseline level.
2) Just fishing for an answer that confirms your preexisting biases.

>>>/reddit/
>yasss
Why are you embarrassing yourself?
Are you lost?
Of course he's a troll. You're on a fuckin chan.

>myth
Yet Amerindians have shown a higher development rate compared to europeans. It doesn't matter if there is no necessity for progress or not. Amerindians have shown a rate of development superior to europeans.
>fighting defensively
Wrong. Civil war kept going on until 1570, when the Neo Inca State ceased to exist more or less.
>incredibly tactical victories
Like...?
>inferior to x
What year and what place?
>incapable of long distance
Wrong. Coastal peruvians had a sea trade route with west-mexicans, and natives reached Rapanui and Mangareva. Also, incapable of long distance compared to whom in what year?
>europe deal with disease
Like a single bubonic critter killing 40% of them? Even most diseases spread to America, europeans adquired them hundreds or thousands of years before, and they had to die the same so the survivors would be "immunized" to such events.
>superior
It's pretty simple. If development rate and civilization potential is a symbol of superiority, then Amerindians are superior to europeans. How is this hard to get? If you don't think that civilization potential has nothing to do with superiority, or there is no superior culture or ethnic group, that's up to you :)
>pride
Facts are irrelevant to your feelings, buddy.

>saying that natives were savages and didnt have a well constructed society that could allowed them to prosper
What is the Inca Empire?

Not trying to start a pissing contest, but Native Americans developed all the cornerstones of civilization, plus metallurgy and writing, without any outside influence, which is more than can be said for Europe.
And to try to make value judgements with no understanding of Native American philosophies while willfully ignoring the brutal practices of every other civilization that has ever existed to try to label them 'savages' is a great way to display your ignorance. Keep it up.

>Yet Amerindians have shown a higher development rate compared to europeans
It's an arbitrary speck of history taken out of context and without any real impact on preventing the things that would have inevitably killed them off considering the course they were on. It is arbitrary because this is just one of the many examples of the myth of progress, which is the premise of your entire personality which shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the lessons you actually learned, you clearly turned all of your knowledge into a biased and personal defense of your own heritage, proving your failure as a historian. This "development rate" you desperately cling to is unfortunately arbitrary when considering the vast strategic, logistical, and tactical disadvantages your american indians would face in any real world scenario, because ultimately graphs can be used in the way you use them to argue virtually anything; this is something you would have learned if you ever took a class entirely dedicated to polls, statistics, graphs, and how to use them to make seemingly meaningful statements that are ultimately meaningless.
> Coastal peruvians had a sea trade route with west-mexicans.. Rapanui and Mangareva.
Maybe they should have reached the part of the world that mattered so they got an immunity to the diseases that mattered, and maybe the kind of knowledge and influence to actually improve their society to a point where they could have expected the europeans and been more of a match for them, but instead that didn't happen, and it was never going to happen,a nd if it did then it's likely the europeans still would have taken advantage one way or the other, so what is your point exactly? Oh yes:
>. If development rate and civilization potential is a symbol of superiority
It isn't. Goodbye.

What's hilarious about the "violent savages" meme is that by the time the Conquistadors showed up, their nations of origin were coming off the Religious Wars in the wake of reformation and the Reconquista.

"They sacrificed thousands to their gods ;_;" is just a pisspoor excuse for a cluster of cultures that had just lost millions to religiously motivated abject slaughter.

>glorify
How is clarifying that Amerindians had a higher development rate, glorifying them? Do you think development rate and civilization potential is something worth to be glorified?
>subject their ruler
Atahualpa wasn't the ruler. He was a son of the hundreds of sons his father had. Atahualpa was a self-proclaimed ruler. The soldiers were coming back after the end of the first phase of the civil war. Drunk and poisoned, they got ambushed and lost their general to be kidnapped.

>geographical positioning
Spaniards mixed with the Incas who won the civil war, meanwhile Amerindians kept dying at a massive rate. In 1800 the epidemics had a 60% death rate. All high-class peruvians have Inca blood, except the post-1800 immigrants And the average Amerindian was forced to work on toxic mercury mines.

>it wasn't unstable
The civil war was provoked by the influx of epidemics that killed South-Americans before Spaniards reached Peru. Probably one that spread from the initial expeditions.
>inevitable conquest
Thanks to diseases.
>european industrialism
So American resources were irrelevant to post-1500AD europe? Even the potato was responsible for 25% of increment european demographics between 1700 and 1900.
>should we just
How are there moral jugdgements in any of my posts? I'm just stating facts. Even the revisionism today about Incas is thanks to the ammount of archeological evidence we get from recently found chronicles and better spread of information thanks to modern technology.

>the only parts of the world and of history and of culture are MY parts of the world and history and culture

Now that's just precious.

Hey retard, he's not talking about teleology, he's talking about speed of getting from A to B, not that B is inevitable.

>inb4 "i was just pretending"

cool greentext that completely misrepresents my arguments accompanied by a generic reaction image you clearly stole from another post, all without requiring any personal effort on your part.

>development rate is arbitrary
Wrong. The frame of reference starts when Amerindians started existing.
>maybe they should
Already refuted all your points.
>civilization potential isn't a symbol of superiority
Ok.

oh I'm sorry do you think you just made a point? I'll let you try again.

>they should have reached the part of the world that mattered
>the diseases that mattered

He will keep pushing for it. He is a troll.

The myth of progress is a teleological fallacy, is it not? Well teleology's not under discussion at all here, is it?

>Op, how did the Spanish improve the lives of the aztecs?
They killed 10k people in one autistic celebration once

>the frame of reference
your frame of reference is arbitrary, your premise of development rate=superiority is wrong, therefore nothing you say has any weight. You are a child that read a clearly biased book, could you link it to me?
if they developed contact early they would have had small contact with the virus and been able to deal with it before their was a conquering army on top of them using it to their advantage, europe lost 40% of it's population and remained in tact, I could make a graph about how this makes them superior but ultimately it's also arbitrary. All that matters is who was gonna win the inevitable clash of civilizations and it's europe every time you roll that dice
we are, his entire point is that development rate=superiority, which implies the myth of progress. Forget about OP, forget about any other posts you think I've made in this thread, that fact is undeniable.

except post 1900 immigrants*

Finally someone who knows what they are talking about

>his entire point is that development rate=superiority
No, his entire point is that development was at a higher rate
>How is clarifying that Amerindians had a higher development rate, glorifying them? Do you think development rate and civilization potential is something worth to be glorified?
Are you illiterate too?

>No, his entire point is that development was at a higher rate
You clearly didn't search the archive like I suggested. He makes the same point every thread he is in. You think there is more to him but that's all he's got, seriously look it up.

LA RECONQUISTA ES UNA GUERRA SACRO SANTA PARA EXPULSAR A LA MORO NEGRADA DE NUESTRAS TIERRAS.OBVIAMENTE UN MORONEGRO,UN PANCHITO O CUALQUIER SUBSER NO PUEDE COMPRENDER LA MÁS BÁSICA LÓGICA Y MORAL YA QUE LA PANCHOMORONEGRADA SE CARACTERIZA POR SU INFIMO HONOR,SU ALMA BAJA Y MENOS SESOS QUE UN PUERCO TRAS UNA MATANZA

>No

>If development rate and civilization potential is a symbol of superiority, then Amerindians are superior to europeans.

come again retard?

>come again retard?
Looked like he was baiting you for your choice of the word superior by responding with hypothetical "ifs". The sarcastic smiley tipped me off :)

>t. Gallego católico y bruto

ITT: Amerindian butthurt

~t. Tlacxalotltec Kin'ich Ahauwj

>arbitrary
>beginning of Amerindians
Hmm...?
>development rate=superiority
>premise
Wrong. The development rate is demonstrated by consensus dates. Now, I claim that civilization potential A.K.A development rate is an indicator of superiority. If you don't think that superiority is demonstrated by civilization potential, then you don't agree with such superiority comparisons.
>his entire point
Wrong. Amerindian development rate is an historical fact. The superiority claim is additional to the facts, though.

>are you x?
I just corrected some illiterate anons about Amerindians having a higher development rate. Then some reply with falseflags like the other guy and the "myth" of "progress" which has nothing to do with it, or they mention examples comparing Amerindians with europeans which had 20000 years of advantage, which has nothing to do with Amerindian development rate. Every native thread is the same. Trolls saying that Amerindians were savages, anons that discuss aztec history and want to know more, and some copycats trying to emulate my way of discussion answering trolls with my past posts. I've noticed that there is one spaniard trying to make it a meme and spamming my posts like copypastas, yet it doesn't really matter actually. They are a compilation of archeological facts, that "trigger" consensus deniers.
>come
Where?

Neat historical argument, broham.

>I just corrected some illiterate anons about Amerindians having a higher development rate.
I know, I was referencing your post to highlight your sarcastic derision of progress, which the retard must have missed, not accuse you of being the retard.

>atchoo!

I'll tell you which tribe downriver has all the gold if you gtfo.

Do you think there's some kind of shame in a civilization being wiped out by disease? If anything, it makes the European "conquest" look like a joke, because they were massacring populations already brought to their knees by smallpox.

We all know that, but people who notice this want to exalt the made up conquistador chronicles which we know the ammount of made up parts they have.

At least the south-america conquest was about assimilating native nobility and inherited hierarchy abusing it until the crown of Spain and their authorities imposed their own spanish viceroyalty, and the conquistadors had to shut up and obey.

>your choice of the word superior
What the hell are you talking about? That's his damn word, for the 3rd time check the fucking archive and stop falling for his trap and believing there's more to him than what he just said, because that's everything and there is literally no nuance to him that you think there is, literally "I was just pretending to be retarded for 2000 posts." This guy uses development rate to argue "amerindian superiority" in every single thread. It's obviously a troll, but you're implying some nuance to it that doesn't exist. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. You act like he's just pretending and then he goes and makes a post like this:
which clearly shows that he means far more by this statistic than merely trolling, he obviously believes it somewhat himself considering he finds a way to shove it into literally every single thread on Veeky Forums that there has ever been relating to american indians and especially references it when people discuss comparisons with europeans, it is his narrow-minded trumpcard for literally everything that suggests his fatal case of incaboo syndrome is anything more than the mental illness that it is.
>sarcastic derision of progress
you stupid fuck it's not sarcastic. He uses development rate to argue all, but not limited to:
-modern south americans are superior to modern europeans
-contemporary south americans were superior to their contemporary europeans

and literally anything else that could possibly allow him to reference his precious development rate statistic.
do you think there was absolutely no way for them to have mitigated the effects of that disease, or at least to take that huge population hit like the europeans did but still manage to survive? It's not like the europeans didn't have enemies taking advantage of it, but they survived anyway. Is there no merit to that? Disease is the apocolypse against americans but just another hardship everyone else?

Do you think I care? Do you think I don't find this hilarious? The Conquistadores were a joke and the Tercios are the real pride of Spain.

>what he means
That Amerindians had a higher development rate. That's a fact, again. It's up to you if you think civilization potential has anything to do with superiority or if you think that there is a superior culture or ethnic group, again.

>shove it every single thread
Not everyone is the same person, user.

>not limited to when Amerindian civilization was obliterated and europeans got into power
Well... that was obvious. Of course, I'm measuring development rate when Amerindians started existing until 1492 when the whole epidemic cataclysm fucked them over, and the western world assimilated them while enslaving the survivors for centuries.
>there was no way to mitigate 20+ diseases
Of course, that's why 10% survived, yet a single bubonic critter wiped out 40% europeans in the middle ages. That was already refuted though.
>argue about superiority
If you believe that superiority is demonstrated by civilization potential, then you can agree with me. It's up to you, bud.

>narrow-minded trump card
Wow, I haven't posted for 1-2 months. It's not my fault that trolls spam my posts like copypastas. Calm down, dude.

> was the aztek society condemned to fail if they wouldnt had been conquered?

most likely

>then you can agree with me

proof for everyone that he truly believes this nonsense despite whatever nuance of moderation he pretends to have, rest of this isn't worth responding to.

>Truly believes
In what?
That civilization potential is an indication of superiority?

For anyone interested, have a look at this guy:
desuarchive.org/his/search/text/amerindian/page/1/

Have a nice scroll through those pages and make the decision for yourself how you want to react to this guy the next time he posts in a thread with you.

Lmao

I mean, I hope you realize that Amerind is a term that's been in varying stages of use since the Pan Amerind movement in the 1970's and it's not exactly an obscure term.

I'm seeing a whole bunch of people, including some trolls, and you construing them all as one.

@3744408
t. amerindian superiority shitposter

desuarchive.org/his/search/text/higher development rate/

>i-it's different people I swear

I know he comes from pol
If we banned pol posters he would never post here again

>thousands of skulls from over the course of hundreds of years

No, dummy, thousands of skulls in one single mass dumpster.

And if they inflated or not their numbers it depends if you are willing to believe more to Spanish or Anti-Spanish propaganda, actually the very first example of political propaganda used in literature (thanks to the printing press).

>it's a c-common term!

...

Not from /pol/.
I capitalise every 'a' of Amerindian.
Haven't posted since late october.
Don't post copypastas.

And as I said before, >Every native thread is the same. Trolls saying that Amerindians were savages, anons that discuss aztec history and want to know more, and some copycats t
I answer illiterate anons on Amerindian threads.

Why don't you post the thread links. It would be great to know the civilized discussion that was going on.
Also, I never post images.

sorry but the search results don't care about capitalization so it's the same, check for yourself.
Everyone knows it's all you man, your posting style is distinct and you use the same phrases a lot "amerindian superiority" "higher development rate" etc

here's another example
desuarchive.org/his/search/text/so you agree with Amerindian superiority/

...

...

>all of them are you
Hmm...

Post one thread.

...

My fucking sides.
Post one thread then.

...

>rest of his post isn't worth responding to
Because you can't prove him wrong?

He knows that, that's why he is spamming screenshots of 'amerindian' archive results.

@3744583
>him
cute
see you next thread

You really need to get off from Veeky Forums once in a while, user. Not everyone is the same person, you know?
I just corrected his claims, yet he ignores it and keeps trying to attack me. As I said before, I post facts about Amerindian civilizations. Yet he literally has avoided any discussion just to whine about some copypastas and retards from /pol/ who like to copy me. But Amerindian higher development rate will never be forgotten. Time to face it, user.