The discovery of the Aztecs and Incas are delayed to the 16th and early 17th century

[dalecoz]

So the first European ships arrive at the fringes of the Aztec empire in 1602. What do they find? There is actually a pretty good chance that they don't find an Aztec empire--I would call it about a fifty-fifty chance, maybe a little less, that the Aztec empire as such would have collapsed by 1602. The Aztecs as an imperial people were a recent phenomenon. They became dominant in Central Mexico around 1430 and conquered the rest of their empire in the next roughly 90 years. Their governing structure left them always one major defeat away from having to reconquer large parts of their empire. By 1519 the Aztecs had been a major power for 89 years. Would they be good for another 83 years? Maybe. Maybe not.

The original post calls for Europeans to meet the Aztecs and they might have lasted that long, so let's go with there being an Aztec empire for them to meet. What would the Aztecs look like? Probably not an awful lot different than the Aztecs of 1519. They would have probably consolidated their empire a bit. They were already starting to take over governments in a few strategic city-states instead of just demanding tribute. That trend would probably continue. They would have probably reduced the Tlascallans to tributary status, but would still face resentment among the conquered there.

Big question: Would they have conquered the Tarascans, their western Mexico-based rivals? The Tarascans were a much more cohesive empire, trying to incorporate subject people into their empire instead of just demanding tribute. The Tarascan military system relied much more on archers than the Aztecs. The two powers had clashed several times before the Spanish arrived, with the Tarascans winning most, but not all of the time, but in defensive battles. Some authors claim that given the logistics situation in Mexico, a hegemonic empire like the Aztecs were superior to a smaller but more cohesive empire like the Tarascans and that the Aztecs would have eventually surrounded and then squeezed the Tarascans into surrender.

One advantage the Tarascans had: They were more closely connected to the seaborne trade between Ecuador and Western Mexico and as a result, they had some innovation first, like use of bronze for simple tools, though in 1519 that was a recent innovation and hadn't been explored fully.

[dalecoz]

I may be getting a little carried away here. I just joined a few hours ago and I've already posted quite a few messages. I'm going to stop now and mostly lurk for a few days, mostly just responding to people who address points I've made. Is this mostly useful?

[lordroel]

Aug 3, 2017 4:54:41 GMT dalecoz said:

I may be getting a little carried away here. I just joined a few hours ago and I've already posted quite a few messages. I'm going to stop now and mostly lurk for a few days, mostly just responding to people who address points I've made. Is this mostly useful?

You do not need to lurk, you can post as much as you can in any thread that is out here.

[dalecoz]

Okay. You may regret encouraging me.

The core of this question is whether or not a hundred or two hundred years would be enough to make a difference in terms of how well the Aztecs and Incas did against the Europeans when the Europeans did come. Two issues there:

1) How much would the Aztecs and Incas, or whoever took over if those empires fell, advance in a couple hundred years. Answer: There would be advances, but they would be subtle. Take the Aztecs and Tarascans, for example. They almost certainly wouldn't be in a full-scale bronze age by 1602 or even 1702 and they certainly wouldn't be in an iron age. Why not? It takes time to overcome inertia and figure out the potential of new materials. The Tarascans made bronze ornaments and a few tools like tweezers, but they hadn't, as far as I can find, started using bronze in weapons or larger tools. The Incas had bronze longer and they were starting to use it in weapons, but those weapons were basically stone weapons done in bronze, not weapons that took full advantage of the potential of bronze. Use of bronze in Mexico would probably follow about the same path it did in Peru, but a few hundred years behind. So the Tarascans and probably the Aztecs would be starting to experiment with larger bronze tools and weapons, but at time of contact wouldn't have bronze swords or armor. Having bronze technology in a larger way WOULD probably let them imitate European weapons like swords in bronze if they had enough time before conquest.

Probably more significant: The Aztecs and Tarascans would probably both be significantly better at using bows and arrows. Bows were fairly recent to the Aztec area of Mexico and while they used them, they weren't great archers--far from it. The Tarascans were better and there was actually a North/South gradient in how sophisticated bows were, with the nomad Chichemics north of the civilized area considerably better than the Tarascans and the Apaches north of them even better. Good bows would diffuse and that would probably be the biggest military difference you would see with a later European entry.

If there was still an Aztec empire though, it would have the same major problems the Aztecs had historically. (1) The Aztecs ruled over a conquered empire by fear. With few exceptions, their subjects viewed the Spanish as liberators until it was too late. (2) European diseases were going to gut the Aztec populations, cutting the population to at best 25% of pre-contact numbers. (3) The Aztecs were particularly vulnerable because their capitol and much of their power was based on Lake Texcoco. If someone else gained control of the lake, the Aztecs were toast. Historically, the Spanish built gunboats that quickly defeated Aztec canoes and were actually the single most important key to the conquest.

The Incas would undoubtedly continue to get better at using bronze. They might or might not get better at using bows. The Incas themselves rarely used bows, relying on spear-throwers and slings mostly. They did hire poison arrow bowmen from jungle tribes on the fringes of the empire and during the Spanish conquest those jungle bowmen were the one type of Indian the Spanish feared. The rest of the Incas armies? They could only very rarely kill Spaniards except in very special circumstances, like catching them going through a mountain pass and killing them in an avalanche. There was a case where the Incas trapped fifty or so Spaniards in an ideal tactical situation for the Indians--neutralizing the advantage of their horses and mobility and outnumbering them at least 20 to 1. Result: a lot of Spaniards got bruises and maybe even a few broken bones, but if any died it was on the order or one or two. If the Incas made more use of bows themselves or hired more of the jungle tribesmen, they would be better at fighting Europeans.

There was a danger to using the tribesmen, though: the tribesmen would learn a lot about military tactics from the Incas and would also register that the Incas really weren't very good at fighting bowmen. So mercenaries could easily become raiders.

[dalecoz]

Factors that historically made the Incas vulnerable: (1) Military: As noted: they hadn't adopted bows to any large extent. They also didn't have anything like the Aztec obsidian swords. Man for man, the Aztecs would have probably kicked their butts. They were aware of bows, but hadn't overcome the inertia of using traditional weapons yet. In another hundred or so years, they probably would have adopted bows to some extent. Becoming a really good bowman takes years, which probably accounts for the slow adoption. Would they have adopted Aztec-style obsidian swords or something like them? Possible. If they did, they would do a far better job at killing Europeans.
(2) Political: The Incas did a far better job of integrating conquered people into their empire than the Aztecs did, but most of the Inca empire was recent conquests and while they were working hard to integrate those conquests, most of the people in the empire still had memories of being independent states of their own and the Spanish were able to find plenty of allies to work with them against the Incas. Given another couple hundred years to integrate their conquests, the Incas might be much more cohesive.
(3) European diseases. Not much they could have done about that.

[dalecoz]

I should probably add a fourth weakness to the Incas: They split at the top much more than the Aztecs did—within the Inca top leadership. There was the civil war that was just ending when the Spanish arrived, which allowed the Spanish to put a survivor of the losing side (Manco) on the throne and then, when Manco revolted against the Spanish, his half-brother Paullu sided with the Spanish against the revolt. At no time were the Incas united against the Spanish, either during the conquest or during the post-conquest revolts, which, by the way, resulted in a fugitive Neo-Inca state near the edge of the rainforest that survived as a remnant of Inca power until 1572.

You may have figured out by now that the Incas and Aztecs were almost mirror images of each other in terms of what they did poorly and what they did well. The Incas had the political theory to integrate their conquests more effectively. They had more advanced use of bronze. They had beasts of burden (llamas) and roads to tie an empire together more effectively. On the other hand, the Aztecs were better at fighting the Spanish due to more effective use of bows and their obsidian swords, which weren’t the equal of what the Spanish had, but were still formidable. So the natural question is: What if the two societies made contact during the spare hundred years or so and each of them gained the advantages that the other one had?

[dalecoz]

Historically, there is no indication that the Aztecs and Incas ever met or were more than vaguely aware of each other’s existence. However, there was seaborne trade between the fringe of the Inca empire and the fringe of the Aztec empire. A group of trading people from Ecuador sailed large seagoing rafts along the Pacific coast as far as western Mexico. The coastal people of western Mexico who were at the other end of that trade are almost entirely unknown, or at least were last time I checked—a historical and archaeological blank spot. This area was outside the Aztec empire and parts of it remained independent for roughly ten years after the Aztecs fell.

Western Mexico was conquered by a particularly brutal and thuggish group of conquistadors, none of whom wrote much down about the people they were attacking. The best source of historical evidence on these people is transcripts of the trials of some the conquistadors years later. There are hints that this was a heavily settled area, with some fair-sized kingdoms, but not much than that is known about them. Bottom-line: archaeology tells us that there was contact between the fringes of the two empires, but not a lot about the nature of the contact other than that it was probably the way metal-working and later bronze-working spread from Peru to Mexico.

So why couldn’t llamas and political ideas spread from Peru to Mexico, while the Aztec advantages in fighting spread to Peru? It’s not impossible. As a matter of fact, I wrote a scenario (either on my website or on the forum which shall not be named) where exactly that happened before Columbus. Llamas would have revolutionized a lot of aspects of Mexican military and political life and made Inca-style political ideas more realistic in Mexico. Unfortunately, it would probably take a while before llamas spread. The big problem: Llamas were mainly highland animals. They didn’t do well in the lowlands where the sea voyages originated. The Incas were a highland people and they brought llamas with them to coastal areas that they conquered, but it would have probably taken several more generations before they adapted enough to the heat and humidity of the lowlands to become common there. Then the people doing the voyages would have had to have a reason to take them on an ocean voyage. All this would almost certainly happen eventually, but getting llamas to Mexico and having them spread to meaningful degree there would likely be a matter of more than a couple hundred years, unfortunately.

[lordroel]

Aug 3, 2017 23:16:21 GMT dalecoz said:

Okay. You may regret encouraging me.

Not regret it, it seems you know your stuff about the Aztecs, seeing this thread reminds me of a very old PC game i still play called The Aztec: True History of the Empire.

[stevep]

dalecoz

The big problem with the scenario for me is that while the American nations might make some progress that is unlikely to be anything like what the European world will have. Even with the butterflies that make Spain/Portugal turn inwards rather there are huge advances between ~1500 and ~1600. In terms of weapons, ships [both military and civilian] and a lot of organisation changes and advances.

A lot will depend on who discovers the Aztecs [or equivalent] and what their aims are. Other nations might initially be interested in trade more than conquest or religious conversion - although OTL the counter-reformation is just beginning and we're about to enter the 30YW. Which could well divert a lot of European attention although its likely to make religious hostility to Meso-american human sacrifices even greater. Plus depending on the circumstances England say and TTL Portugal/Spain may not be greatly involved in any such religious conflict - Although Britain may have its own civil war as OTL - and hence could have resources free for rapid expansion in those new and rich territories. Also the sheer wealth of the American empires combined with their military and technological weakness is going to make attacks even if initially large scale raids, for loot very attractive.

[dalecoz]

Very true about the fact that Europeans would advance too and faster than the Aztecs and Incas. One factor though: Europe would not advance as fast without contact with the New World as it did with that contact. Lots of reasons for that: (1) New World food items made Old World agriculture much more productive, especially corn and potatoes, but also several other plant foods (2) The gold from the New World injected a lot of much needed liquidity into the European economic system. It pretty much ruined a lot of Spanish industry by causing inflation that pushed Spanish prices way above neighboring countries, but it stimulated industry in a lot of the rest of Europe, as Spain bought ships, cannons, etc from all over western Europe.

More later. I'm getting called to lunch.

[stevep]

Aug 4, 2017 16:46:17 GMT dalecoz said:

Very true about the fact that Europeans would advance too and faster than the Aztecs and Incas. One factor though: Europe would not advance as fast without contact with the New World as it did with that contact. Lots of reasons for that: (1) New World food items made Old World agriculture much more productive, especially corn and potatoes, but also several other plant foods (2) The gold from the New World injected a lot of much needed liquidity into the European economic system. It pretty much ruined a lot of Spanish industry by causing inflation that pushed Spanish prices way above neighboring countries, but it stimulated industry in a lot of the rest of Europe, as Spain bought ships, cannons, etc from all over western Europe.

More later. I'm getting called to lunch.

  Not sure how quickly potatoes were used in Europe so butterflies from that are possibly later.  However good point about while the gold notorious caused a lot of inflation in Spain and undermined its industry it could have a positive attack elsewhere.  However I think Europe will have still advanced more than the Americas so the extra century or so delay is likely to increase the gap.

  Does  Europe still develop the routes around Africa to the eastern spices and other goods?  If so that could delay exploring the Americas a bit as more attention is paid to the eastern route.  [Especially if the actual size of the Earth is more widely accepted.]  If not then there is possibly more effort to defeat the Turks and re-open some route through the Med and ME which breaks their monopoly. 

  One point with this is without the earlier conquest of the Americas, plus massive deaths of the natives and Spanish churches protection of the survivors there will be a lot less demand for slaves from Africa.  Think some of the earliest ones were used in places like the Canaries and Azores so may not remove it totally but at least for the moment its going to be a lot less important.  That could drastically change especially Portuguese relations with the kingdom of Kongo.

  Like you got to break for a meal but in my case its tea.

[dalecoz]

Aug 4, 2017 15:54:46 GMT stevep said:

dalecoz

((Snip)) 

A lot will depend on who discovers the Aztecs [or equivalent] and what their aims are. Other nations might initially be interested in trade more than conquest or religious conversion - although OTL the counter-reformation is just beginning and we're about to enter the 30YW. Which could well divert a lot of European attention although its likely to make religious hostility to Meso-american human sacrifices even greater. Plus depending on the circumstances England say and TTL Portugal/Spain may not be greatly involved in any such religious conflict - Although Britain may have its own civil war as OTL - and hence could have resources free for rapid expansion in those new and rich territories. Also the sheer wealth of the American empires combined with their military and technological weakness is going to make attacks even if initially large scale raids, for loot very attractive.  

Also all very true, with some caveats. On the issue of who discovers the Aztecs: I think the key here isn't so much who discovers them as it is whether or not the people who discover them have a solid grip on the major West Indies islands. When Aztec gold started appearing in Europe historically, why didn't Spain's rivals jump in and try to grab a share? Mainly because Spain had already consolidated their grip on the major West Indies islands and any competitors would have had to deal with already large Spanish settlements in their path. Ironically, the mainland conquests eventually eroded Spain's grip on the West Indies by stripping them of many of their settlers and other European powers were able to lodge themselves on some of the islands, but by that time Spain had a solid grip on Mexico.

What if say France, England and Portugal were all competing for West Indies colonies when one of them makes contact with the Aztecs or whoever is in control in Mexico. That leads to a very different set of scenarios, with the European powers competing for Aztec gold. How would that competition play out? Probably rival trading posts that raided each other and a search for Indian trading partners/allies. Unless someone sewed up control of the major power very quickly, you would probably see competition even within the European powers. A few hundred Europeans could become very rich and very powerful raiding the Aztecs or allying with a rebellious group of Aztec subject people or becoming mercenaries of the Aztecs or some other group. The result might not be any better for the Aztecs in the long run, but it could easily be if they become adept at playing European groups off against each other. This kind of scenario, by the way, would be a very good setting for an AH novel, something I'll have to keep in mind.

BTW: If we're being realistic about the impact of delays in finding the Aztecs and Incas, almost nothing about European politics and economics after 1540 at the latest can be counted on as happening. Counter-reformation? Powered in large part by Spanish money, which was almost entirely derived from the New World. Dutch rebellion against the Hapsburgs? Fueled in part by Flanders getting very rich as the workshop of the Hapsburg empire--where New World gold paid for ships and cannon going to Spain.

[dalecoz]

Ironically, based on what happened historically, Mexico and Peru might have been tougher to conquer if the Aztec and Inca empires had fallen by the time Europeans arrived. The really tough conquests for the Spanish were when the locals didn't have a really dominant power that the Spanish could defeat and co-opt. Examples: The Mayans in the Yucatan and the people of Chile took a long time to conquer compared to the Aztecs and Incas. Granted they were not as wealthy as the Aztecs and Incas, which gave less incentive for conquest, but the Spanish tried hard to conquer them and it took decades if not centuries before the conquest was complete.

Another area that gave Spain fits: the fringes of the civilized area in northwestern Mexico. A group called the Caxcanes led a revolt against Spain in 1540 called the Mixton War that produced some of the hardest fighting between Europeans and Indians in the conquest era. The Cazcanes were on the frontier between settled Mexico and the desert nomads, with some attributes of high culture Mexico and some attributes of the nomads. Very hard fighters. The Spanish eventually managed to get some of them to fight as mercenaries against the nomadic Chichemics.

[stevep]

Aug 4, 2017 17:52:29 GMT dalecoz said:

Aug 4, 2017 15:54:46 GMT stevep said:

dalecoz

((Snip)) 

A lot will depend on who discovers the Aztecs [or equivalent] and what their aims are. Other nations might initially be interested in trade more than conquest or religious conversion - although OTL the counter-reformation is just beginning and we're about to enter the 30YW. Which could well divert a lot of European attention although its likely to make religious hostility to Meso-american human sacrifices even greater. Plus depending on the circumstances England say and TTL Portugal/Spain may not be greatly involved in any such religious conflict - Although Britain may have its own civil war as OTL - and hence could have resources free for rapid expansion in those new and rich territories. Also the sheer wealth of the American empires combined with their military and technological weakness is going to make attacks even if initially large scale raids, for loot very attractive.  

Also all very true, with some caveats. On the issue of who discovers the Aztecs: I think the key here isn't so much who discovers them as it is whether or not the people who discover them have a solid grip on the major West Indies islands. When Aztec gold started appearing in Europe historically, why didn't Spain's rivals jump in and try to grab a share? Mainly because Spain had already consolidated their grip on the major West Indies islands and any competitors would have had to deal with already large Spanish settlements in their path. Ironically, the mainland conquests eventually eroded Spain's grip on the West Indies by stripping them of many of their settlers and other European powers were able to lodge themselves on some of the islands, but by that time Spain had a solid grip on Mexico.

What if say France, England and Portugal were all competing for West Indies colonies when one of them makes contact with the Aztecs or whoever is in control in Mexico. That leads to a very different set of scenarios, with the European powers competing for Aztec gold. How would that competition play out? Probably rival trading posts that raided each other and a search for Indian trading partners/allies. Unless someone sewed up control of the major power very quickly, you would probably see competition even within the European powers. A few hundred Europeans could become very rich and very powerful raiding the Aztecs or allying with a rebellious group of Aztec subject people or becoming mercenaries of the Aztecs or some other group. The result might not be any better for the Aztecs in the long run, but it could easily be if they become adept at playing European groups off against each other. This kind of scenario, by the way, would be a very good setting for an AH novel, something I'll have to keep in mind.

Very good point here. If, as could well be likely, the Caribbean is considerably divided, then you are likely to see considerably conflict between the assorted powers and none would be happy with any rival controlling Mexico and its huge wealth and population.  You are likely to see something more like what happened in N America, or possibly a better example India, with assorted powers struggling for control.  Possibly with no one nation gaining overall control.  Also as you say if one power gained dominance in Mexico it could lose influence in the Caribbean islands, which if plantation slavery develops for sugar and other crops as OTL could end up much richer.

BTW: If we're being realistic about the impact of delays in finding the Aztecs and Incas, almost nothing about European politics and economics after 1540 at the latest can be counted on as happening. Counter-reformation? Powered in large part by Spanish money, which was almost entirely derived from the New World. Dutch rebellion against the Hapsburgs? Fueled in part by Flanders getting very rich as the workshop of the Hapsburg empire--where New World gold paid for ships and cannon going to Spain.

  Very true.  I suspect your likely to have some form of reformation or at least rebellion against the corruption of the Catholic church and a counter-reformation of some form.  Think Flanders was already wealthy before 1490, let alone ~1520 and gold and silver starting to boost Spanish spending so it could well still revolt against high taxes, presuming that it ends up being ruled by another power, whether Austria, Spain [in some form] France or whoever.  However there are likely to be a lot of butterflies.  Without new world gold an counter-reformation could be weaker which might mean assorted areas such as Bohemia, Hungary, parts of Germany, possibly even more of the historical Netherlands stay Protestant rather than coming back under Catholic domination.  West/Central Europe is still likely to be religiously divided and some bloody wars fought over the issue. 

  Iberia might still be very wealthy if it dominated the eastern trade.  Portugal did very well for a while OTL and if delayed possibly by war but gaining greater resources if it ends up dominating Iberia could get greater control for longer.  In fact it might as a result possibly fail to get involved in the Americas, although that's probably unlikely. 

  There will be a lot of differences but your likely to see at least some areas of Europe, especially in the west and north, developing early level organisation and technological changes in advance of the industrial revolution.

Ironically, based on what happened historically, Mexico and Peru might have been tougher to conquer if the Aztec and Inca empires had fallen by the time Europeans arrived. The really tough conquests for the Spanish were when the locals didn't have a really dominant power that the Spanish could defeat and co-opt. Examples: The Mayans in the Yucatan and the people of Chile took a long time to conquer compared to the Aztecs and Incas. Granted they were not as wealthy as the Aztecs and Incas, which gave less incentive for conquest, but the Spanish tried hard to conquer them and it took decades if not centuries before the conquest was complete.

  Possibly.  Both because defeating one a single army/state won't win an entire area as well and also it won't give information about the rest of the entire region.  Furthermore small local states might have more cohesion defending their homes.  As well as the reduced wealth making them less attractive.  I think also with the Maya at least the mountainous jungle areas they inhabited made them more difficult to subdue.  With southern Chile I think it was partly terrain and the relative lack of easy wealth in the region.

Another area that gave Spain fits: the fringes of the civilized area in northwestern Mexico. A group called the Caxcanes led a revolt against Spain in 1540 called the Mixton War that produced some of the hardest fighting between Europeans and Indians in the conquest era. The Cazcanes were on the frontier between settled Mexico and the desert nomads, with some attributes of high culture Mexico and some attributes of the nomads. Very hard fighters. The Spanish eventually managed to get some of them to fight as mercenaries against the nomadic Chichemics.

  This could be simply imperial overstretch as the homeland faded in strength and the wealthy colonies came under challenge there was less resources and willpower to expand out into the fringes.  Coupled with as you say very determined resistance and difficult terrain.  Again thinking of the British Raj in India and how expansion petered out in Afghanistan and never really pushed into Tibet while Nepal became an important source of mercenaries.  However with smaller empires spread between numerous European powers, if that happens, you could have more small states surviving both because the European empires are eying each other and because their able to play the Europeans off against each other. 

  There is still the danger that the huge advantage in power the Europeans have could mean then swamping much of the Americans pretty quickly as in the late 19thC much of Africa was carved up, although probably not quite so quickly.

  Anyway looking forward to seeing how things develop.