@@MedjayofFaiyum If I understood correctly the Habsburg Austrians who controlled basically Spain and the Holy Roman Empire would be significantly weaker if the Spanish hadn't seized the majority of wealth in the Americas like in this timeline where they failed to conquer the Aztecs. Without Austria having the massive Spanish Empire of our timeline under its Banner, Sweden could capture Vienna (for example during the 30-Years-War where they were enemies anyway) more easily and the Swedish king could declare himself Holy Roman Emperor effectively annexing the HRE (or at least create powerful puppets) and controlling much of Central Europe.
@@Mimi.1001 An annexation of the Holy Roman Empire is very unlikely and probably impossible. Most likely they would either completely crush it like Napoleon did, and set up their own system, or they would force themselves as Emperor and try to maintain control over a really weird type of vassal state.
If you can force protestantism as the religion of the HRE it WILL centralize, a big reason why the HRE didn't become more centralized was the Investiture question, not only is that out of the window with a protestant HRE but it also makes the emperor the highest religious authority. With full control over the bishops the reelection doesn't have to be bought with surrendering control and with the devestation of brandenburg the one Nation besides Austria that could ever rival your supremacy is done for.
When Spain sends their warriors, they're sending their best. They're bringing guns, they're bringing deer, they're rapists and some of them, I assume are good people...
Alien invasion with human allies. The Aztec had alot of very pissed off enemies.
3 роки тому+15
@@Quetzalcoatl_Feathered_Serpent Exactly. That was precisely the Spaniards' strategy: team up with the angry peoples submitted by the Aztecs, gather a large army and overthrow. Then submit everyone under their regime and take their precious gold.
@@guidoylosfreaks partially. It was a number of factors. The Spainish had steel armor, guns and cannons, horses, native allies and yes they used biological warfare as well. It was a combination of things that brought down the aztec empire.
In XVI century it was closer to Polish-Litunanian-Swedish country than German-Swedish. In 1598 polish king and formal and legal swedish king Sigisimundus III Vasa came to Sweden to recover the crown from his uncle Carolus. At this year 30th of August twelve polish nobles, under the cover of night, took Stockholm. Led them Samuel Łaski, polish captain.
Yeah.... it wouldn't have been. The Spanish would have had proof of defense riches held by a vastly technologically inferior power. They would have definitely sent a military expedition to destroy the Aztecs and that expedition would have won easily.
@@CedarHunt "They would have definitely sent a military expedition to destroy the Aztecs and that expedition would have won easily. " How? If the aztec population is allowed to rebound afte the plague, trying to invade them is a recipe for disaster. They had an extreme martial culture, on level with spartans and samurai. And a far larger population pool to recruit from. Really the most important thing they needed was time. It would have only took time for them to realize that in the "european style" wars - that are waged ti submission or extermination will be plenty prisoners, even if they didn't focus on taking them. Adopting to cavalry is not THAT hard. And gunpowder creates superiority the same way hoplites did - they reduce the training needed and allow large populations to be drafted to defend or attack, who didn't have time to train due to having to work. Gunpowder is VERY far from a game changer if you are trying to invade a militaristic empire with a relatively modest army. Franlly it could e argued that darrt throwers, and bow and arrow are superior on the field to line infantry - and line infantry wins by numbers. However if you have an ocean to cross, the resulting transportation bottleneck will seriously diminsh the numerical advantage. You will be outnumbered by better trained, better equipped foes, who will likely push you back to sea. Not to mention the extrem adeptness at stealth & fieldcraft of aztecs and other native group had, due to focus on taking prisoners alive. That would very easily lead to some VERY devastating attacks - think raid on Tragovivtse by Vlad Tepes, but all the time.
@@martonlerant5672 You should probably crack open a history book to see how the European powers would win. The Aztecs lost roughly half of their entire population to disease and that would take generation to recover from. I can't think of a valid scenario where the Spanish spend the next several generations sitting on their hands and even if they did the Aztecs would still have an almost comical technological disadvantage and would still be surrounded by large populations of people who hate them for the whole human sacrifice thing. There isn't a scenario where the aztecs win that fight as history demonstrates.
@@CedarHunt I do not agree. As I don't think the Spanish monarch would believe it to be a worthwhile investment, to be honest I don't know much (if anything) about them reigning Spanish Royal at the time but I don't believe they'd be convinced that the Aztec empire had so much wealth, or at least wealth that he could exploit, the Aztecs from what I've read didn't actually have a lot of gold and the main resources they had that made them wealthy was land, food, and just how their cities looked, none of those could be brought to the Spanish crown from ships. The main gold areas of the Americas were Peru and Colombia
@@loldiamond1017 Well you're wrong then. The Aztecs greeted the initial Spanish landing party with two sizable disks, one made of gold and one of silver. That was what started the entire effort to colonize Mexico. The Spanish would known for a fact that substantial gold and silver existed in the Aztec empire and that the Aztecs were basically a stone age society with little hope of defeating an effort to conquer them. Which is exactly what happened as a matter of factual history. Even if we accept that the initial attempt fails due to some grand accident like all their horses die or whatever, the Spanish have more horses and guns and men looking to become fabulously wealthy. The Spanish were not in good financial condition at the time and they were more than willing to take a chance especially once they knew wealth existed in the area. Which is, again, what happened in history. There is no credible scenario where the Aztec win that fight. If they had a thousand years to prepare they'd still have lost.
In all alternate histories, Sweden becomes the northern power, we’re the only version of history where this isn’t the case. Even “what if the meteorite never hit earth and wiped out the dinosaurs” results in sweds ruling the north, and same with “what if aliens came to earth and appreciated the rainbow serpent so much they gave the Aboriginals industrial technology 40 thousand years ago”, even things like “what if Jupiter never stopped heading towards the sun, back when earth was first forming?”
@@alt1f4 African states are now more wealthy, and Southern Europeans have more to compete with down there, lessening their power. You wanna know who doesn’t have to compete? Sweden. GG
@@jamesgabor9284 Northern Europe would be completely frozen like Greenland if the Sahara desert didn't exist, I can't explain why because I'm not a scientist but you can search on google
Fun Fact: The traditional Aztec way of cooking thier human sacrifices is still practiced to this day in the form of Posole. The human is of course substituted with pork and it's considered a delicacy throughout Mexican culture
@@damianlopez9855 um no, they didn't eat rats. they had deer, fish, wild peccary's, tapir, dogs, and also Turkeys are native to Mexico. Why on earth would you spread such misinformation?
Aztec integration of christianity is an intriguing idea. They've both got a theme of sacrifice and ceremonial cannibalism. With European livestock being a much easier source of meat, they'd probably be switching from literal to symbolic cannibalism anyway. With christianity in the mix, they could be switching from devouring the human sacrifice made to their deity to devouring the flesh of said deity, as their deity would be sacrificed to them instead of vice versa. I can certainly see the appeal.
@@ANTSEMUT1 I could see them changing their minds. Those million or so sacrifices yearly and their God couldn't protect them from Smallpox. If you're giving that kind of payment and not getting anything in return, it'd fall out of favour pretty quickly.
@@gyver8448on an anthropological level human sacrifices isn't as straightforward as that, otherwise the Aztecs/Mexica would sacrifice just about everyone. It was also used as a means of political control over their vassals. So would the Aztecs see any political utility in adopting the Christian religion with that in mind?
@@ANTSEMUT1 The elites who are in charge would no doubt want to cling to the old ways because it gives them power. Joe Everyman though? There's a fair bit of historical precedence for the underclasses to start converting and stage a rebellion because it serves their needs better.
@@WhatifAltHist to clarify, it's something of misunderstanding that while up to or about 90% of the pre-columbian population of the America's did die, that was over the course of nearly 300 years.
No, actually: one book (Cook, 1998) says that indeed smallpox had a 80-90% fatality rate. Other historian (Resendez, 2019) agrees with that, but says the population would have rebounded if they weren't enslaved in mines, so technically they didn't die of smallpox. As for present-day US, the consensus now seems that indeed about 90% of the population died of diseases, while the total population decline was up to 98% in some areas. There is more information here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples
@@Richard_is_cool Fatality rate of smallpox was high but remember not everyone caught it. Also smallpox broke out multiple times over generations. During the conquest this disease probably killed half of the Aztecs. Later on as more Europeans arrived other diseases caused further outbreaks. Many also died from forced labor and the fact that violence and bring kicked off of prime farmland leads to lower birthrates.
The Aztec where not that old, they are contemporary to the time they rose to dominance, they where not Hundreds of Years old, that would be the Maya, which where in decline at that point.
That comparison with Rome was mind-blowing. This is one of the best videos you have made, it surprised me with data I didn't know about the Aztecs, like their war tactics. They also used to cut off the faces of the Spanish and hanged them from the trees. Truly a living nightmare. Love from México.
Actually that’s a horrible comparison. One of the reason Rome managed to survive is due to its massive military and technological advantage over its immediate enemies. For the Aztec this is the opposite. By this time the Aztec haven’t even managed to create metal weapons yet. Not even bronze. Yes they were THAT far behind. They had no armor and only primitive weapons (as in, a short pointy stick or a wooden club). This is not an army that can do anything against the European knights at the peak of their power (16th century knights, we are talking about fully articulated plate armor and full horse barding), or the professional infantry that accompany them (by this time mail is extremely proliferate even the archers and crossbowmen are using them). Seriously these people has no hope of beating the Roman legions, let alone the 16th century European empires.
@@artruisjoew5473 They had armor, not metal armor, but a gambeson is still armor. And the weapons where not just a short pointy stick or a wooden club. They had actual speers with obsidian tips and swords with obsidian shards as the blade(obsidian shards are incredibly Sharp). They had bronze they just didn't use it for weapons because they didn't need to. Plus the Aztec military was still superior the the others in the region. Of course they are inferior to a civilization a thousand years ahead in technology, but we are not comparing 16th century europe or the the roman empire with the aztecs but the roman republic which had a military made of farmers(who had to pay for their equipment themselves).
The Mexica converting to Christianity to me would not be a surprise because they can see that Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice and because of that no more sacrifices for the gods would be needed
Diego Antonio Rosario Palomino Because they would need to believe in the Christian God BEFORE believing in Christs sacrifice, otherwise he would be just another sacrifice. So either they integrate the Christian God into their pantheon and use Jesus as a reason for not sacrificing people anymore or... Well... Just not do that and risk making their gods mad. Because if they just believed in the Christian God they wouldn't need the sacrifice anyway. Plus, their sacrifices weren't because of sin, but to help their God survive.
@@SenorGuina The F@ck it ain't! That's exactly what happened. The Christian God was peaceful loving God who sacrificed his own son for the world. Whereas the war like Aztec God demand that they sacrifice their sons on a daily F@cking basis! Thats exactly why Latin America is predominantly Catholic and were quick to convert. Unlike the northern plains Indians like the Apache or Cherokee who refused to convert. Probably because they didn't have the F@cking Aztecs preist obsidian knife to motivate them. We have nothing in common with the worlds most brutal evil barbaric civilization to have ever existed. The Aztecs
13 Ideas (Attempt 3) What if Korea Was the first Asian Nation to Industrialize instead of Japan? What if India became Communist? What if the Xinhai Rebellion failed? What if the Islamic Conquests of Egypt/Persia/Assyria failed? What if the Ming defeated the Qing in the Ming-Qing War? What if the Sikhs Conquered the entire Indian Subcontinent? What if India converted to Nestorian Christianity? What if China became Muslim? What if the US/UK became Fascist? What if the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth Remained United/Was more powerful? What if Indonesia became Catholic/Was colonized by Portugal instead of the Dutch?
My humble thoughts on what if India became communist :- it would have to be in the 50's before the Sino Indian War ruined the relationship between the two countries. US would immediately intervene to stop another large and highly populated country falling into communism and would probably get bogged down in the war. It would become our time line's version of the Vietnam War and would sour the public opinion on foreign interventions. US would greatly help develop India's rival Pakistan while overthrowing communist sympathetic countries near India. The Cold War would favour USSR more but they would fail in the end
It's called New England, and I live there. It's wonderful. Too bad it's part of the United States, the second shittiest mainland country in North America.
8:08 the Pontus Kingdom wasn't Turkish I think you meant to say "in modern day Turkey" since Turks didn't live in Anatolia at the time of Roman Republic.
@@demonkingbadger6689 Kinda, as far as I've studied, archeological and genetic studies shows their ancestors are from northern China, then they moved to Mongolia and southern Siberia and then into central Asia and beyond. In fact some of them are still there. Yakuts in the Sakha republic of Yakutia and Tuvans in Tuva republic (both in Russia) are Siberian Turks. Also most of central Asia wasn't always Turkic, except for the Altai region in Kazakhistan which may be the original Turkic homeland. In the first millennium, the Central Asian nomads like Scythians, Sarmatians, Massagetae, Dahae confederacy and Yuezhi (who later founded the Kushan empire) are either definitely Indo-European or are very likely to be. Of course if you ask ultra-nationalist Turks, all these tribes were Turks and anything that claims otherwise is racist propaganda. Also parts of central Asia wasn't Turkic even in the middle ages. what is now Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan were inhabited by Iranic people (check out these eastern Iranian languages: Sogdian, Khwarezmian) and Transoxiana was the heartland of a definitely not Turkic dynasty called Samanids from 819 to 999 AD, from 900s Turkic dynasties (Karakhanids, Seljuks and Khwarezmids) took over this portion of central Asia many times but when Mongols destroyed the urban centers of Transoxiana such as Samarkand, Bukhara and Merv, only Turkic nomads were left in this region, creating modern day Turkmen, Uzbek, Karakalpak and Kyrgyz nations. However I think Whatifalthist is just trolling people by calling people who weren't Turkic, Turks. Because there's no way he doesn't know this.
Not really, the Spanish were supported by all the other native tribes, if you believe the stupid story that 400-500 soldiers were able to defeat a huge empire is ridiculous. The Christian god was for the other tribes the good god compared to Aztec tribes that required continual sacrifices. Spain did not go to War in Europe and the Mediterranean to conquer but to fight against the protestants and muslims for the Catholic Church. The native people became citizens of Spain, even though there also were abuses, the biggest abuses against the native peoples came after the empire disintegrated and the criollos (Europeans born in América) took away their citizenship and lands, this continues til today.
If you truly think that the spanish government didn’t went to war for the sake of conquering and power then you are blind, the protestants and muslims vs catholics were just propaganda for the soldiers and the people
No, the Atzec couldn't"reverse engineering"the european tech, they haven't blacksmiths, were hated by their subjects(more than 20000 indios supported Cortez), and the smallpox killed a lot of their elites. And don't forget the demografic pression from Europe
@@alessiodecarolis Truth is even had the Spanish not shown up. There was a very good chance the Aztecs still go down. As you say above they pissed off everyone around them. It was just a matter of time until they got rolled by someone.
Not to mention that they brought no innovation to the area other than being particularly violent and willing to backstab allies. They were outsiders who only recently conquered the area, so the Spanish doing the same was not that different.
Was gonna point this out. He also called St Nicholas Turkish in his more recent what if Santa was real video : / Also, the three replies above have nothing to do with the original comment
As someone who lives right outside of Albany, the idea of Albany being the capital of the US is honestly Comical. Anyways, I think that the Aztecs would have been conquered by their rivals to the north who would have had the timeline play out almost exactly the same (except that there is no way that Sweden could extend its control to south Germany). But keep up the great work!
I think Philadelphia or New York likely becomes the capital, with both being the major ports for the Delaware and Hudson Rivers, and thus becoming major population centers. Perhaps Boston could be capital too with the larger Puritan influence in America.
The United States has only had 2 constitutions. Going from a Confederation to a Federal Republic within 5 years. Even fighting a Cvil War for 11 states to switch back to a confederation. Leaders were of the same faith and same class and ethnic group. Mexico has had 5 constitutions going from Confederation in 1810, Federal Republic then back to a Monarchy, Centralist Conservative, Liberal Republic in 1850, Monarchy again 1860 , Liberal Dictatorship 1880 then to a Democratic Republic 1912 (followed by national social)...to Neo Liberalism(60s-2018). Each constituiton is backed by basically different countries all claiming to be the real Mexico. It's like PRC(taiwan) vs CCP claiming to be the real china. but with Mexico so many there are like 4 paties from different religions, ethnicities all claiming to be the real Mexico. US history can be summarized in probably 3 books(300 pages) within 1 series a total of 900 pages of a Nations brie history. Most of it is filled with filler chapters about 5la*e5. Mexicos history can be briefly summarized in about 4 books(400 pages) for 5 different series ...2,000 pages. Sure not as long as Chinese or Hindi or British or Roman.. But for the Americas. .This is very complicated and confusing history for the average american(post 2000s).
By 1518, the Aztec Empire had existed a little over a hundred years. Centuries is kind of a stretch. The tribe definitely goes back centuries before the Spanish conquest of Mexico.
Mexican here, the statements are super innacurate. Firstly, the Aztecs weren’t the only empire in the region, there were also the tarascans. And the Aztecs had many internal enemies, were extremely vulnerable to a revolt from their subjugated tribes, which were obligated to pay high taxes and were suppresed harshly by the Aztecs. They also had a lot of enemies, the Tlaxcalans, Mayans, etc. There’s no way they could have expanded to modern day Mexico’s size because they weren’t interested in the northern less developed regions in the first place, and because there were a lot of other empires that would have opposed them from reaching the north in the first place. What once was the Aztec empire is like 6% of the territory of modern day Mexico. The Aztecs are way overvalued, and could never have “colonized” the north. They were too small and had too many internal vulnerabilities for that. If the Spanish hadn’t conquered them, then the French or Portuguese would have.
What if the Japanese won the Imjin War, thereby conquering Korea. Perhaps by Admiral Yi dying at or after his first military examination due to an infection?
Japan was actually also losing due to guerilla warfare from the Koreans, so it’s going to remain a bloody struggle for power even without Yi. All removing Yi does is making supporting Japanese troops easier.
@@innosam123 I think you underestimate the importance if admiral Yi and overestimate the strength of Korean resistance. Japan's main problem throughout the war wasn't dealing with small petty guerrillas in the mountains, it was dealing with supply as the very organized Japanese army required a large amount of supplies from Japan, and when Yi began strangling it, that gave Korea more time until Chinese reinforcements could come, so without Yi, Japan could swiftly take Korea like it almost did in our TL.
Nicholas Nguyen Did I say Yi wasn’t important? You also can’t really win a guerrilla war ‘swiftly’, and the Japanese were unlikely to make concessions to the Koreans to gain their support. The only thing it does is make the Japanese campaign not completely doomed.
@@innosam123 I dont think you understand how guerilla war works. There is always some kinds of guerilla if a nation loses all of its country but some crazy koreans in the mountains wont prevent a victory. You can only hide for so much
@@brandonvargas6729 majority of Mexican carry not just Spanish but European DNA in general. Literally one of the region in the world with the highest rate of mixing in the world during the New Spain era not even talking about all the European that migrated after independence. Not even talking about all the territory they earned thanks to the Spanish army and technology. The Aztec empire doubled in size under the virreinato.
Honestly this whole video came from such a western view that so much information was left out making this whole thing so far fetched. So many things were wrong I wouldn't even know where to begin correcting it
Yes, it was a kingdom made out of some of the Greek colonies in the black sea. He probably made a mistake. The Turks were still in central Asia at the time
"Imagine you're an Aztec in the year 1518. Your people and empire had existed for centuries" Hmmm... nope? In 1518 the Aztec empire wasn't even a century old. The Mexica had been around for a while longer than that, yeah, but they didn't establish their predominance in the region until around 1430.
Let's not forget how many people were enslaved by the Aztecs way before the arrival of Cortes, and that the bulk of the Spanish army was actually made up of native warriors
@@grubbybum3614 If I understand the video, they manage to hold on to their own empire long enough to engage in trade with the Spaniards or some other European power in more or less fair terms and acquire horses and other stuff from them.
Grubby bum and cuz the Spaniards would still have Central American/Caribbean colonies so I assume they would get horses via trade or raiding. Plus, I assume they might trade with the other European powers for horses at some point.
In due time they would have a significant number of horses in their possession just like how the introduction of horses from the east coast eventually reaching the Great Plains. Time shouldn’t be an issue since the original attack by Cortez was not even a formal invasion but from a guy trying to outvalue his exile.
@@bootymane9907 yeah, but I really liked the first season back then and elements of the second, never dared to watch the third, and I'm not a tween, I still liked your comment
I realize this would affect Philippines hugely too because of all the Spanish and Mexican influence here, this means the Spaniards would've been discouraged from going further in colonization and we could've either survived at least until the 1800s (like the rest of Southeast Asia), or become some sort of Portuguese/Dutch/Japanese colony Which also means an alternate Magellan would likely not come from Spain
@@MyUsersDark japan was pretty isolated but for most of their history but china was still their main economic and cultural partner, japan pretty much got its main culture from ancient china.
@@pancakes6119 I’m inclined to agree. These developments are strongly based in “degrees”. The Aztecs were too far from any developed nations. Population would most likely have grown to a breaking point, subsequent governmental failure takes place, and multiple new city states arise. Of course, all this assuming the Europeans don’t “eventually come”-which they most certainly would have.
So for one thing, the population of the Aztec Empire was closer to 6 million, not 7 million. If 90% still die from disease, you're looking at a remaining population of less than one million. Basically, Aztec society still collapses, and the Spanish would be able to come back for them. The Incas may have a better chance being up in the mountains.
You are forgetting that the chichimecan tribes were essentialy just like the apache or comanche even more agressive, the spaniards fought them for decades and didn't even won the war, they purchase peace. So that campaign would have beeing very long and expensive, with a considerable probability of failure, and maybe, considering the circumstances it could also fire back at them.
As somebody who regularly makes big posts and has collaborated with a few other channels on Mesoamerican (Aztec, Maya, etc) history topics, I wanna give some input and corrections here. Firstly do wanna say that you did a pretty solid job for the most part: It's ABSOLUTELY true that the Conquest of Mexico and by extension the colonization of the Americas as a whole was extremely reliant on a series of flukes and other specific events playing out early on which snowballed later, and that Firearms (as well as metal armor and weapons, most Conquistadors didn't even have metal armor and those that did often gave it up due to the climate) weren't notable advantages, and that it was cavalry charges (and cannon-fire) which gave them their largest advantage, with the Battle of Otumba being a fantastic example of how those could blow holes in Aztec formations. However, something which you did leave a note on but didn't really make a big deal of is just how reliant the Conquistadors were on troops from local city-states and kingdoms. While there weren't just 500 conquistadors as you say (at various points additional men arrived from Cuba or rival Conquistador forces which brought the number up/replenished it as it went down from losses in various engagements) and i'm iffy about the 20 million population figure for the Aztec (the generally accepted population of Mexico at this time was 20 to 25 million, the Aztec empire controlled a good amount of this, but there were many other city-states, kingdoms, and one other large empire (the Purepecha/Tarascan empire) there they didn't), the fact remains that the Conquistadors were at an extreme numerical disadvantage against even moderately sized city-states, let alone the larger kingdoms or the biggest empires in the region: You say the Aztec could field armies in the tens of thousands, but Tenochtitlan (the Aztec capital) could field an army of 40,000 (per Hassig's Aztec Warfare) BY ITSELF, Aztec records assert that when pooling troops from subject cities, they launched offensive invasions numbering between 200,000 and 700,000 soldiers. The latter figure is likely hyperbolic, but Hassig points out that 200,000, which is the more typical high end figure you see in Aztec sources, would have been on the edge of logistically feasible. Calvary and cannons are NOT going to make up for numerical gulfs where the Conquistadors are fighting armies 10x, 50x, 100x, to 200x their own size. Keep in mind here that the Aztec and other Mesoamerican civilizations here ARE organized political states, not tribes (Even the Maya during this period, contrary to the map shown in the video: The Classical Maya collapse had the larger cities and kingdoms in the Central and Southern Yucatan fragment, but they were still organized societies and other parts of the Yucatan Peninsula continued to have larger Maya states): The Mexica (the specific group inside the Aztec capital most associated with the term) had a complex formal rank hierarchy, elite military guilds, barracks, armories, garrisons; fought in formation, had different emblems, battle standards/banners, and colored uniforms to indicate unit divisions, etc. They have have used stone and wooden weapons and tools, but these were not stone age societies: In pretty much every other regard they were comparable to the civilizations of the Eurasian Bronze age, in many ways more comparable to Iron and Classical civilizations, in a select few cutting edge even globally at the time (in sanitation and medicine, for example) So to say the Conquistadors were reliant on not just diseases (though note that the 90% to 95% population loss figures are over the course of almost a century and multiple outbreaks, the intial smallpox epidemic "only" killed around 1/3 of the population in 10 years) but the armies of their allied states is an understatement. However, these were not mostly "enemies" of the Aztec as the note in the video says: The Kingdom of Tlaxcala was (though confusingly also "Aztec" themselves in the sense that they belonged to the Nahua culture/civilization, even if not a part of the "Aztec Empire" politically; Tlaxcala was also notably ruled by a set of 4 city-states with a collective senate, senators needing to undergo strict legal and ethical training prior to taking office), as the Aztec Empire had been targeting it with Flower Wars (smaller scale, more ritualistic engagements, here used as a way to wear Tlaxcala down as they could be waged year round rather then seasonally as with normal full scale assaults) and blockades to eventually conquer it, but the other allied city-states and kingdoms Cortes would obtain obtain were either neutral (Huextozinco) or a part of the Aztec Empire (Texcoco (actually one of the 3 ruling cities alongside Tenochtitlan), Xochimilco, Iztapalapa, Chalco, Mixquic): These were not hostile or hateful of Aztec rule, as is oft cited, but rather joined forces with the Conquistadors and the Tlaxcalatec much latter, only after Smallpox had already broken out in Tenochtitlan and Montezuma II had been killed (depending on the source, either via civil unrest in Tenochtitlan, being stoned to death as the Mexica became frustrated with him after he was being obviously puppeted by Cortes following the Toxactl massacre by Conquistadors; or by Conquistadors simply assassinating him), and the Conquistadors and Tlaxcalatec successfully escaped the city and won the Battle of Otumba as they fled. CONTINUED BELOW
CONTINUED FROM ABOVE:.......The reason for this (and why I don't think the Aztec- Roman comparison is entirely accurate) is that the Aztec Empire, and pretty much any other large Mesoamerican state (except the Purepecha Empire) weren't imperialized: Generally speaking, subject cities and towns weren't directly governed by their capitals, and operated as and saw themselves as if they were independent. The exact method of political power and authority varied, with tributary and vassal states, strategic political marriages, installing rulers on conquered cities/towns, and other methods of "soft" control and power all being used variously depending on the specific state, but bottom line larger Mesoamerican states were more networks of political relationships, some of these being subservient or dominant; rather then nation states as most people think of empires being. The Aztec Empire was no exception (actually more hands off then a lot of others: They basically just asked for economic goods as taxes and aid on military efforts. Contrary to what most people think, slaves and sacrifices weren't demanded or taken from subjects typically, the bulk of sacrifices were enemy soldiers captured during battles, though more on this later). The upside of a system like this is that you don't have to worry about logistically managing your hundreds of conquered cities and towns. The downside of this is that they have leeeway to opportunistically secede or rebel: Whenever an a Tenochca king (or Aztec Emperor) died, far off border provinces would stop paying taxes, trying to see what they could get away with in a period of transition. At one time, the new emperor, Tizoc, did such a poor job reconquering these border provinces that over the next few years the entire empire almost shattered and Tizoc was assassinated by Mexica nobility to avoid further weakening of Tenochca influence. Even his successor, Ahuizotl, got ghosted at his own cornoration ceremony by other independent states (which is a big deal, as visits by kings to allies and even enemies was almost never avoided or denied, it is why Cortes was allowed in Tenochtitlan by Montezuma II to begin with) due to Aztec influence being that diminished. Not to mention that in a political system where you effectively keep your independence even as a subject, you don't have much to lose by pledging yourself to some other polity, helping them conquer stuff or overthrow the current top dog, and then you've hopefully guaranteed yourself a position of higher standing in the new Political hegemony you helped propped up. This is basically what happened: Tenochtitlan was ravaged by smallpox with half it's population dead or sick, it's king had died, Tenochtitlan had lost a battle against a small band of soldiers who themselves had been beaten by Tlaxcala (because yeah, it was less Cortes manipulating Tlaxcala and other states and more them manipulating him, having spared him after per Bernal Diaz and other sources, Tlaxcala had the Conquistadors cornered and only spared them at the last minute) who were on their last legs after years of Aztec blockades and attacks. Tenochtitlan was widely seen as weak, vulnerable, and unable to project it's influence onto it's subjects: other Aztec cities saw a geopolitical opportunity to take it out and hopefully cement themselves in a higher position once the Conquistadors or perhaps Tlaxcala took over, and you even see them giving Cortes and other high ranking Conquistadors princesses as political marriages (which the Conquistadors misunderstood as offerings of Concubines). With all this stated, it should also become clear just how much of a fluke the Conquest of Mexico was: Had Cortes failed before Smallpox broke out in Tenochtitlan and Montezuma II died, Spain would not have gained other allies besides Tlaxcala (who would have surely been finished off within the next few years anyways). Also, the smallpox epidemic itself only even broke out when it did because one of the men in one of those rival Conquistador forces I mentioned happened to be carrying it and Cortes managed to convince them to join him instead of arresting him, since that force was sent by the Governor of Cuba to do that since Cortes had committed treason and gone rouge as a result of multiple actions, one of them being overstepping the expedition's mission of "exploration and trade", not conquest: Spain wasn't even sure it WANTED to pursue the mass colonization of the Americas yet, it was historically Cortes's success netting them a massive amount of wealth, a logistical base of operations, and a large amount of local forces which made them realize it would be worth pursuing. And, again, Cortes and his men had almost been beaten by Tlaxcala and only happened upon shipwrecked Spanish sailors who had learned local languages to be able to even communicate with the local states by chance to begin with! You rightfully point out in the video how much other subsequent expeditions drew upon Cortes's success to model their own conquests, and how much the conquest of Tenochtitlan, gaining it's wealth and the tax influx from it's former subjects, enabled Spain to prosper and want to fund and to be able to fund further conquests. But it goes much further then that: Not only would Spain not be willing to go all out with a mass rush of further expeditions as we see historically without Cortes's success, leading to a much slower series of conflicts and points of contact between Europeans and Native Americans (across the Americas, not just in the US) that would lead to a much more gradual amount of exposure they have to Eurasian pathogens: Remember I said earlier that the 95% population was over almost a century, over which you had huge amounts of Spanish occupation in Mexico and other areas, conflicts and campaigns causing political instability, colonial exploitation (though in certain areas this wouldn't happen for a few decades, the first few decades of Spanish rule in the cities and towns which submitted basically saw the continuation of Mesoamerican civilization with their nobles and kings marrying into Spanish nobility with only indirect Spanish rule) weakening people's immune systems, etc. In other words, you wouldn't see nearly the same degree of population collapses we see historically. Even in the areas Spain and other European powers decided to directly conquer and were able to do so (which would be much more limited due to the lack of collapses, lack of incentive without Cortes's success getting their greed going, etc), you would see much larger proportions of the colonial populations being native, and colonization would be forced to play out more like how it did in India and Southeast Asia. CONTINUED BELOW
CONTINUED FROM ABOVE:......So while i'm not really equipped to comment on how colonization would play out exactly outside of Mexico since i'm not super familiar with the native societies there or the specific political context of colonization i'm really not sure further colonization of Central America (That is, BELOW Mesoamerica), etc would happen as the video says. I frankly don't think it's possible to predict exactly what happens with North Americas, as without Spain's massive success in Latin America it's possible France and Britain never really see it as worth it. Something I didn't see noted in the video is the Mississippians: This was civilization which had broke out in the Eastern United states in the late 1st millennium AD. At it's height, the largest Mississippian site, Cahokia, was a full on city, with a population in the tens of thousands; albeit one made of wood and earthenworks. Cahokia and the Mississippians did decline around the 13th and 14th centuries, but Spanish explorers like De Soto who came up from Mexico came across what seem to be Mississippian style towns, which became abandoned and in ruins by the time be returned latter, from European diseases causing collapses. With the slowed colonization and by extension more time for disease resistances to build, it's possible this doesn't happen and when Europeans DO arrive to North America, if ever, they are facing large amount of organized towns and some cities, even if not as complex as what was encountered down in Mexico. The bottom like trickle down effect of all of this is that Europe probably wouldn't achieve the global political and economic dominance it did historically: Spain and other countries don't see the massive transfer of wealth from the Americas back to Europe. The Colombian exchange would be slowed, and the lack of crops like Potatos, Chiles, Maize, etc in Eurasia would have massive impacts compared to what we see historically. The Enlightenment and Scientific Revolutions and in turn the industrial revolution might be delayed or not occur at all as we think of it, since historically the theological and philosophical ramifications of discovering another world of people who had never heard of the Christian God was a major issue of theological debate and the debates on what it meant to be human. Europeans also relied on Aztec botanical science and medicine to inform some of the discoveries and advancements made in those fields over the next few centuries, with Philip II's royal physician personally visiting Mexico and consulting with Aztec doctors and herbal texts and compiling information on them and bringing it back to Europe, and it being proposed that the first academic botanical gardens in Europe, which pop up over the next century or so, were influenced by the ones the Aztec had where they experimented with plants, tested them for medical properties, and categorized them into formal taxonomic systems. To circle back around to the Aztec and Mesoamerica itself and what would happen for them, firstly I need to address the point being brought up in the video that Aztec agriculture was unsustainable or otherwise beginning to face overpopulation issues: As far as i'm aware there's no indication of this. Chinampas, the primary agricultural method used in the Valley of Mexico (modern day Mexico city, at the time a large lake basin, in actual history these were drained by the Spanish as the Aztec's complex aqueduct, dike, and canal systems had been destroyed during the siege and the Spanish were unable to repair them and early Mexico city kept flooding), were very sustainable and had highly efficient agricultural output, as far as I know. The trifecta of Beans, Maize (when nixtamalized) and Squashes alone provided a nutritionally complete diet. While I cannot find the study right now; I have also read that the Valley was still only at half it's carrying capacity despite it already being one of the most densely populated places on the planet (1-1.5 million people). It is true the Maya collapse was likely caused in part by an agricultural collapse, but the two situations, I don't think, are comparable. What WOULD be a potential concern is if the Aztec somehow lost many of their subjects, as while Aztec agriculture was itself sustainable nor was the Valley overpopulated per say, Tenochtitlan in particular was in that it's huge size and population was only sustainable as a result of it's tribute and tax influx, which included crops from other parts of the Valley, particularly Xochimilco, and perhaps areas outside of the valley too (I don't recall for sure if it was agriculturally supported just by the core aztec cities or further out subjects). Also, while I will touch on sacrifice more further down when I address the bit about Christianity taking over, cannibalism of sacrificed victims was not occurring at a mass scale, but in very limited ritualistic circumstances, and it was ABSOLUTELY not being used as some sort of dietary compensation for the lack of protein/meat in the diet: As I noted, Maize, Beans, and Squashes alone provided a complete diet nutritionally speaking, and the Mesoamericans had other protein sources in domesticated poultry and dogs, as well as game, such as hare and deer (which were also kept tamed in game preserves and "farms", though I'm not sure it qualifies as full domestication), fish, insects, reptiles, etc, though these weren';t a common competent of the average commoner's diet. Even Harner, the researcher who proposed cannibalism and sacrifice as a way of providing protein in the Aztec diet/Overpopulation, admits that actual Aztec cannibalistic practices wouldn't have provided much protein on a population level scale, and his research is full of errors and has been discredited for decades anyways. CONTINUED BELOW
CONTINUED FROM ABOVE....Due to that, I don't think drops in population due to diseases would somehow increase standard of living, not to mention that as noted, population losses wouldn't be even CLOSE to as high as we see in actual history due to the lack of a sustained Spanish occupation exacerbating outbreaks alongside political instability; not to mention that as noted, the Aztec empire was largely hands off, what "quality of life" even was was highly variable depending on where you were looking. For the same reason I don't really see Aridoamerica (the area including Northern Mexico and the South/Southwestern US which was mainly inhabited by nomadic tribes, as opposed to the urban civilizations in the bottom half of mexico and the more organized tribes in Oasisamerica, a specific subregion in what's now Arizona, Colorado, etc where the Pueblo were, which was a bit more supportive to sedentary agriculture) being used as a mass cattle ranch, as I don't see the Aztec projecting themselves a permanent directly administered system of rule there: Even if they wanted to even though Aztec expansionism till this point was entirely focused on conquering agriculturally and economically rich areas to exact goods from without needing the effort to do it themselves, logistically it'd be iffy (even with now having Calvary and draft animals) since even the Spanish had issue fending off the guerrilla attacks of the nomadic Chichimeca tribes there and for a good part of it they'd need to get past the Purepecha Empire, which historically had great success absolutely destroying attempted Aztec invasions and would be in a good position to take advantage of things since it already had an imperial structure and was possibly the largest hotbed of metallurgy, including bronze, in the region, and would be the most equipped to switch over to metal armor and weapons (though I don't really think this would be that worth it for the aforementioned reasons). Also, while i'm not a ecologist, Aridoamerica is... arid, it's a giant desert, I'm not sure it WOULD make a good place for cattle ranching. And frankly i'm not sure that the Aztec would even want to adopt animal husbandry on a European scale. The Aztec were sort of obsessed with hygiene and keeping things clean and I cannot imagine in a million years they would want to deal with cleaning up after pigs, cattle, etc, at least not in the same cities and towns they lived in. That being said, that's just my own take, and I do agree the Aztec Empire obtaining Calvary and European weaponry to further their expansionism would happen. Perhaps if they switched over to a directly governed imperial system now that they had at least some draft animal to make it logistically more feasible, they could avoid eventually fragmenting and maybe pursue conquests further north into Aridoamerica like you say, though I really don't think they'd be that interested at first and the first targets would be the Maya states to the east, where the Aztec had been expanding towards anyways. I don't see the Purepecha Empire falling that quickly, though what happens with it and the Aztec also depends on how Spain chooses to proceed in all this: It's almost certainly not attempting direct conquest, both the video and I note, though I I do think it could pull some East India Company-esque shenanigans and try to gain influence and control over Mesoamerican states by making them dependent on themselves for weapons, goods, external diplomacy, etc: It's entirely possible that Spain plays states against each other and attempts to gain control over the region this way and I frankly think it';d probably work out, just, again, colonization would be more akin to what we see in India and Southeast Asia. Or maybe the Aztec and Spain work with each other exclusively, with the Aztec using Spanish weapons to gain total control over Mesoamerica and even the Purepecha Empire, but becoming Spanish vassals in the process. Or maybe The Aztec Empire never shifts to a direct system fragments either as a result of Spanish arming city-states against each other or it happens naturally, and that leaves the Purepecha Empire in a place to expand and become the dominant power in Mesoamerica? In the video it's noted that the Aztec would likely adopt Christianity as it was less violent and would be less hated then the Aztec religion. Morality is subjective so i'm not gonna get into that, but facet of it, but to comment on the actual factual accuracy of things and how it relates to the what-if: As previously noted, the Aztec did NOT drag people of for sacrifices from subject towns and cities or demand it as tribute: Any sacrifices from a given subject town would have been sacrifices they themselves did per their own customs, with most sacrifices in Tenochtitlan being captured enemy soldiers. In fact, the Mexica of Tenochtitlan were the ONLY group to do mass scale sacrifices, specifically because shortly after the formation of the Aztec Empire, the Mexica political official Tlacaelel and the king Itzcoatl rewrote Mexica history and religion to increase the emphasis and need of sacrificed enemy soldiers to justify expansionism, as you can't sacrifice enemy soldiers without getting them from wars. To say that the Aztec waged wars FOR sacrifices as the video does is, as such, sort of backwards: the ultimate goal was conquering cities and towns to make them subjects so they could supply economic goods, the wars justified for sacrifices was just a cosmological excuse (though obviously sacrifice itself was also a preexisting legitimate religious practice) to that end. I'm not sure if the 1.2 million sacrifices figure is meant to be in total or per year, but either way its almost certainly wrong: Even the mass sacrifices done by the Mexica were occurring at far more limited scales then almost any source states. Virtually every archaeological find of sacrificial burials only has bodies in the single to double digits and even these are often deposited over long periods of time. The first archaeological support we've really had for figures in the hundreds or thousands was recent excavations made at the Main Temple in Mexico City, where it was found the Skull Tower the Spanish reported seeing existed (up till this point it was thought by some researchers to be Spanish propaganda), but even this only held "thousands" of skulls at it's maximum extent. The rack WAS cleared every 52 years for the New Fire ceremony and sacrifices would have continued even after the rack was full, but to skip over a lot of actual math based on what details I can find from the reporting on this, I don't think that the findings support more then sacrifices in the hundreds annually, and up to 75% of which were enemy soldiers per the same findings (For the record, even taking Cortes's claims of 3000 sacrifices a year, it would have taken the Aztec 3x as long to sacrifice the amount of people France killed (200,000 at least) in their purge of the Cathar religious sect in 20 years) With all that said, I can't see the Aztec tolerating the spread of Christianity, something the video notes too: The need for sacrifices of enemy soldiers was a key motivator for Aztec expansionism: If they switched over to Christianity, it would threaten their political status quo. I'm not sure they would go to the extent of banning the religion even in their subjects (assuming the empire stayed hands off), but it certainly wouldn't take over in Tenochtitlan, at least in the short term, though I think the events pointed out in the video of some sort of christian rebellion is plausible.
God I really want a videogame set in this universe. The players and setting set in place seems really interesting and something I’d love to see play out
For now, there's Europa Universalis 4, where various Native American powers can opt to reform their civilizations once they've made contact with the more advanced European powers.
Could you do what if the idea of manifest destiny never existed and the United states learnt to integrate the native Americans likely creating multiple native American states.
Manifest destiny was kind of doomed to happen just from how much colonial America’s population exploded, and how Native Americans were disappearing at a similar rate. There was no reason to coexist with the Native Americans anymore because there was no political leverage keeping them there like there had been in the colonial era. They were just a potential tool for a European power to use against them in the event of a war and thus a liability rather than an asset, so they were wiped out to make room for the new population demographics
@CK Lim that doesn't mean they were excepted into American society. There was and still is a lot of racism against them, in some cases being treated even worse then African Americans due to having less representation. A lot of native Americans have been purposely breed into white families and stript of there culture. When I say integrate i mean more to intergrate native American politics and culture into European American society.
CK Lim Colonial America’s population was large even before mass immigration took place from Europe around the 1800s. A large part of the reason they even revolted from the British was to be able to act out this idea of freely spreading westward to make room for themselves at the expense of Natives. And putting Native Americans in reservations is not integrating them
Interesting perspective. About their religion though, I don't believe Aztec and Mayan people would just adopt Christianity, more likely they'd reform their religions taking some aspects of European mythology and people would favor cannibalism less over time as theories and thoughts about human principles would become more common since the colonial era intersected with the Renaissance.
I'm sorry, but this scenario doesn't hold. Cortés' expedition might have failed, but if the Spanish had really wanted to conquer those lands, they only needed to come back in force: nothing the Aztecs could have thought of would have saved them from a well organized military expedition with European technology. And that's without even counting the fact that the Aztecs' subject peoples rallied around the Spaniards, seeing the chance to free themselves from Tenochtitlan. Those native allies were a _huge_ factor in Cortés' victory. Apart from that, as long as the Spanish held their bases in the Caribbean, there's no reason why a setback in Mexico should have stopped them from expanding into other areas of the New World, like Bolivia, which is where they actually got most of their silver from. The only thing that could have prevented the Spanish Empire from grabbing all those lands would have been some other European power grabbing them first, and that would have required a completely different scenario.
I've always theorized that if the Aztecs had kept themselves from being conquered by the europeans, it would've been their subjects and local rivals like the Chichimec confederation and the Purepecha Kingdom that would've conquered them. Maybe being able to get european support themselves and then using that support to beat back other europeans.
@@luissalcedo6493 508 men did the trick for Cortés. If they had failed for whatever reason, a slightly larger force would have nailed it no problem. Especially considering that, in the time in between, European diseases would have caused even more havoc among the Aztecs.
@@anon2427 eh they wouldve united over time, unlikely theyd be conquered. The greeks have a strong history and pride in uniting against foreign invaders. Add their martial tradition and geography theyd likely be similar to Switzerland or Afghanistan
As someone who studies this subject quite a bit. I have to say that the Spanish conquest was inevitable and not only necessary for the survival of the natives there from the bullies (Aztecs, and Incas) but it brought about me, today (a Hispanic). Note, Cortez's big advantage was his experience as a lawyer in Spain, his undeniable Charisma, and being a man of his word...
If the Aztecs had beaten the Spanish, Mexico wouldn't exit. There would be small rival nations such as Aztecland, Mayaland, Olmecaland, etc. The Spanish and their descendants created the country of Mexico.
let's remember that religion can be reformed : an Aztec state religion controlled by the elite could easily reformed to exclude human sacrifice afterall the Roman and Greek religions reformed themselves several times even changing their pantheons
John de Vries Wouldn’t that mean if the Islamic Caliphate won (who were in such a good position) they would have spared the World the Mongols. However, that will weaken the Caliphate’s campaign through Europe. Perhaps India could get involved?
The Spaniards were allied with the enemies of the Aztecs, the conquest of Mexico was a liberation war of tens of thousands of native soldiers (Cholultecas, Tlaxcaltecas, Totonacos, Texcocanos, etc.) and 600 Spaniards all united against the Aztecs. But after all it went a little wrong for the winners.
Damn. This alternate history looks nice. For some reason I always wanted for aztecs to win against spanish. It feels like something is off, it's not right that they lost. What are the odds really!
I love mesoamerican history, but if the Aztec empire survived, I'd hope the religion would let go of the more violent parts. I could see them trading human sacrifice for the sacrifice of animals and material objects, ie burning a small amount of their harvest in tribute to the gods. I could also see the divine need for constant war evolve into a more rational militaristic culture, which would butt heads with the US, Spanish, and southwest natives. Let's just hope the Aztecs wouldn't become a nuclear power lol
I don't agree with your argumentation surrounding the Aztec religion. Christianity does have a strong vein of proselytism in it so prolonged cultural exchange between the surviving Aztec empire and their Spanish neighbors to the south would likely have an effect on their religious demographic. You also don't account for the fact that religions, even ones we deem extreme, have schisms. I played through this thought before, without as in-depth European historical knowledge as you, but I wondered how the religion might adapt to more modern times. I wondered if instead of mass slayings and cannibalism, if a sort of volunteerism might crop up. Maybe their would only be one sacrifice every so often, but instead the sacrifice would be chosen through extensive cultural and religious criteria that made them the most valuable sacrifice that volunteered. This is just a thought experiment but I think it's a little naive to believe that a culture would wholly dump their religion, one that had the lifeblood of the world in the balance, because a neighboring religion's God seems "stronger" even if that seems true from an outside perspective.
But the thing is it usually happened. It seems that Abrahamic gods(Islam/Christianity) are superior to polythestic religions it happened nearly everwhere west conquered save for China/India/Japan
I'm partial to Marvin Harris' theory that Aztec cannibalism was a consequence of the lack of other animal protein sources in the region: the Mexica had hunted almost every edible animal in the region to extinction, and their only sources of meat were dog and turkey, which aren't very good. (The video says that sacrifice victims became food "for the elite", but contemporary chronicles state that the flesh was distributed among the people) If the Aztecs had managed to keep their empire while acquiring cows and other cattle, they could have solved their protein problem and the gods would have stopped demanding human sacrifice with such regularity. Eventually, they would have abandoned human sacrifice altogether, like every other human culture in history.
@Pecu Alex Like I said, it was a desperate measure. Also, we don't really know how long the Aztecs had been sacrificing people on a _really_ industrial scale before the Spanish showed up.
@@ArkadiBolschek Do birds and fish not exist in that theory? serious question. I doubt they would have exhasted all protein sources to end up turning to cannibalism. It was all done for religious reasons, not to survive.
@@sakurashogun I don't remember all the details, and my copy of the book is currently off limits due to quarantine, but if you're interested it's _Cannibals and Kings_ by Marvin Harris. The hypothesis has been contested, of course. Wikipedia has a short article about the debate, and you may want to have a look at it: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibalism_in_pre-Columbian_America
This actually relates to my Vinland timeline. Through some means the Vikings are able to establish the infrastructure needed to support a long term settlement and begin to expand south into the north-eastern coast of what in our timeline became the US and west into the Great Lakes. Meanwhile the oppressed minority of heathens fled south to escape persecution, forming the tribes of Appalachia and eventually establishing two kingdoms in the cotton belt and the land east of the Mississippi which they named the Ifing after the river that separates earth from the land of giants. Because of this, my timeline for the Aztecs would be considerably different. Firstly, disease wouldn’t have ravaged the population nearly as bad because they’d had at least a couple hundred years to adapt. Also when the Spanish arrive, the empire is already much larger as they would have already be introduced to European livestock. Additionally they would have a strong trade alliance with the southern heathen kingdoms as these kingdoms would be more than happy to have a non-Christian power to trade with. They wouldn’t be nearly as disturbed by the large amount of human sacrifice as we would be, after all Germanic polytheists also sacrificed their slaves and prisoner, and though they would be put off by the ritualistic cannibalism, there would be enough benefit to an alliance for them to put aside this discomfort. This means that if the Spanish still tried to conquer the Aztecs they would be up against these heathen kingdoms as well who would be at least somewhat familiar with European strategy. If there were any sort of Christian rebellion, I strongly believe it would be put down as the heathen kingdoms wouldn’t allow their pagan ally to fall under the control of the nailed god. Keep in mind that these heathens would have come back from the brink of extinction and as a result they would be fiercely anti-Christian. I disagree with your assessment though. While I agree they would be very conservative, they would have to reform in some way and many other religions have been able to do that and still retain their traditions. Perhaps through some external pressure human sacrifice would be limited to prisoners and animal sacrifice would be preferred. As I understand it, the Aztec religion is centered around the belief that we owe the gods an eternal debt which must be paid in blood so I could see such reforms being acceptable. Honestly I think it would be somewhat inevitable. Once the Christian world outlawed the slave trade and flower wars became harder and harder to fight, large scale human sacrifice would become unsustainable.
I don't think Portugal would be a "second world" european country in this timeline. As you said, portuguese colonization would be affected and actually would have an easier time doing his thing, especially in Brazil. Netherlands and Genoa were content to be a business partner to Portugal, son not only they wouldn't be competing for now with them, but they're actually investing in portuguese expansion.
Sorry to post two comments lol I figure that it's better than one, massive comment. But great video! I consider myself an enthusiast of Pre-Columbian and indigenous American cultures, and am more than happy for any alternate history video that tackles them. Though how would the Haudenosaunee (otherwise known as the Iroquois) fare in this timeline? Also, some ideas for future videos ;) -What if Beringia (the land bridge that connected Alaska and Siberia) never went away? -What if the Old World could know of the New World (and vice versa) since ancient times? -What if the Atlantic was so perilous that only industrial boats could safely traverse it? (Essentially, only way 14th-17th Century Europeans could discover the Americas is via the Pacific)
They did not conduct sacrifices as much as spanish sources day they did Think about it. Does sacrificing thousands of people several times a year sound like a good eay of maintaining a stable population?
I like how you give a very factual and unbiased perspective, and suddenly history is much more chance like and less biased like it is in the real world. Meanwhile it's taught as if every time a great power arose they dominated everything and no one could ever stop them.
Japan succeeded at replicating european weaponry because they, unlike literally every other nation outside of europe, had adapted scientific warfare. Though i suppose the fact that Japan was an honor-in-war-driven society that frequently infought with itself probably helped.
I doubt Sweden could just Anschluss the entire holy roman empire if even conquering the danes... If france conquered the west rhine, there would have instead been a more unified German power, likely under the holy roman emperor if they still existed in protestant "Germany"
Wdym ”if even the danes”. Danmark have Been in decline since the 16th century, only losing land and not winning a single important war. Denmark-Norway, northern germany and the entire baltic coast would be under swedish rule. Russia would never becom a superpower and Sweden would thereofre keep Estonia, maybe Latvia, Finland and parts of western Russia to this day. Norway would also still be apart of Sweden and Denamark aswell, since they are almost the same people. Tough there is a possibility the could break free.
>If the Spanish didn'st seize Mexico in 1521, they never would have I don't quite understand this. I would think that upon hearing of the immense wealth and that they had lost 90% of their population, a force tens or hundreds of times greater would have shown up within a couple of years. It seems to me that without also giving them immunity to smallpox and plague, they would be doomed no matter what. Even if some war or something happened in Spain, it would just be some other gold hungry nation that would show up, producing much the same effect.
Spain didn't have the resources to wage such a war across the ocean. Literally all of the conquest campaigns were private efforts ran by small groups, and by small I mean 50-500+native supporters.
The technology gap would also doom them. A second larger force would undoubtedly return very shortly. Keep in mind, the Aztecs could only field a few 10s of thousands of troops, which are at a severe disadvantage in technology and are unused to war waged where the main goal is to destroy the opposing force instead of to take captived
Yeah but if he takes the actual political and military situation into account then his premise of "what if the Aztecs won" won't hold up. The Aztecs were doomed from the start and there isn't anything interesting to a video saying "they'd be destroyed by the next wave of military arrivals".
The Songhai did not have gunpowder weapons: that is why they were defeated so soundly by the Moroccans. No doubt, Songhai did not have to deal with a plague which is why the people in West Africa fared better than those in Mesoamerica in the face of gunpowder weapons.
I disagree with your conclusion that the Aztec empire would have become the dominant power in America. Even with horses and guns, the mountainous geography makes meso-america a tough place to unify. Modern Mexico is still disjointed I think in part because of this. I think whoever controls the eastern half of North America would still be dominant because it's much more naturally connected which works well with industrialization as the U.S. showed.
now wait just a minute, the aztects were already done for by the time the spanish arrived ¿how did they resolve the contradictions of their political system?(see the reforms of moctezuma 2º) they were already streched out in their own conquests and had made plenty of enemies ¿how did they manage to expand even more?
@@r.ladaria135 the whole aztec political entity lasted around 100 years or so. They had created a system of upward mobility that was unsustainable, a Sort of piramid scheme. Moctezuma 2nd Saw this and tried to fix It to Lukewarm results. The expansionist empire was really streached out, gathering slaves required longer and longer trips but the whole logic required the process to continue. That's when the spanish arrived, a small insignificant force but very skilled at total war
Spain got most of their wealth in the new world from Peru. They had a mountain of silver there that still produces silver. So it really comes down to whether they would’ve gotten the Incan empire. If the Spanish conquered there they would still have their wealth they had in our timeline.
But the Spanish did not make a selfish use of that money. Spain made a process of Westernization-Romanization of America. The Spanish of America and the viceroys demanded a strong investment in America (around 70%) to build universities, hospitals, stone cities. schools, cathedrals, fortresses ... It must be remembered that Mexico and Peru produce more gold and silver every year than the Spanish empire in 300 years. Almost the other 30% of the gold and silver went to the Asian market and to save Catholicism in Europe (South Germany, Palatinate, Italy, Belgium, France ...), paying for an army that fought against 5 European powers. The other empires did not invest, nor were they fighting against various powers, so almost all the money went to the metropolises: London, Paris and Amsterdam.
Great Analysis, as usual. My opinion, Aztec expansion might actually curtail their bloodthirstiness if they recruited conquered enemies (instead of eating them) and used them to project power outward. Assuming they didn't just enslave them. Also, there is a remote possibility that by adopting a prosletyzing religion, the Aztecs could convert more of the northern peoples to that religion, which would most likely be Christianity. (or Aztecized Christianity or Christianized Aztec beliefs) If that timeline existed, then Greater Mexico would look racially similar to the Greater Mexico of today, with the difference that Mexico would be a more functional autonomous state than it is now, and the US Southwest being fully Aztec.
Doesn't make sense; small pox still hits Central American civilizations and Andean civilizations(spread before Spanish arrival). The Spanish, and the rest of Europe would know of the wealth of the Aztecs, since Cortez sent back letters talking of it to Europe and they were reprinted and published all over Europe. A second expedition would be launched to conquer Mexico in short order once cortez hypothetically fails, and they wouldnt fail. They would come with more horses, and more men and the Aztecs would still be weak from internal conflict, lack of technology and smallpox. The Aztecs wouldn't survive, and the incans would fall similar how they had in our timeline. Pretending that defeating Cortez keeps the Europeans out of Mexico and the Andes is wishful thinking
Spain was too poor to mount a second expedition. it took the Conquest of the Aztec to give Spain the money it needed to carry on conquering the region. With out that influx of gold and silver from Cortez’s conquest the Spanish wouldn’t be able to send another expedition for Decades, or even longer. Leaving plenty of time for an Aztec Baby boom to drastically restore their population
Whatifalthist Awesome video! I have some recommendations 1. What if Caesar lost the Civil War 2. What if World War 2 was fought by Germany and America aganist the USSR 3. What if Soviet Union won in Afghanistan
hey, I have one for you: what if José de San Martín tries to replicate the Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata? Peru and Chile offered him executive power over their nations, but he rejected both. If he accepted, perhaps Argentina could have united South America and become a superpower ... perhaps. I don't think so ... but maybe
Interesting potential here. South America would likely not be unified in this way, as the greater Argentina would likely struggle to survive, but could mean larger states. Imagining a Bolivarian state in the North, San Martín's state in the South, and Brazil in the rest. Many interesting possibilities for the future. Cool idea for someone to run with!
I'd be interested in you making a video on the rise and success of Christianity from a political and economic standpoint because it seems like something that is likely (the fact that politics, economy, and religion are causally related) but is seldom discussed online
After defeating the Spanish, the Aztecs would still be decimated by disease, but not to the extent of what happened in this timeline, because there would be less interaction with the Spanish. Although that would help the Aztecs with the soil degradation problem by having less mouths to feed, it would be a problem if any other European country decided to invade or if the Spanish decided to reinvade. It would depend on how much time the Aztecs would have to recover before the next invasion. Nonetheless, the Europeans would have a harder time now that the Aztecs have full knowledge on the Spanish battle tactics and they always had been a warrior society.
I am mexican and I think that there are a lot of differences between Roman Republic and the Aztec Empire, differences that would made the empire collapse if they would beat cortez expedition. First the aztec empire had punishment war against the people who they ruled. There were religions wars to catch people to sacrifice for their goods. Second there was not as integration politics like romans did, there was not such thing as Aztec Peace, there were no profit for be under the rule of the aztecs so the people who were under the Aztec empire were so hostile against the aztecs because of that they joined with the cortez army against the empire. If they wouldn't change this, they probably would collapse no matters what. Sorry for my english i am still learning it XD
I agree the Aztecs made so many enemies, it would also only be a matter of time before the Tlaxcalans, Tarascans, Purupechas or Chichimecas would buy guns and horses from spain and eventually take out the aztecs
If the Aztecs wanted to get to California (which I don't know why) it's totally possible to get there by foot. Juan Bautista de Anza made the Anza Trail on foot, and it only failed as a continuous viable trail because the Quechan (Yuma) river tribe, a powerful regional force, decided that too many Spaniards were crossing and looked like they were staying for good, so they killed all the Spaniards and refused them passage afterwards. I imagine that this wouldn't be as difficult of an obstacle to the Aztecs if they were able to bring even a tenth of their forces to bear on the Quechan, which is something that was impossible for a New Spain paralyzed by Apache raids, financial woes, and lack of consolidation in the North. This was a stellar video by the way!
One of the things i love about good alternate histories is the butterfly effect, aztecs survivng leads to sweden becoming the great northern power
@@MedjayofFaiyum If I understood correctly the Habsburg Austrians who controlled basically Spain and the Holy Roman Empire would be significantly weaker if the Spanish hadn't seized the majority of wealth in the Americas like in this timeline where they failed to conquer the Aztecs. Without Austria having the massive Spanish Empire of our timeline under its Banner, Sweden could capture Vienna (for example during the 30-Years-War where they were enemies anyway) more easily and the Swedish king could declare himself Holy Roman Emperor effectively annexing the HRE (or at least create powerful puppets) and controlling much of Central Europe.
@@Mimi.1001 Not total annexation or destruction of Austria, since that's not how it Works, But yeah Sweden would become a massive power
@@Mimi.1001 i dont think they could annex HRE but yeah they become powerful scandinavian
@@Mimi.1001 An annexation of the Holy Roman Empire is very unlikely and probably impossible. Most likely they would either completely crush it like Napoleon did, and set up their own system, or they would force themselves as Emperor and try to maintain control over a really weird type of vassal state.
If you can force protestantism as the religion of the HRE it WILL centralize, a big reason why the HRE didn't become more centralized was the Investiture question, not only is that out of the window with a protestant HRE but it also makes the emperor the highest religious authority. With full control over the bishops the reelection doesn't have to be bought with surrendering control and with the devestation of brandenburg the one Nation besides Austria that could ever rival your supremacy is done for.
"It sounds like an alien invasion story"
Well it is. In the other meaning of alien.
In its most basic sense, the term "alien" means foreign.
Xenomorph?
Yes lmao
When Spain sends their warriors, they're sending their best. They're bringing guns, they're bringing deer, they're rapists and some of them, I assume are good people...
Ya it would be alien to the Natives
Spanish: "Glorious Conquest in the name of God!"
Aztecs: "Alien Invasion."
Alien invasion with human allies. The Aztec had alot of very pissed off enemies.
@@Quetzalcoatl_Feathered_Serpent Exactly. That was precisely the Spaniards' strategy: team up with the angry peoples submitted by the Aztecs, gather a large army and overthrow. Then submit everyone under their regime and take their precious gold.
@@Quetzalcoatl_Feathered_Serpent the Spanish won cause they were infested with horrible diseases the indigenous Americans weren't immune to.
@@guidoylosfreaks partially. It was a number of factors.
The Spainish had steel armor, guns and cannons, horses, native allies and yes they used biological warfare as well. It was a combination of things that brought down the aztec empire.
@@Quetzalcoatl_Feathered_Serpent you're right. The Indigenous Americans didn't have the Chinese and the Hindus they could copy technology from
"Sweden would become the Great Northern European Power"
*Sabaton Intensifies*
* *LION KING INTENSIFIES* *
Matricx700 ew no
Your profile pic suits the quoted part perfectly
*HEAVY BREATHING*
In XVI century it was closer to Polish-Litunanian-Swedish country than German-Swedish. In 1598 polish king and formal and legal swedish king Sigisimundus III Vasa came to Sweden to recover the crown from his uncle Carolus. At this year 30th of August twelve polish nobles, under the cover of night, took Stockholm. Led them Samuel Łaski, polish captain.
It's strange how if a 500 man expedition failed the world could've been so different
Yeah.... it wouldn't have been. The Spanish would have had proof of defense riches held by a vastly technologically inferior power. They would have definitely sent a military expedition to destroy the Aztecs and that expedition would have won easily.
@@CedarHunt
"They would have definitely sent a military expedition to destroy the Aztecs and that expedition would have won easily.
"
How?
If the aztec population is allowed to rebound afte the plague, trying to invade them is a recipe for disaster.
They had an extreme martial culture, on level with spartans and samurai. And a far larger population pool to recruit from.
Really the most important thing they needed was time.
It would have only took time for them to realize that in the "european style" wars - that are waged ti submission or extermination will be plenty prisoners, even if they didn't focus on taking them. Adopting to cavalry is not THAT hard.
And gunpowder creates superiority the same way hoplites did - they reduce the training needed and allow large populations to be drafted to defend or attack, who didn't have time to train due to having to work.
Gunpowder is VERY far from a game changer if you are trying to invade a militaristic empire with a relatively modest army.
Franlly it could e argued that darrt throwers, and bow and arrow are superior on the field to line infantry - and line infantry wins by numbers. However if you have an ocean to cross, the resulting transportation bottleneck will seriously diminsh the numerical advantage.
You will be outnumbered by better trained, better equipped foes, who will likely push you back to sea.
Not to mention the extrem adeptness at stealth & fieldcraft of aztecs and other native group had, due to focus on taking prisoners alive.
That would very easily lead to some VERY devastating attacks - think raid on Tragovivtse by Vlad Tepes, but all the time.
@@martonlerant5672 You should probably crack open a history book to see how the European powers would win. The Aztecs lost roughly half of their entire population to disease and that would take generation to recover from. I can't think of a valid scenario where the Spanish spend the next several generations sitting on their hands and even if they did the Aztecs would still have an almost comical technological disadvantage and would still be surrounded by large populations of people who hate them for the whole human sacrifice thing. There isn't a scenario where the aztecs win that fight as history demonstrates.
@@CedarHunt I do not agree. As I don't think the Spanish monarch would believe it to be a worthwhile investment, to be honest I don't know much (if anything) about them reigning Spanish Royal at the time but I don't believe they'd be convinced that the Aztec empire had so much wealth, or at least wealth that he could exploit, the Aztecs from what I've read didn't actually have a lot of gold and the main resources they had that made them wealthy was land, food, and just how their cities looked, none of those could be brought to the Spanish crown from ships. The main gold areas of the Americas were Peru and Colombia
@@loldiamond1017 Well you're wrong then. The Aztecs greeted the initial Spanish landing party with two sizable disks, one made of gold and one of silver. That was what started the entire effort to colonize Mexico. The Spanish would known for a fact that substantial gold and silver existed in the Aztec empire and that the Aztecs were basically a stone age society with little hope of defeating an effort to conquer them. Which is exactly what happened as a matter of factual history. Even if we accept that the initial attempt fails due to some grand accident like all their horses die or whatever, the Spanish have more horses and guns and men looking to become fabulously wealthy. The Spanish were not in good financial condition at the time and they were more than willing to take a chance especially once they knew wealth existed in the area. Which is, again, what happened in history. There is no credible scenario where the Aztec win that fight. If they had a thousand years to prepare they'd still have lost.
Spain: * fails to conquer Mexico *
Gustavus Adolphus: * *Libera et Impera intensifies* *
Gustavus adolfhus, libera et impera...
Swedes rule the world baby
Adolf? Damn.
Briaormead It is a Common Germanic name
@@legchairhistorian5496
Not since 1945 :D
Random Country loses war:
whatifalthist: so sweden become great power.
In all alternate histories, Sweden becomes the northern power, we’re the only version of history where this isn’t the case.
Even “what if the meteorite never hit earth and wiped out the dinosaurs” results in sweds ruling the north, and same with “what if aliens came to earth and appreciated the rainbow serpent so much they gave the Aboriginals industrial technology 40 thousand years ago”, even things like “what if Jupiter never stopped heading towards the sun, back when earth was first forming?”
Yep sweden would become a great power then aswell
@@atriox7221 what if Africa remained tropical and the Sahara desert never existed?
@@alt1f4 African states are now more wealthy, and Southern Europeans have more to compete with down there, lessening their power. You wanna know who doesn’t have to compete? Sweden. GG
@@jamesgabor9284 Northern Europe would be completely frozen like Greenland if the Sahara desert didn't exist, I can't explain why because I'm not a scientist but you can search on google
Fun Fact: The traditional Aztec way of cooking thier human sacrifices is still practiced to this day in the form of Posole. The human is of course substituted with pork and it's considered a delicacy throughout Mexican culture
@@xpxpe5645 you know it
@@damianlopez9855 um no, they didn't eat rats. they had deer, fish, wild peccary's, tapir, dogs, and also Turkeys are native to Mexico.
Why on earth would you spread such misinformation?
Wtf I just ate posole earlier with chicken!
Does humans brain taste like chicken brain ?
It's not a delicacy though, it's just a winter food.
Aztec integration of christianity is an intriguing idea. They've both got a theme of sacrifice and ceremonial cannibalism. With European livestock being a much easier source of meat, they'd probably be switching from literal to symbolic cannibalism anyway. With christianity in the mix, they could be switching from devouring the human sacrifice made to their deity to devouring the flesh of said deity, as their deity would be sacrificed to them instead of vice versa. I can certainly see the appeal.
Eh it depends how the Aztecs saw the practical sociological use of human sacrifice were.
@@ANTSEMUT1 I could see them changing their minds. Those million or so sacrifices yearly and their God couldn't protect them from Smallpox. If you're giving that kind of payment and not getting anything in return, it'd fall out of favour pretty quickly.
@@gyver8448on an anthropological level human sacrifices isn't as straightforward as that, otherwise the Aztecs/Mexica would sacrifice just about everyone. It was also used as a means of political control over their vassals. So would the Aztecs see any political utility in adopting the Christian religion with that in mind?
@@ANTSEMUT1 The elites who are in charge would no doubt want to cling to the old ways because it gives them power. Joe Everyman though? There's a fair bit of historical precedence for the underclasses to start converting and stage a rebellion because it serves their needs better.
You're ignorant. Christians don't sacrifice humans or practice cannibalism!
I thought they lost only 50% of the population from smallpox. The 90% collapse took place over a century of multiple plagues and occupation violence.
Actually, you're right there. Mistake on my part.
@@WhatifAltHist to clarify, it's something of misunderstanding that while up to or about 90% of the pre-columbian population of the America's did die, that was over the course of nearly 300 years.
No, actually: one book (Cook, 1998) says that indeed smallpox had a 80-90% fatality rate. Other historian (Resendez, 2019) agrees with that, but says the population would have rebounded if they weren't enslaved in mines, so technically they didn't die of smallpox. As for present-day US, the consensus now seems that indeed about 90% of the population died of diseases, while the total population decline was up to 98% in some areas. There is more information here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples
@@Richard_is_cool Fatality rate of smallpox was high but remember not everyone caught it. Also smallpox broke out multiple times over generations. During the conquest this disease probably killed half of the Aztecs. Later on as more Europeans arrived other diseases caused further outbreaks. Many also died from forced labor and the fact that violence and bring kicked off of prime farmland leads to lower birthrates.
@@johnyricco1220 Yes, that could be right when it comes to Aztecs.
The Aztec where not that old, they are contemporary to the time they rose to dominance, they where not Hundreds of Years old, that would be the Maya, which where in decline at that point.
Around 1320’s to 1519 I think that’s pretty old tbh
@@suatchaglan7446 What I meant is that the Aztecs didn't have a long History in the Area and that their Empire was also pretty shortlived.
Mayans have highest fertility rates in the Americas and are still growing, maybe they will make a comeback.
@@tinadraper9143 The Mayans and Aztecs are fundamentally different People's and Cultures though??
@@suatchaglan7446 not really. My family can be traced back to the Middle Ages. That's from Europe, and just my family alone.
That comparison with Rome was mind-blowing. This is one of the best videos you have made, it surprised me with data I didn't know about the Aztecs, like their war tactics. They also used to cut off the faces of the Spanish and hanged them from the trees. Truly a living nightmare. Love from México.
Actually that’s a horrible comparison. One of the reason Rome managed to survive is due to its massive military and technological advantage over its immediate enemies. For the Aztec this is the opposite. By this time the Aztec haven’t even managed to create metal weapons yet. Not even bronze. Yes they were THAT far behind. They had no armor and only primitive weapons (as in, a short pointy stick or a wooden club). This is not an army that can do anything against the European knights at the peak of their power (16th century knights, we are talking about fully articulated plate armor and full horse barding), or the professional infantry that accompany them (by this time mail is extremely proliferate even the archers and crossbowmen are using them).
Seriously these people has no hope of beating the Roman legions, let alone the 16th century European empires.
@@artruisjoew5473 Mexicans love to hear this comparison because it boost their pride. In reality, the comparison is like apples and oranges.
@@artruisjoew5473 there was bronze metallurgy in the world for centuries before columbus
@@supremekhmer6596 not that we can keep that pride cause we tend to make fun of ourselves more
@@artruisjoew5473 They had armor, not metal armor, but a gambeson is still armor. And the weapons where not just a short pointy stick or a wooden club. They had actual speers with obsidian tips and swords with obsidian shards as the blade(obsidian shards are incredibly Sharp). They had bronze they just didn't use it for weapons because they didn't need to. Plus the Aztec military was still superior the the others in the region. Of course they are inferior to a civilization a thousand years ahead in technology, but we are not comparing 16th century europe or the the roman empire with the aztecs but the roman republic which had a military made of farmers(who had to pay for their equipment themselves).
What if Liechtenstein united Europe during WWII?
_That epic moment when your army returns with more than just one additional member._
The Mexica converting to Christianity to me would not be a surprise because they can see that Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice and because of that no more sacrifices for the gods would be needed
That's Very unlikely
@@SenorGuina why do you think so
Diego Antonio Rosario Palomino Because they would need to believe in the Christian God BEFORE believing in Christs sacrifice, otherwise he would be just another sacrifice. So either they integrate the Christian God into their pantheon and use Jesus as a reason for not sacrificing people anymore or... Well... Just not do that and risk making their gods mad. Because if they just believed in the Christian God they wouldn't need the sacrifice anyway.
Plus, their sacrifices weren't because of sin, but to help their God survive.
@@SenorGuina The F@ck it ain't! That's exactly what happened. The Christian God was peaceful loving God who sacrificed his own son for the world. Whereas the war like Aztec God demand that they sacrifice their sons on a daily F@cking basis! Thats exactly why Latin America is predominantly Catholic and were quick to convert. Unlike the northern plains Indians like the Apache or Cherokee who refused to convert. Probably because they didn't have the F@cking Aztecs preist obsidian knife to motivate them. We have nothing in common with the worlds most brutal evil barbaric civilization to have ever existed. The Aztecs
@@jaymuzquiz2942 wow mate, relax, you have a lot of unnecessary anger inside you right there
Althisthub: takes months to post videos
Monsieur Z: weekly upload
Whatifalthist: two days man
they are all great, I most enjoy Althisthub though
Althishub have to animate his video. That is much harder than drawing on already existing map.
althisthub has better videos tho
13 Ideas (Attempt 3)
What if Korea Was the first Asian Nation to Industrialize instead of Japan?
What if India became Communist?
What if the Xinhai Rebellion failed?
What if the Islamic Conquests of Egypt/Persia/Assyria failed?
What if the Ming defeated the Qing in the Ming-Qing War?
What if the Sikhs Conquered the entire Indian Subcontinent?
What if India converted to Nestorian Christianity?
What if China became Muslim?
What if the US/UK became Fascist?
What if the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth Remained United/Was more powerful?
What if Indonesia became Catholic/Was colonized by Portugal instead of the Dutch?
Get this to the TOP!!!!
Btw good idea's I would binge watch them
Why don’t you make them yourself?
@@ElusivePlatypus96 I don't have video making or editing software, negative ass.
My humble thoughts on what if India became communist :- it would have to be in the 50's before the Sino Indian War ruined the relationship between the two countries. US would immediately intervene to stop another large and highly populated country falling into communism and would probably get bogged down in the war. It would become our time line's version of the Vietnam War and would sour the public opinion on foreign interventions. US would greatly help develop India's rival Pakistan while overthrowing communist sympathetic countries near India. The Cold War would favour USSR more but they would fail in the end
Aight so who’s up for maple syrup drinking, hockey playing, polite America?
You mean Canada ?
Crap. The change is already started!
@@chinmaychouthai5132 no my friend Canada 2.0
I'm game!
It's called New England, and I live there. It's wonderful.
Too bad it's part of the United States, the second shittiest mainland country in North America.
8:08 the Pontus Kingdom wasn't Turkish I think you meant to say "in modern day Turkey" since Turks didn't live in Anatolia at the time of Roman Republic.
Make Anatolia Greek again?
@@James-sk4db Why do you say that? If I wanna preserve history, it doesn't mean I wanna restore it.
@@Ali-bu6lo its a joke
Trying to remember werent the Turks originally from more Central Asia and migrated west?
@@demonkingbadger6689 Kinda, as far as I've studied, archeological and genetic studies shows their ancestors are from northern China, then they moved to Mongolia and southern Siberia and then into central Asia and beyond. In fact some of them are still there. Yakuts in the Sakha republic of Yakutia and Tuvans in Tuva republic (both in Russia) are Siberian Turks.
Also most of central Asia wasn't always Turkic, except for the Altai region in Kazakhistan which may be the original Turkic homeland. In the first millennium, the Central Asian nomads like Scythians, Sarmatians, Massagetae, Dahae confederacy and Yuezhi (who later founded the Kushan empire) are either definitely Indo-European or are very likely to be. Of course if you ask ultra-nationalist Turks, all these tribes were Turks and anything that claims otherwise is racist propaganda.
Also parts of central Asia wasn't Turkic even in the middle ages. what is now Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan were inhabited by Iranic people (check out these eastern Iranian languages: Sogdian, Khwarezmian) and Transoxiana was the heartland of a definitely not Turkic dynasty called Samanids from 819 to 999 AD, from 900s Turkic dynasties (Karakhanids, Seljuks and Khwarezmids) took over this portion of central Asia many times but when Mongols destroyed the urban centers of Transoxiana such as Samarkand, Bukhara and Merv, only Turkic nomads were left in this region, creating modern day Turkmen, Uzbek, Karakalpak and Kyrgyz nations.
However I think Whatifalthist is just trolling people by calling people who weren't Turkic, Turks. Because there's no way he doesn't know this.
Not really, the Spanish were supported by all the other native tribes, if you believe the stupid story that 400-500 soldiers were able to defeat a huge empire is ridiculous. The Christian god was for the other tribes the good god compared to Aztec tribes that required continual sacrifices.
Spain did not go to War in Europe and the Mediterranean to conquer but to fight against the protestants and muslims for the Catholic Church.
The native people became citizens of Spain, even though there also were abuses, the biggest abuses against the native peoples came after the empire disintegrated and the criollos (Europeans born in América) took away their citizenship and lands, this continues til today.
its in the video that the majority of the forces was not spanish.
If you truly think that the spanish government didn’t went to war for the sake of conquering and power then you are blind, the protestants and muslims vs catholics were just propaganda for the soldiers and the people
Pontus was Greek. There were no Turks in Anatolia until the 11th century.
No, the Atzec couldn't"reverse engineering"the european tech, they haven't blacksmiths, were hated by their subjects(more than 20000 indios supported Cortez), and the smallpox killed a lot of their elites. And don't forget the demografic pression from Europe
@@alessiodecarolis Truth is even had the Spanish not shown up. There was a very good chance the Aztecs still go down. As you say above they pissed off everyone around them. It was just a matter of time until they got rolled by someone.
Not to mention that they brought no innovation to the area other than being particularly violent and willing to backstab allies.
They were outsiders who only recently conquered the area, so the Spanish doing the same was not that different.
Was gonna point this out. He also called St Nicholas Turkish in his more recent what if Santa was real video : /
Also, the three replies above have nothing to do with the original comment
@@eliasm5784 I've seen it happen before. Sometimes replies are sent to the wrong comments
As someone who lives right outside of Albany, the idea of Albany being the capital of the US is honestly Comical. Anyways, I think that the Aztecs would have been conquered by their rivals to the north who would have had the timeline play out almost exactly the same (except that there is no way that Sweden could extend its control to south Germany). But keep up the great work!
I think Philadelphia or New York likely becomes the capital, with both being the major ports for the Delaware and Hudson Rivers, and thus becoming major population centers. Perhaps Boston could be capital too with the larger Puritan influence in America.
Are you in Colonie? I used to work at the burger King on wolf road
You sure native north americans would beat central/south americans?
I was literally just hoping that you made other videos a out Mexico
*about
@A Sad Soggy Waffle Dude, I just pointed out to that guy that he accidentaly mispelled, he probably didn't notice it.
@A Sad Soggy Waffle I don't need, I just decided to.
The United States has only had 2 constitutions. Going from a Confederation to a Federal Republic within 5 years. Even fighting a Cvil War for 11 states to switch back to a confederation. Leaders were of the same faith and same class and ethnic group.
Mexico has had 5 constitutions going from Confederation in 1810, Federal Republic then back to a Monarchy, Centralist Conservative, Liberal Republic in 1850, Monarchy again 1860 , Liberal Dictatorship 1880 then to a Democratic Republic 1912 (followed by national social)...to Neo Liberalism(60s-2018).
Each constituiton is backed by basically different countries all claiming to be the real Mexico.
It's like PRC(taiwan) vs CCP claiming to be the real china. but with Mexico so many there are like 4 paties from different religions, ethnicities all claiming to be the real Mexico.
US history can be summarized in probably 3 books(300 pages) within 1 series a total of 900 pages of a Nations brie history.
Most of it is filled with filler chapters about 5la*e5.
Mexicos history can be briefly summarized in about 4 books(400 pages) for 5 different series ...2,000 pages.
Sure not as long as Chinese or Hindi or British or Roman.. But for the Americas. .This is very complicated and confusing history for the average american(post 2000s).
@@robroux6074 Interesting!
By 1518, the Aztec Empire had existed a little over a hundred years. Centuries is kind of a stretch. The tribe definitely goes back centuries before the Spanish conquest of Mexico.
Aztec/Mexica civilization was there oficially since 1325 (and it was probably older without registry.)
@@Zichfried Sure but they hadn't started building the empire at that time.
@@michaelhowze8198 I think that's what he meant. The Aztecs had existed for centuries, not their empire.
Wouldent nessecarily call a empire a “tribe” with a population of like 20 million but go on..
the nation of Mexico didn’t exist before their independence from Spain
Last time I was this early Istanbul was still called Byzantium
last time I was this late it got seiged down by crusaders then ottomans later on
You mean Constantinople?
Byzantium is an empire. Istanbul is a city.
@Painted Dead
You mean byzantion? Constantinople's name was byzantion at some point, not byzantium.
@Painted Dead
So appearently it's byzantium in latin and byzantion in greek. Good to know.
Mexican here, the statements are super innacurate. Firstly, the Aztecs weren’t the only empire in the region, there were also the tarascans. And the Aztecs had many internal enemies, were extremely vulnerable to a revolt from their subjugated tribes, which were obligated to pay high taxes and were suppresed harshly by the Aztecs. They also had a lot of enemies, the Tlaxcalans, Mayans, etc. There’s no way they could have expanded to modern day Mexico’s size because they weren’t interested in the northern less developed regions in the first place, and because there were a lot of other empires that would have opposed them from reaching the north in the first place. What once was the Aztec empire is like 6% of the territory of modern day Mexico. The Aztecs are way overvalued, and could never have “colonized” the north. They were too small and had too many internal vulnerabilities for that. If the Spanish hadn’t conquered them, then the French or Portuguese would have.
Wrong.
Aztecs were scared of the Chichimecas
@@captainshakesbeard2453It’s correct, actually.
@@gamalielvacasolis3484 nope
@@captainshakesbeard2453 troll 🧌
What if the Japanese won the Imjin War, thereby conquering Korea. Perhaps by Admiral Yi dying at or after his first military examination due to an infection?
Japan was actually also losing due to guerilla warfare from the Koreans, so it’s going to remain a bloody struggle for power even without Yi.
All removing Yi does is making supporting Japanese troops easier.
@@innosam123 I think you underestimate the importance if admiral Yi and overestimate the strength of Korean resistance. Japan's main problem throughout the war wasn't dealing with small petty guerrillas in the mountains, it was dealing with supply as the very organized Japanese army required a large amount of supplies from Japan, and when Yi began strangling it, that gave Korea more time until Chinese reinforcements could come, so without Yi, Japan could swiftly take Korea like it almost did in our TL.
@@innosam123 Yi fucked up the japanese naval supply chains in Korea. Without him things would be different for the koreans.
Nicholas Nguyen Did I say Yi wasn’t important? You also can’t really win a guerrilla war ‘swiftly’, and the Japanese were unlikely to make concessions to the Koreans to gain their support.
The only thing it does is make the Japanese campaign not completely doomed.
@@innosam123 I dont think you understand how guerilla war works. There is always some kinds of guerilla if a nation loses all of its country but some crazy koreans in the mountains wont prevent a victory. You can only hide for so much
I think so many Mexican children have fantasied so much about this scenario! Thank you for making this video
They probably wouldn’t exist if it happened
They wouldn't even exist.
They would have definitely exsisted since most Mexicans don’t carry Spanish dna. Only difference would be that they never learned Spanish
@@brandonvargas6729 majority of Mexican carry not just Spanish but European DNA in general. Literally one of the region in the world with the highest rate of mixing in the world during the New Spain era not even talking about all the European that migrated after independence. Not even talking about all the territory they earned thanks to the Spanish army and technology. The Aztec empire doubled in size under the virreinato.
no they don’t, most Mexicans are already mixed at this point
Honestly this whole video came from such a western view that so much information was left out making this whole thing so far fetched. So many things were wrong I wouldn't even know where to begin correcting it
8:19 "Turkish Kingdom"
It wasn't hellenic/greek?
He’a full of shit. Turks came 1300 years later lol
By that time the nomadic Turks would still be roaming Central Asia.
He probably just made a mistake by confusing Turkey with Anatolia or saying that it was in modern day Turkey.
Yes, it was a kingdom made out of some of the Greek colonies in the black sea. He probably made a mistake. The Turks were still in central Asia at the time
Really hope that Incan Empire surviving video is next.
"Imagine you're an Aztec in the year 1518. Your people and empire had existed for centuries"
Hmmm... nope? In 1518 the Aztec empire wasn't even a century old. The Mexica had been around for a while longer than that, yeah, but they didn't establish their predominance in the region until around 1430.
Thank you! This man spews bull shit almost every video he makes. I honestly don't know how just raw unpolished shit got as large a fan base as it did.
@@Alinyan3 becose im not very good in egnlish i dont sure what says about real history that is worng
Let's not forget how many people were enslaved by the Aztecs way before the arrival of Cortes, and that the bulk of the Spanish army was actually made up of native warriors
@@leonzoful Sip pero se limito a a si se hubiera perdido asi que no hablo mucho de lo que paso realmente y por tanto no dijo casi nada erroneo creo
@@lugburz-shak4629 ese es otro problema, se tiene que dar un contexto histórico objetivo, no lo que el hizo
I can safely say right now that you Whatifalthist are on a roll in content. Keep it up man.
>hijacks comment
How exactly do the Aztecs get enough horses after defeating the Spaniards?
@@grubbybum3614 If I understand the video, they manage to hold on to their own empire long enough to engage in trade with the Spaniards or some other European power in more or less fair terms and acquire horses and other stuff from them.
Grubby bum and cuz the Spaniards would still have Central American/Caribbean colonies so I assume they would get horses via trade or raiding. Plus, I assume they might trade with the other European powers for horses at some point.
In due time they would have a significant number of horses in their possession just like how the introduction of horses from the east coast eventually reaching the Great Plains. Time shouldn’t be an issue since the original attack by Cortez was not even a formal invasion but from a guy trying to outvalue his exile.
“The world has seen Stranger Things”
Interesting choice of words
Thats an actual expression thats existed for a while fuck your Netflix show for tweens
@@bootymane9907 yeah, but I really liked the first season back then and elements of the second, never dared to watch the third, and I'm not a tween, I still liked your comment
@@Roderik46 shit sounded funny when i read your comment out loud
I won't watch it.
Dumb zoomer get off Netflix please
What if the (Southern) Ming Dynasty survived and became Catholic?
Mmmm it might be possible
Isn't that called Macao?
@@robroux6074 Thats just a region that was administered by the Portuguese
You say that the French still would establish a colony in Quebec, but how can you be so sure that the British would conquer it in this timeline?
Well, I guess he isn't, he showed several outcomes for North America, but he couldn't show w every single one imaginable
I realize this would affect Philippines hugely too because of all the Spanish and Mexican influence here, this means the Spaniards would've been discouraged from going further in colonization and we could've either survived at least until the 1800s (like the rest of Southeast Asia), or become some sort of Portuguese/Dutch/Japanese colony
Which also means an alternate Magellan would likely not come from Spain
Essentially, The Aztecs would developed the same as the Japanese,
@@pancakes6119 Japan developed independantly from China, and even destroyed the chinese own attempt at modernizing.
@@MyUsersDark japan was pretty isolated but for most of their history but china was still their main economic and cultural partner, japan pretty much got its main culture from ancient china.
@@pancakes6119 I’m inclined to agree. These developments are strongly based in “degrees”. The Aztecs were too far from any developed nations. Population would most likely have grown to a breaking point, subsequent governmental failure takes place, and multiple new city states arise. Of course, all this assuming the Europeans don’t “eventually come”-which they most certainly would have.
So for one thing, the population of the Aztec Empire was closer to 6 million, not 7 million. If 90% still die from disease, you're looking at a remaining population of less than one million. Basically, Aztec society still collapses, and the Spanish would be able to come back for them. The Incas may have a better chance being up in the mountains.
You are forgetting that the chichimecan tribes were essentialy just like the apache or comanche even more agressive, the spaniards fought them for decades and didn't even won the war, they purchase peace. So that campaign would have beeing very long and expensive, with a considerable probability of failure, and maybe, considering the circumstances it could also fire back at them.
As somebody who regularly makes big posts and has collaborated with a few other channels on Mesoamerican (Aztec, Maya, etc) history topics, I wanna give some input and corrections here. Firstly do wanna say that you did a pretty solid job for the most part: It's ABSOLUTELY true that the Conquest of Mexico and by extension the colonization of the Americas as a whole was extremely reliant on a series of flukes and other specific events playing out early on which snowballed later, and that Firearms (as well as metal armor and weapons, most Conquistadors didn't even have metal armor and those that did often gave it up due to the climate) weren't notable advantages, and that it was cavalry charges (and cannon-fire) which gave them their largest advantage, with the Battle of Otumba being a fantastic example of how those could blow holes in Aztec formations.
However, something which you did leave a note on but didn't really make a big deal of is just how reliant the Conquistadors were on troops from local city-states and kingdoms. While there weren't just 500 conquistadors as you say (at various points additional men arrived from Cuba or rival Conquistador forces which brought the number up/replenished it as it went down from losses in various engagements) and i'm iffy about the 20 million population figure for the Aztec (the generally accepted population of Mexico at this time was 20 to 25 million, the Aztec empire controlled a good amount of this, but there were many other city-states, kingdoms, and one other large empire (the Purepecha/Tarascan empire) there they didn't), the fact remains that the Conquistadors were at an extreme numerical disadvantage against even moderately sized city-states, let alone the larger kingdoms or the biggest empires in the region: You say the Aztec could field armies in the tens of thousands, but Tenochtitlan (the Aztec capital) could field an army of 40,000 (per Hassig's Aztec Warfare) BY ITSELF, Aztec records assert that when pooling troops from subject cities, they launched offensive invasions numbering between 200,000 and 700,000 soldiers. The latter figure is likely hyperbolic, but Hassig points out that 200,000, which is the more typical high end figure you see in Aztec sources, would have been on the edge of logistically feasible.
Calvary and cannons are NOT going to make up for numerical gulfs where the Conquistadors are fighting armies 10x, 50x, 100x, to 200x their own size. Keep in mind here that the Aztec and other Mesoamerican civilizations here ARE organized political states, not tribes (Even the Maya during this period, contrary to the map shown in the video: The Classical Maya collapse had the larger cities and kingdoms in the Central and Southern Yucatan fragment, but they were still organized societies and other parts of the Yucatan Peninsula continued to have larger Maya states): The Mexica (the specific group inside the Aztec capital most associated with the term) had a complex formal rank hierarchy, elite military guilds, barracks, armories, garrisons; fought in formation, had different emblems, battle standards/banners, and colored uniforms to indicate unit divisions, etc. They have have used stone and wooden weapons and tools, but these were not stone age societies: In pretty much every other regard they were comparable to the civilizations of the Eurasian Bronze age, in many ways more comparable to Iron and Classical civilizations, in a select few cutting edge even globally at the time (in sanitation and medicine, for example)
So to say the Conquistadors were reliant on not just diseases (though note that the 90% to 95% population loss figures are over the course of almost a century and multiple outbreaks, the intial smallpox epidemic "only" killed around 1/3 of the population in 10 years) but the armies of their allied states is an understatement. However, these were not mostly "enemies" of the Aztec as the note in the video says: The Kingdom of Tlaxcala was (though confusingly also "Aztec" themselves in the sense that they belonged to the Nahua culture/civilization, even if not a part of the "Aztec Empire" politically; Tlaxcala was also notably ruled by a set of 4 city-states with a collective senate, senators needing to undergo strict legal and ethical training prior to taking office), as the Aztec Empire had been targeting it with Flower Wars (smaller scale, more ritualistic engagements, here used as a way to wear Tlaxcala down as they could be waged year round rather then seasonally as with normal full scale assaults) and blockades to eventually conquer it, but the other allied city-states and kingdoms Cortes would obtain obtain were either neutral (Huextozinco) or a part of the Aztec Empire (Texcoco (actually one of the 3 ruling cities alongside Tenochtitlan), Xochimilco, Iztapalapa, Chalco, Mixquic): These were not hostile or hateful of Aztec rule, as is oft cited, but rather joined forces with the Conquistadors and the Tlaxcalatec much latter, only after Smallpox had already broken out in Tenochtitlan and Montezuma II had been killed (depending on the source, either via civil unrest in Tenochtitlan, being stoned to death as the Mexica became frustrated with him after he was being obviously puppeted by Cortes following the Toxactl massacre by Conquistadors; or by Conquistadors simply assassinating him), and the Conquistadors and Tlaxcalatec successfully escaped the city and won the Battle of Otumba as they fled.
CONTINUED BELOW
CONTINUED FROM ABOVE:.......The reason for this (and why I don't think the Aztec- Roman comparison is entirely accurate) is that the Aztec Empire, and pretty much any other large Mesoamerican state (except the Purepecha Empire) weren't imperialized: Generally speaking, subject cities and towns weren't directly governed by their capitals, and operated as and saw themselves as if they were independent. The exact method of political power and authority varied, with tributary and vassal states, strategic political marriages, installing rulers on conquered cities/towns, and other methods of "soft" control and power all being used variously depending on the specific state, but bottom line larger Mesoamerican states were more networks of political relationships, some of these being subservient or dominant; rather then nation states as most people think of empires being. The Aztec Empire was no exception (actually more hands off then a lot of others: They basically just asked for economic goods as taxes and aid on military efforts. Contrary to what most people think, slaves and sacrifices weren't demanded or taken from subjects typically, the bulk of sacrifices were enemy soldiers captured during battles, though more on this later). The upside of a system like this is that you don't have to worry about logistically managing your hundreds of conquered cities and towns. The downside of this is that they have leeeway to opportunistically secede or rebel: Whenever an a Tenochca king (or Aztec Emperor) died, far off border provinces would stop paying taxes, trying to see what they could get away with in a period of transition. At one time, the new emperor, Tizoc, did such a poor job reconquering these border provinces that over the next few years the entire empire almost shattered and Tizoc was assassinated by Mexica nobility to avoid further weakening of Tenochca influence. Even his successor, Ahuizotl, got ghosted at his own cornoration ceremony by other independent states (which is a big deal, as visits by kings to allies and even enemies was almost never avoided or denied, it is why Cortes was allowed in Tenochtitlan by Montezuma II to begin with) due to Aztec influence being that diminished. Not to mention that in a political system where you effectively keep your independence even as a subject, you don't have much to lose by pledging yourself to some other polity, helping them conquer stuff or overthrow the current top dog, and then you've hopefully guaranteed yourself a position of higher standing in the new Political hegemony you helped propped up.
This is basically what happened: Tenochtitlan was ravaged by smallpox with half it's population dead or sick, it's king had died, Tenochtitlan had lost a battle against a small band of soldiers who themselves had been beaten by Tlaxcala (because yeah, it was less Cortes manipulating Tlaxcala and other states and more them manipulating him, having spared him after per Bernal Diaz and other sources, Tlaxcala had the Conquistadors cornered and only spared them at the last minute) who were on their last legs after years of Aztec blockades and attacks. Tenochtitlan was widely seen as weak, vulnerable, and unable to project it's influence onto it's subjects: other Aztec cities saw a geopolitical opportunity to take it out and hopefully cement themselves in a higher position once the Conquistadors or perhaps Tlaxcala took over, and you even see them giving Cortes and other high ranking Conquistadors princesses as political marriages (which the Conquistadors misunderstood as offerings of Concubines).
With all this stated, it should also become clear just how much of a fluke the Conquest of Mexico was: Had Cortes failed before Smallpox broke out in Tenochtitlan and Montezuma II died, Spain would not have gained other allies besides Tlaxcala (who would have surely been finished off within the next few years anyways). Also, the smallpox epidemic itself only even broke out when it did because one of the men in one of those rival Conquistador forces I mentioned happened to be carrying it and Cortes managed to convince them to join him instead of arresting him, since that force was sent by the Governor of Cuba to do that since Cortes had committed treason and gone rouge as a result of multiple actions, one of them being overstepping the expedition's mission of "exploration and trade", not conquest: Spain wasn't even sure it WANTED to pursue the mass colonization of the Americas yet, it was historically Cortes's success netting them a massive amount of wealth, a logistical base of operations, and a large amount of local forces which made them realize it would be worth pursuing. And, again, Cortes and his men had almost been beaten by Tlaxcala and only happened upon shipwrecked Spanish sailors who had learned local languages to be able to even communicate with the local states by chance to begin with!
You rightfully point out in the video how much other subsequent expeditions drew upon Cortes's success to model their own conquests, and how much the conquest of Tenochtitlan, gaining it's wealth and the tax influx from it's former subjects, enabled Spain to prosper and want to fund and to be able to fund further conquests. But it goes much further then that: Not only would Spain not be willing to go all out with a mass rush of further expeditions as we see historically without Cortes's success, leading to a much slower series of conflicts and points of contact between Europeans and Native Americans (across the Americas, not just in the US) that would lead to a much more gradual amount of exposure they have to Eurasian pathogens: Remember I said earlier that the 95% population was over almost a century, over which you had huge amounts of Spanish occupation in Mexico and other areas, conflicts and campaigns causing political instability, colonial exploitation (though in certain areas this wouldn't happen for a few decades, the first few decades of Spanish rule in the cities and towns which submitted basically saw the continuation of Mesoamerican civilization with their nobles and kings marrying into Spanish nobility with only indirect Spanish rule) weakening people's immune systems, etc. In other words, you wouldn't see nearly the same degree of population collapses we see historically. Even in the areas Spain and other European powers decided to directly conquer and were able to do so (which would be much more limited due to the lack of collapses, lack of incentive without Cortes's success getting their greed going, etc), you would see much larger proportions of the colonial populations being native, and colonization would be forced to play out more like how it did in India and Southeast Asia.
CONTINUED BELOW
CONTINUED FROM ABOVE:......So while i'm not really equipped to comment on how colonization would play out exactly outside of Mexico since i'm not super familiar with the native societies there or the specific political context of colonization i'm really not sure further colonization of Central America (That is, BELOW Mesoamerica), etc would happen as the video says. I frankly don't think it's possible to predict exactly what happens with North Americas, as without Spain's massive success in Latin America it's possible France and Britain never really see it as worth it. Something I didn't see noted in the video is the Mississippians: This was civilization which had broke out in the Eastern United states in the late 1st millennium AD. At it's height, the largest Mississippian site, Cahokia, was a full on city, with a population in the tens of thousands; albeit one made of wood and earthenworks. Cahokia and the Mississippians did decline around the 13th and 14th centuries, but Spanish explorers like De Soto who came up from Mexico came across what seem to be Mississippian style towns, which became abandoned and in ruins by the time be returned latter, from European diseases causing collapses. With the slowed colonization and by extension more time for disease resistances to build, it's possible this doesn't happen and when Europeans DO arrive to North America, if ever, they are facing large amount of organized towns and some cities, even if not as complex as what was encountered down in Mexico.
The bottom like trickle down effect of all of this is that Europe probably wouldn't achieve the global political and economic dominance it did historically: Spain and other countries don't see the massive transfer of wealth from the Americas back to Europe. The Colombian exchange would be slowed, and the lack of crops like Potatos, Chiles, Maize, etc in Eurasia would have massive impacts compared to what we see historically. The Enlightenment and Scientific Revolutions and in turn the industrial revolution might be delayed or not occur at all as we think of it, since historically the theological and philosophical ramifications of discovering another world of people who had never heard of the Christian God was a major issue of theological debate and the debates on what it meant to be human. Europeans also relied on Aztec botanical science and medicine to inform some of the discoveries and advancements made in those fields over the next few centuries, with Philip II's royal physician personally visiting Mexico and consulting with Aztec doctors and herbal texts and compiling information on them and bringing it back to Europe, and it being proposed that the first academic botanical gardens in Europe, which pop up over the next century or so, were influenced by the ones the Aztec had where they experimented with plants, tested them for medical properties, and categorized them into formal taxonomic systems.
To circle back around to the Aztec and Mesoamerica itself and what would happen for them, firstly I need to address the point being brought up in the video that Aztec agriculture was unsustainable or otherwise beginning to face overpopulation issues: As far as i'm aware there's no indication of this. Chinampas, the primary agricultural method used in the Valley of Mexico (modern day Mexico city, at the time a large lake basin, in actual history these were drained by the Spanish as the Aztec's complex aqueduct, dike, and canal systems had been destroyed during the siege and the Spanish were unable to repair them and early Mexico city kept flooding), were very sustainable and had highly efficient agricultural output, as far as I know. The trifecta of Beans, Maize (when nixtamalized) and Squashes alone provided a nutritionally complete diet. While I cannot find the study right now; I have also read that the Valley was still only at half it's carrying capacity despite it already being one of the most densely populated places on the planet (1-1.5 million people). It is true the Maya collapse was likely caused in part by an agricultural collapse, but the two situations, I don't think, are comparable. What WOULD be a potential concern is if the Aztec somehow lost many of their subjects, as while Aztec agriculture was itself sustainable nor was the Valley overpopulated per say, Tenochtitlan in particular was in that it's huge size and population was only sustainable as a result of it's tribute and tax influx, which included crops from other parts of the Valley, particularly Xochimilco, and perhaps areas outside of the valley too (I don't recall for sure if it was agriculturally supported just by the core aztec cities or further out subjects).
Also, while I will touch on sacrifice more further down when I address the bit about Christianity taking over, cannibalism of sacrificed victims was not occurring at a mass scale, but in very limited ritualistic circumstances, and it was ABSOLUTELY not being used as some sort of dietary compensation for the lack of protein/meat in the diet: As I noted, Maize, Beans, and Squashes alone provided a complete diet nutritionally speaking, and the Mesoamericans had other protein sources in domesticated poultry and dogs, as well as game, such as hare and deer (which were also kept tamed in game preserves and "farms", though I'm not sure it qualifies as full domestication), fish, insects, reptiles, etc, though these weren';t a common competent of the average commoner's diet. Even Harner, the researcher who proposed cannibalism and sacrifice as a way of providing protein in the Aztec diet/Overpopulation, admits that actual Aztec cannibalistic practices wouldn't have provided much protein on a population level scale, and his research is full of errors and has been discredited for decades anyways.
CONTINUED BELOW
CONTINUED FROM ABOVE....Due to that, I don't think drops in population due to diseases would somehow increase standard of living, not to mention that as noted, population losses wouldn't be even CLOSE to as high as we see in actual history due to the lack of a sustained Spanish occupation exacerbating outbreaks alongside political instability; not to mention that as noted, the Aztec empire was largely hands off, what "quality of life" even was was highly variable depending on where you were looking. For the same reason I don't really see Aridoamerica (the area including Northern Mexico and the South/Southwestern US which was mainly inhabited by nomadic tribes, as opposed to the urban civilizations in the bottom half of mexico and the more organized tribes in Oasisamerica, a specific subregion in what's now Arizona, Colorado, etc where the Pueblo were, which was a bit more supportive to sedentary agriculture) being used as a mass cattle ranch, as I don't see the Aztec projecting themselves a permanent directly administered system of rule there: Even if they wanted to even though Aztec expansionism till this point was entirely focused on conquering agriculturally and economically rich areas to exact goods from without needing the effort to do it themselves, logistically it'd be iffy (even with now having Calvary and draft animals) since even the Spanish had issue fending off the guerrilla attacks of the nomadic Chichimeca tribes there and for a good part of it they'd need to get past the Purepecha Empire, which historically had great success absolutely destroying attempted Aztec invasions and would be in a good position to take advantage of things since it already had an imperial structure and was possibly the largest hotbed of metallurgy, including bronze, in the region, and would be the most equipped to switch over to metal armor and weapons (though I don't really think this would be that worth it for the aforementioned reasons). Also, while i'm not a ecologist, Aridoamerica is... arid, it's a giant desert, I'm not sure it WOULD make a good place for cattle ranching. And frankly i'm not sure that the Aztec would even want to adopt animal husbandry on a European scale. The Aztec were sort of obsessed with hygiene and keeping things clean and I cannot imagine in a million years they would want to deal with cleaning up after pigs, cattle, etc, at least not in the same cities and towns they lived in.
That being said, that's just my own take, and I do agree the Aztec Empire obtaining Calvary and European weaponry to further their expansionism would happen. Perhaps if they switched over to a directly governed imperial system now that they had at least some draft animal to make it logistically more feasible, they could avoid eventually fragmenting and maybe pursue conquests further north into Aridoamerica like you say, though I really don't think they'd be that interested at first and the first targets would be the Maya states to the east, where the Aztec had been expanding towards anyways. I don't see the Purepecha Empire falling that quickly, though what happens with it and the Aztec also depends on how Spain chooses to proceed in all this: It's almost certainly not attempting direct conquest, both the video and I note, though I I do think it could pull some East India Company-esque shenanigans and try to gain influence and control over Mesoamerican states by making them dependent on themselves for weapons, goods, external diplomacy, etc: It's entirely possible that Spain plays states against each other and attempts to gain control over the region this way and I frankly think it';d probably work out, just, again, colonization would be more akin to what we see in India and Southeast Asia. Or maybe the Aztec and Spain work with each other exclusively, with the Aztec using Spanish weapons to gain total control over Mesoamerica and even the Purepecha Empire, but becoming Spanish vassals in the process. Or maybe The Aztec Empire never shifts to a direct system fragments either as a result of Spanish arming city-states against each other or it happens naturally, and that leaves the Purepecha Empire in a place to expand and become the dominant power in Mesoamerica?
In the video it's noted that the Aztec would likely adopt Christianity as it was less violent and would be less hated then the Aztec religion. Morality is subjective so i'm not gonna get into that, but facet of it, but to comment on the actual factual accuracy of things and how it relates to the what-if: As previously noted, the Aztec did NOT drag people of for sacrifices from subject towns and cities or demand it as tribute: Any sacrifices from a given subject town would have been sacrifices they themselves did per their own customs, with most sacrifices in Tenochtitlan being captured enemy soldiers. In fact, the Mexica of Tenochtitlan were the ONLY group to do mass scale sacrifices, specifically because shortly after the formation of the Aztec Empire, the Mexica political official Tlacaelel and the king Itzcoatl rewrote Mexica history and religion to increase the emphasis and need of sacrificed enemy soldiers to justify expansionism, as you can't sacrifice enemy soldiers without getting them from wars. To say that the Aztec waged wars FOR sacrifices as the video does is, as such, sort of backwards: the ultimate goal was conquering cities and towns to make them subjects so they could supply economic goods, the wars justified for sacrifices was just a cosmological excuse (though obviously sacrifice itself was also a preexisting legitimate religious practice) to that end.
I'm not sure if the 1.2 million sacrifices figure is meant to be in total or per year, but either way its almost certainly wrong: Even the mass sacrifices done by the Mexica were occurring at far more limited scales then almost any source states. Virtually every archaeological find of sacrificial burials only has bodies in the single to double digits and even these are often deposited over long periods of time. The first archaeological support we've really had for figures in the hundreds or thousands was recent excavations made at the Main Temple in Mexico City, where it was found the Skull Tower the Spanish reported seeing existed (up till this point it was thought by some researchers to be Spanish propaganda), but even this only held "thousands" of skulls at it's maximum extent. The rack WAS cleared every 52 years for the New Fire ceremony and sacrifices would have continued even after the rack was full, but to skip over a lot of actual math based on what details I can find from the reporting on this, I don't think that the findings support more then sacrifices in the hundreds annually, and up to 75% of which were enemy soldiers per the same findings (For the record, even taking Cortes's claims of 3000 sacrifices a year, it would have taken the Aztec 3x as long to sacrifice the amount of people France killed (200,000 at least) in their purge of the Cathar religious sect in 20 years)
With all that said, I can't see the Aztec tolerating the spread of Christianity, something the video notes too: The need for sacrifices of enemy soldiers was a key motivator for Aztec expansionism: If they switched over to Christianity, it would threaten their political status quo. I'm not sure they would go to the extent of banning the religion even in their subjects (assuming the empire stayed hands off), but it certainly wouldn't take over in Tenochtitlan, at least in the short term, though I think the events pointed out in the video of some sort of christian rebellion is plausible.
God I really want a videogame set in this universe. The players and setting set in place seems really interesting and something I’d love to see play out
Yeah, that sounds amazing
For now, there's Europa Universalis 4, where various Native American powers can opt to reform their civilizations once they've made contact with the more advanced European powers.
When random youtubers speak highly of Costa Rica
Me, a costarrican: happiness noice :)
Biggest problem with the Aztecs, is that culling all those other tribes for human sacrifice created alot of awesome allies for Cortez.
Could you do what if the idea of manifest destiny never existed and the United states learnt to integrate the native Americans likely creating multiple native American states.
Manifest destiny was kind of doomed to happen just from how much colonial America’s population exploded, and how Native Americans were disappearing at a similar rate. There was no reason to coexist with the Native Americans anymore because there was no political leverage keeping them there like there had been in the colonial era. They were just a potential tool for a European power to use against them in the event of a war and thus a liability rather than an asset, so they were wiped out to make room for the new population demographics
@CK Lim that doesn't mean they were excepted into American society. There was and still is a lot of racism against them, in some cases being treated even worse then African Americans due to having less representation. A lot of native Americans have been purposely breed into white families and stript of there culture. When I say integrate i mean more to intergrate native American politics and culture into European American society.
Average white american is not 20% native
CK Lim Colonial America’s population was large even before mass immigration took place from Europe around the 1800s. A large part of the reason they even revolted from the British was to be able to act out this idea of freely spreading westward to make room for themselves at the expense of Natives. And putting Native Americans in reservations is not integrating them
@@wpown7564 English Colonists population was Zero when Spain invaded Mexico. They wouldn't arrive until much much later
Interesting perspective. About their religion though, I don't believe Aztec and Mayan people would just adopt Christianity, more likely they'd reform their religions taking some aspects of European mythology and people would favor cannibalism less over time as theories and thoughts about human principles would become more common since the colonial era intersected with the Renaissance.
I'm sorry, but this scenario doesn't hold. Cortés' expedition might have failed, but if the Spanish had really wanted to conquer those lands, they only needed to come back in force: nothing the Aztecs could have thought of would have saved them from a well organized military expedition with European technology. And that's without even counting the fact that the Aztecs' subject peoples rallied around the Spaniards, seeing the chance to free themselves from Tenochtitlan. Those native allies were a _huge_ factor in Cortés' victory.
Apart from that, as long as the Spanish held their bases in the Caribbean, there's no reason why a setback in Mexico should have stopped them from expanding into other areas of the New World, like Bolivia, which is where they actually got most of their silver from. The only thing that could have prevented the Spanish Empire from grabbing all those lands would have been some other European power grabbing them first, and that would have required a completely different scenario.
I've always theorized that if the Aztecs had kept themselves from being conquered by the europeans, it would've been their subjects and local rivals like the Chichimec confederation and the Purepecha Kingdom that would've conquered them. Maybe being able to get european support themselves and then using that support to beat back other europeans.
There were at most 20,000 Spaniards in the Caribbean. This isn't like a strategy game where you can summon a giant army and ferry it across.
@@luissalcedo6493 That's still a lot more than 500, they could've easily pulled a larger force out of that 20k strong manpower pool.
@@elguerotapatio9258 That's 20,000 total Spaniards. Not fighting-age men, just Spaniards.
@@luissalcedo6493 508 men did the trick for Cortés. If they had failed for whatever reason, a slightly larger force would have nailed it no problem. Especially considering that, in the time in between, European diseases would have caused even more havoc among the Aztecs.
*WHAT IF THE HELLENISTIC REGIMES WERE NEVER CONQUERED BY ROME?*
They would’ve fought each other until getting conquered by a different larger power
@@anon2427 eh they wouldve united over time, unlikely theyd be conquered. The greeks have a strong history and pride in uniting against foreign invaders. Add their martial tradition and geography theyd likely be similar to Switzerland or Afghanistan
@@mondaysinsanity8193 greeks have a strong history of bickering with each other and taking sides with larger powers against one another
@@anon2427 give an example where they took sides other than the leagues which were greek themselves
The last time I was this early Epstein was still alive.
@NPC 19867 and Kars can't kill himself
This is the one video I always wanted. THE ONE VIDEO. Thanks man!
What if Yeltsin was actually a skilled politician (i.e. what if Post-Soviet Russia became more liberal and prosperous)
In other words, what if someone had kept his liquor cabinet under lock and key?
Or if Yeltsin was assassinated in August 1991?
Yeltsin even if he was a skill politician would probably face the same problems as today. Mainly, the US moving its troops on Russian borders
As someone who studies this subject quite a bit. I have to say that the Spanish conquest was inevitable and not only necessary for the survival of the natives there from the bullies (Aztecs, and Incas) but it brought about me, today (a Hispanic). Note, Cortez's big advantage was his experience as a lawyer in Spain, his undeniable Charisma, and being a man of his word...
“This is my body broken for you…”
Christianity, 99% cannibalism free
If the Aztecs had beaten the Spanish, Mexico wouldn't exit. There would be small rival nations such as Aztecland, Mayaland, Olmecaland, etc.
The Spanish and their descendants created the country of Mexico.
The aztecs would already have sacrificed you for having such a good yt channel
Damm 2 videos in one week thanks for all the great content
Whatifalthist: "Imagine you are an aztec"
Subtitles (English): "Imagine you are an ass deck"
let's remember that religion can be reformed : an Aztec state religion controlled by the elite could easily reformed to exclude human sacrifice afterall the Roman and Greek religions reformed themselves several times even changing their pantheons
What if the Chinese Tang dynasty launched a full invasion of the Islamic Caliphate??
John de Vries Wouldn’t that mean if the Islamic Caliphate won (who were in such a good position) they would have spared the World the Mongols. However, that will weaken the Caliphate’s campaign through Europe. Perhaps India could get involved?
What if Doggerland never disappeared?
AsianDad202 Well, for starters, Germany might have had a better chance at invading Britain in WW2 I guess 🤷♂️
Europe would be united like the other three major old world civilisations. Say goodbye to everything that made the West special!
The Spaniards were allied with the enemies of the Aztecs, the conquest of Mexico was a liberation war of tens of thousands of native soldiers (Cholultecas, Tlaxcaltecas, Totonacos, Texcocanos, etc.) and 600 Spaniards all united against the Aztecs.
But after all it went a little wrong for the winners.
Damn. This alternate history looks nice. For some reason I always wanted for aztecs to win against spanish. It feels like something is off, it's not right that they lost. What are the odds really!
Finally i can die in peace
I love mesoamerican history, but if the Aztec empire survived, I'd hope the religion would let go of the more violent parts. I could see them trading human sacrifice for the sacrifice of animals and material objects, ie burning a small amount of their harvest in tribute to the gods. I could also see the divine need for constant war evolve into a more rational militaristic culture, which would butt heads with the US, Spanish, and southwest natives. Let's just hope the Aztecs wouldn't become a nuclear power lol
The spanish didn’t know that they gonna discover an unknown land, they thought that they gonna trip for trading with asians..,
Maybe they founded hostility and had to deffend themselves we don’t know,..
I don't agree with your argumentation surrounding the Aztec religion. Christianity does have a strong vein of proselytism in it so prolonged cultural exchange between the surviving Aztec empire and their Spanish neighbors to the south would likely have an effect on their religious demographic. You also don't account for the fact that religions, even ones we deem extreme, have schisms. I played through this thought before, without as in-depth European historical knowledge as you, but I wondered how the religion might adapt to more modern times. I wondered if instead of mass slayings and cannibalism, if a sort of volunteerism might crop up. Maybe their would only be one sacrifice every so often, but instead the sacrifice would be chosen through extensive cultural and religious criteria that made them the most valuable sacrifice that volunteered. This is just a thought experiment but I think it's a little naive to believe that a culture would wholly dump their religion, one that had the lifeblood of the world in the balance, because a neighboring religion's God seems "stronger" even if that seems true from an outside perspective.
But the thing is it usually happened. It seems that Abrahamic gods(Islam/Christianity) are superior to polythestic religions it happened nearly everwhere west conquered save for China/India/Japan
I'm partial to Marvin Harris' theory that Aztec cannibalism was a consequence of the lack of other animal protein sources in the region: the Mexica had hunted almost every edible animal in the region to extinction, and their only sources of meat were dog and turkey, which aren't very good. (The video says that sacrifice victims became food "for the elite", but contemporary chronicles state that the flesh was distributed among the people) If the Aztecs had managed to keep their empire while acquiring cows and other cattle, they could have solved their protein problem and the gods would have stopped demanding human sacrifice with such regularity. Eventually, they would have abandoned human sacrifice altogether, like every other human culture in history.
@Pecu Alex Like I said, it was a desperate measure. Also, we don't really know how long the Aztecs had been sacrificing people on a _really_ industrial scale before the Spanish showed up.
@@ArkadiBolschek Do birds and fish not exist in that theory? serious question. I doubt they would have exhasted all protein sources to end up turning to cannibalism. It was all done for religious reasons, not to survive.
@@sakurashogun I don't remember all the details, and my copy of the book is currently off limits due to quarantine, but if you're interested it's _Cannibals and Kings_ by Marvin Harris.
The hypothesis has been contested, of course. Wikipedia has a short article about the debate, and you may want to have a look at it: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibalism_in_pre-Columbian_America
After one year since this video was released, i finally understood the pun in the thumbnail
This actually relates to my Vinland timeline. Through some means the Vikings are able to establish the infrastructure needed to support a long term settlement and begin to expand south into the north-eastern coast of what in our timeline became the US and west into the Great Lakes. Meanwhile the oppressed minority of heathens fled south to escape persecution, forming the tribes of Appalachia and eventually establishing two kingdoms in the cotton belt and the land east of the Mississippi which they named the Ifing after the river that separates earth from the land of giants.
Because of this, my timeline for the Aztecs would be considerably different. Firstly, disease wouldn’t have ravaged the population nearly as bad because they’d had at least a couple hundred years to adapt. Also when the Spanish arrive, the empire is already much larger as they would have already be introduced to European livestock. Additionally they would have a strong trade alliance with the southern heathen kingdoms as these kingdoms would be more than happy to have a non-Christian power to trade with. They wouldn’t be nearly as disturbed by the large amount of human sacrifice as we would be, after all Germanic polytheists also sacrificed their slaves and prisoner, and though they would be put off by the ritualistic cannibalism, there would be enough benefit to an alliance for them to put aside this discomfort. This means that if the Spanish still tried to conquer the Aztecs they would be up against these heathen kingdoms as well who would be at least somewhat familiar with European strategy.
If there were any sort of Christian rebellion, I strongly believe it would be put down as the heathen kingdoms wouldn’t allow their pagan ally to fall under the control of the nailed god. Keep in mind that these heathens would have come back from the brink of extinction and as a result they would be fiercely anti-Christian. I disagree with your assessment though. While I agree they would be very conservative, they would have to reform in some way and many other religions have been able to do that and still retain their traditions. Perhaps through some external pressure human sacrifice would be limited to prisoners and animal sacrifice would be preferred. As I understand it, the Aztec religion is centered around the belief that we owe the gods an eternal debt which must be paid in blood so I could see such reforms being acceptable. Honestly I think it would be somewhat inevitable. Once the Christian world outlawed the slave trade and flower wars became harder and harder to fight, large scale human sacrifice would become unsustainable.
I don't think Portugal would be a "second world" european country in this timeline. As you said, portuguese colonization would be affected and actually would have an easier time doing his thing, especially in Brazil. Netherlands and Genoa were content to be a business partner to Portugal, son not only they wouldn't be competing for now with them, but they're actually investing in portuguese expansion.
Can you please do a really silly situation where you combine like 20-30 of your previous alternate histories
Sorry to post two comments lol I figure that it's better than one, massive comment. But great video! I consider myself an enthusiast of Pre-Columbian and indigenous American cultures, and am more than happy for any alternate history video that tackles them. Though how would the Haudenosaunee (otherwise known as the Iroquois) fare in this timeline?
Also, some ideas for future videos ;)
-What if Beringia (the land bridge that connected Alaska and Siberia) never went away?
-What if the Old World could know of the New World (and vice versa) since ancient times?
-What if the Atlantic was so perilous that only industrial boats could safely traverse it? (Essentially, only way 14th-17th Century Europeans could discover the Americas is via the Pacific)
At the start of the video all I can think about is that they would probably sacrifice a ton more
Perhaps they would keep the Europeans as sacrificial stock.
@@quentenwalker1385 sooner or later they'd have mostly likely convert to Christianity to trade with their European neighbors
Tbh I was not right how the alt history would go but still I am kinda right
No they’d abandon it when the population crisis hit from disease
They did not conduct sacrifices as much as spanish sources day they did
Think about it. Does sacrificing thousands of people several times a year sound like a good eay of maintaining a stable population?
I like how you give a very factual and unbiased perspective, and suddenly history is much more chance like and less biased like it is in the real world. Meanwhile it's taught as if every time a great power arose they dominated everything and no one could ever stop them.
Japan succeeded at replicating european weaponry because they, unlike literally every other nation outside of europe, had adapted scientific warfare. Though i suppose the fact that Japan was an honor-in-war-driven society that frequently infought with itself probably helped.
Finally one that doesn’t just end with “The Europeans conquer them later”
I doubt Sweden could just Anschluss the entire holy roman empire if even conquering the danes... If france conquered the west rhine, there would have instead been a more unified German power, likely under the holy roman emperor if they still existed in protestant "Germany"
Just remember the holy roman empire was v e r y divided.
yeah I mean north germany yeah but not the entire HRE though I am pretty sure it would be resolved by the french and swedes
Wdym ”if even the danes”. Danmark have Been in decline since the 16th century, only losing land and not winning a single important war.
Denmark-Norway, northern germany and the entire baltic coast would be under swedish rule. Russia would never becom a superpower and Sweden would thereofre keep Estonia, maybe Latvia, Finland and parts of western Russia to this day. Norway would also still be apart of Sweden and Denamark aswell, since they are almost the same people. Tough there is a possibility the could break free.
this was awesome, a well thought out theory that has history to back it up
wow, when an empire does not collapse, history can change greatly, I wonder what would happen if the Abbasid empire did not collapse.
Excellent and thought-provoking video on a topic I've never even considered.
>If the Spanish didn'st seize Mexico in 1521, they never would have
I don't quite understand this. I would think that upon hearing of the immense wealth and that they had lost 90% of their population, a force tens or hundreds of times greater would have shown up within a couple of years. It seems to me that without also giving them immunity to smallpox and plague, they would be doomed no matter what. Even if some war or something happened in Spain, it would just be some other gold hungry nation that would show up, producing much the same effect.
Spain didn't have the resources to wage such a war across the ocean. Literally all of the conquest campaigns were private efforts ran by small groups, and by small I mean 50-500+native supporters.
The technology gap would also doom them. A second larger force would undoubtedly return very shortly. Keep in mind, the Aztecs could only field a few 10s of thousands of troops, which are at a severe disadvantage in technology and are unused to war waged where the main goal is to destroy the opposing force instead of to take captived
Yeah but if he takes the actual political and military situation into account then his premise of "what if the Aztecs won" won't hold up. The Aztecs were doomed from the start and there isn't anything interesting to a video saying "they'd be destroyed by the next wave of military arrivals".
If another empire showed up they would have to face an entire empire rapidly advanced by introducion to new technology, etc
Mexico would have recovered by then and learned how to stop them
I turned on captions and immediately I was bombarded with, “Imagine if you were an ASS DECK in the..”
I'd be interested in a 'What if China became Christian' video, as you mentioned a Christian rebellion almost winning there.
The Songhai did not have gunpowder weapons: that is why they were defeated so soundly by the Moroccans. No doubt, Songhai did not have to deal with a plague which is why the people in West Africa fared better than those in Mesoamerica in the face of gunpowder weapons.
I disagree with your conclusion that the Aztec empire would have become the dominant power in America. Even with horses and guns, the mountainous geography makes meso-america a tough place to unify. Modern Mexico is still disjointed I think in part because of this. I think whoever controls the eastern half of North America would still be dominant because it's much more naturally connected which works well with industrialization as the U.S. showed.
now wait just a minute, the aztects were already done for by the time the spanish arrived ¿how did they resolve the contradictions of their political system?(see the reforms of moctezuma 2º) they were already streched out in their own conquests and had made plenty of enemies ¿how did they manage to expand even more?
More information about the last aztecs before the spanish?
@@r.ladaria135 the whole aztec political entity lasted around 100 years or so. They had created a system of upward mobility that was unsustainable, a Sort of piramid scheme. Moctezuma 2nd Saw this and tried to fix It to Lukewarm results. The expansionist empire was really streached out, gathering slaves required longer and longer trips but the whole logic required the process to continue. That's when the spanish arrived, a small insignificant force but very skilled at total war
@@acuerdox great explanation. Sources?
Is like the us debt crisis. How did the us resolve its crisis by printing more money? Well it didn't.
@@CKSLAFE XD lol yeah, although moctezuma II was in the process of making radical reforms when the spanish arrived.
This is so misleading... You said there were 20 million mexicas when 500 spaniards arrived, but they probably were 300k at most
"Sweden would become the Great Northern power"
MARE BALTICUM BRÖTHERS
"Imagine you're an Aztec in 1518"
Me- "You're fucked"
Spain got most of their wealth in the new world from Peru. They had a mountain of silver there that still produces silver. So it really comes down to whether they would’ve gotten the Incan empire. If the Spanish conquered there they would still have their wealth they had in our timeline.
But the Spanish did not make a selfish use of that money. Spain made a process of Westernization-Romanization of America. The Spanish of America and the viceroys demanded a strong investment in America (around 70%) to build universities, hospitals, stone cities. schools, cathedrals, fortresses ... It must be remembered that Mexico and Peru produce more gold and silver every year than the Spanish empire in 300 years. Almost the other 30% of the gold and silver went to the Asian market and to save Catholicism in Europe (South Germany, Palatinate, Italy, Belgium, France ...), paying for an army that fought against 5 European powers. The other empires did not invest, nor were they fighting against various powers, so almost all the money went to the metropolises: London, Paris and Amsterdam.
Great Analysis, as usual. My opinion, Aztec expansion might actually curtail their bloodthirstiness if they recruited conquered enemies (instead of eating them) and used them to project power outward. Assuming they didn't just enslave them. Also, there is a remote possibility that by adopting a prosletyzing religion, the Aztecs could convert more of the northern peoples to that religion, which would most likely be Christianity. (or Aztecized Christianity or Christianized Aztec beliefs) If that timeline existed, then Greater Mexico would look racially similar to the Greater Mexico of today, with the difference that Mexico would be a more functional autonomous state than it is now, and the US Southwest being fully Aztec.
Great video as always
Doesn't make sense; small pox still hits Central American civilizations and Andean civilizations(spread before Spanish arrival). The Spanish, and the rest of Europe would know of the wealth of the Aztecs, since Cortez sent back letters talking of it to Europe and they were reprinted and published all over Europe. A second expedition would be launched to conquer Mexico in short order once cortez hypothetically fails, and they wouldnt fail. They would come with more horses, and more men and the Aztecs would still be weak from internal conflict, lack of technology and smallpox. The Aztecs wouldn't survive, and the incans would fall similar how they had in our timeline. Pretending that defeating Cortez keeps the Europeans out of Mexico and the Andes is wishful thinking
Spain was too poor to mount a second expedition. it took the Conquest of the Aztec to give Spain the money it needed to carry on conquering the region.
With out that influx of gold and silver from Cortez’s conquest the Spanish wouldn’t be able to send another expedition for Decades, or even longer.
Leaving plenty of time for an Aztec Baby boom to drastically restore their population
What if the Western Interior Seaway didn’t disappear?
The one that used to be in North America?
Nicholas Nguyen Yeah en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Interior_Seaway
Mosasaur time
@@SolarpunkEnjoyer CHÖMP
Just rolling out these videos. Good job.
Whatifalthist
Awesome video! I have some recommendations
1. What if Caesar lost the Civil War
2. What if World War 2 was fought by Germany and America aganist the USSR
3. What if Soviet Union won in Afghanistan
hey, I have one for you: what if José de San Martín tries to replicate the Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata? Peru and Chile offered him executive power over their nations, but he rejected both. If he accepted, perhaps Argentina could have united South America and become a superpower ... perhaps. I don't think so ... but maybe
Interesting potential here. South America would likely not be unified in this way, as the greater Argentina would likely struggle to survive, but could mean larger states. Imagining a Bolivarian state in the North, San Martín's state in the South, and Brazil in the rest. Many interesting possibilities for the future. Cool idea for someone to run with!
@@Oblivicraft2012 It does have potential as a good Althist.
La Plata unida , otra también es la gran Colombia
I'd be interested in you making a video on the rise and success of Christianity from a political and economic standpoint because it seems like something that is likely (the fact that politics, economy, and religion are causally related) but is seldom discussed online
What if Howard Dean hadn’t done “the Dean Scream” and would have won the 2004 election?
After defeating the Spanish, the Aztecs would still be decimated by disease, but not to the extent of what happened in this timeline, because there would be less interaction with the Spanish. Although that would help the Aztecs with the soil degradation problem by having less mouths to feed, it would be a problem if any other European country decided to invade or if the Spanish decided to reinvade. It would depend on how much time the Aztecs would have to recover before the next invasion. Nonetheless, the Europeans would have a harder time now that the Aztecs have full knowledge on the Spanish battle tactics and they always had been a warrior society.
I am mexican and I think that there are a lot of differences between Roman Republic and the Aztec Empire, differences that would made the empire collapse if they would beat cortez expedition.
First the aztec empire had punishment war against the people who they ruled. There were religions wars to catch people to sacrifice for their goods.
Second there was not as integration politics like romans did, there was not such thing as Aztec Peace, there were no profit for be under the rule of the aztecs so the people who were under the Aztec empire were so hostile against the aztecs because of that they joined with the cortez army against the empire.
If they wouldn't change this, they probably would collapse no matters what. Sorry for my english i am still learning it XD
I agree the Aztecs made so many enemies, it would also only be a matter of time before the Tlaxcalans, Tarascans, Purupechas or Chichimecas would buy guns and horses from spain and eventually take out the aztecs
If the Aztecs wanted to get to California (which I don't know why) it's totally possible to get there by foot. Juan Bautista de Anza made the Anza Trail on foot, and it only failed as a continuous viable trail because the Quechan (Yuma) river tribe, a powerful regional force, decided that too many Spaniards were crossing and looked like they were staying for good, so they killed all the Spaniards and refused them passage afterwards. I imagine that this wouldn't be as difficult of an obstacle to the Aztecs if they were able to bring even a tenth of their forces to bear on the Quechan, which is something that was impossible for a New Spain paralyzed by Apache raids, financial woes, and lack of consolidation in the North. This was a stellar video by the way!