I do posts & consulting on Mesoamerica (Aztec, Maya etc): So far in this series i"ve been listing Prehispanic empires that didn't make it in the videos since me and Possible History found each other too late... But since i've already covered most of the major empires that I felt deserved a mention as of the last/Late Medieval video, and we're at the period of Spanish Conquest, this final comment willbe touching on the Aztec Empire's political structure, and giving corrections on how and why it fell... As while the idea the video repeats that Cortes got allies against the Mexica of the Aztec capital of Tenochtitlan due to it being oppressive and resented is a common misconception, the truth is sort of the opposite! It's LOOSE political structure, and really the way Mesoamerican politics worked in general, was it's undoing (alongside diseases etc). As mentioned in the pinned comment in the last video, the Aztec Empire has it's origins in a bunch of Nahuatl speaking nomads from above Mesoamerica in Northwestern Mexico migrating down into Central Mexico, and adopting Mesoamerican practices of city-building, state societies, and other cultural traits. The Mexica were among the last of these Nahua groups to arrive, founding their city of Tenochtitlan in 1325, and after initially helping the city-state of Azcapotzalco expand acting as soldiers for it, got caught up in the latter's succession dispute, which eventually results in Tenochtitlan, aided by the fellow Nahua cities of Texcoco and Tlacopan, overthrowing Azcapotzalco in 1428 and maintaining an alliance for further conquests, which is what we know as the "Aztec Empire", though the exact nature of that alliance is a bit disputed, and as we'll see, (and I've explained in less detail in my comments on prior videos) calling it an "empire" may be misleading. The Mexica were undeniably conquerors: As I mentioned, even early on they made a name for themselves as soldiers, and as what we know as the "Aztec Empire" grew, the Mexica relied on military campaigns to expand and maintain their political influence. But their actual administration or meddling in the local affairs of conquered states after conquering them was usually pretty minimal, even compared to other major Mesoamerican players like the Purepecha Empire, Monte Alban, etc: There were usually tax demands, the expectation you wouldn't block roads, and would lodge Aztec diplomats, merchants and armies, and put a shrine up to Huitzilopochtli, the patron Mexica god... but if they did that, Subject states usually kept their existing rulers, laws, customs, and managed their own affairs, as long as they met those other conditions. In fact, Aztec subjects could even have their own subjects, or go to war against each other without the Mexica nessacarily getting involved. As a result, subject states had their own identity, ambitions and the ability to pursue them: Attempts to secede via stopping payment of taxes, or switching allegiances to that of a different political network etc were common, the former particularly after the death of an Aztec Emperor, to see what they could get away with but also as a sort of traditional test to force the new emperor to prove their military might, since the threat of being reconquered, moreso then actual administrative control, kept subjects in line. Additionally, some states BENEFITTED from Aztec rule: Vassals which joined the empire voluntarily for protection or better trade access did so merely transactionally; but the core states within the Valley of Mexico with flourished from the taxes Tenochtitlan brought into the area; and those states heavily intermarried with Mexica royalty had more resulting influence, so it was in their interest for it's military power to be respected and new emperors to be tested too. There's a lot more that could be said about how political marriages and dynastic connections (and as I alluded to, economics) played into political influence, courting vassals etc , but I have to skip it sadly. What about sacrifices? The Mexica absolutely did them (though less then people think: likely 100s-1000s a year, not 10,000s), but so did everybody else, as sacrifice was a universal practice in Mesoamerica: The Mexica just did it the most, as most sacrifices enemy soldiers captured in wars and the Mexica were at the top militarily. People given as captives as spoils when states were initially conquered was a thing too, but sacrificial captives as regular tax payments were rare: Taxes were were usually economic goods, and that was the real driver of Mexica expansionism moreso then collecting captives, though certainly proving military might was part of what kept subjects in line to pay taxes, and by extension large sacrificial ceremonies flexed one's military power, so it's not entirely unrelated. So, why did Cortes make alliances against the Mexica? Opportunism, mostly. As I said, states even within the Aztec Empire mostly had their own interests and identity, and would switch sides if they thought they would benefit from it. By extension, Cortes in many cases was actively being manipulated by local kings and officials, who were calling the shots at least as much as Cortes was. For example, Cortes's first ally was Cempoala, the capital of one of 3 major kingdoms of the Totonac civilization. There, it's king Xicomecoatl and other officials DID claim to be under the yoke of Aztec oppression and desperately wanted to be free of tax demands, and to an extent that may have been true... but they also then lied about there being an "Aztec fort" nearby they wanted the Conquistadors help to take out, which was really it's rival Totonac capital of Tzinpantzinco, and then after that ploy was found out, the Totonacs led the Conquistadors to Tlaxcala to get attacked, possibly to get rid of the Conquistadors or to test them (possibly even under Aztec orders), and mostly ditched them. Tlaxcala (which, by the way, was a republic with a senate) DID ally with Cortes primarily to be free of Aztec aggression, and people extrapolating Tlaxcala's motivations to other states is probably where the misconception of resentment driving Cortes's alliances comes from. But Tlaxcala was NOT an Aztec subject, it was an enemy state the Mexica were at war with and trying to conquer. And even it and it's officials like Xicotencatl II were not acting merely out of defense: En route to Tenochtitlan after allying with Cortes (an alliance the Tlaxcalteca set up), the Tlaxcalteca likely caused the Cholula massacre, placing a pro-Tlaxcalteca political faction in power there after Cholula recently switched from being aligned with Tlaxcala to becoming an Aztec ally. Tlaxcala is just one of Corte's allied states, and all the other states which would contribute armies to the Siege of Tenochtitlan like Texcoco, Huextozinco, Chalco, Xochimilco, Iztapalapan etc only ally with Cortes AFTER Moctezuma II has died, the massacre of the nobles and elite soldiers during the Toxcatl ceremony, Tenochtitlan being struck by Smallpox (though see further down) all of which would have undermined Mexica military power, it's ability to collect taxes and project it's political influence, etc. Hell, Xochimilco only joined AFTER being beaten but intially sided with the Mexica, while plenty of states never switched to Cortes's side. That timing/those details show they didn't join out of resentment, but opportunism: All of those bar Huextozinco were core states whom, again, married Mexica royalty and benefitted from the taxes they brought in. They DEPENDED on Mexica power and supremacy for their own political influence and economic prosperity, and only switched sides when Tenochtitlan was vulnerable anyways, didn't provide those benefits, and they had more to gain by turning on it. Some did have grievances (EX: Ixtlilxochitl II was a prince in Texcoco who was passed over for the throne in favor of a Mexica backed candidate: Half of Texcoco etc sided with the Mexica, he/his allies with Cortes), but overall Cortes got most of his allies not due to the nature of how it's political system worked, not because of resentment. Even more evidence is that this side-switching happened in so many other circumstances unrelated to Mexica rule: In the Mesoamerican political system where you get your independence even as a subject, pledging yourself to some other state to help them take out your current capital or rivals means you aren't really giving anything up, and can gain status in the new kingdom you prop up: This wasn't just how Cortes got allies, but it's how the Aztec Empire itself formed (After Azcapotzalco had a succession dispute which destabilized it's influence, the up and coming Mexica had Tlacopan and Texcoco helped them overthrow it to have status in the "Aztec Empire"), and you also see it happen over the next few decades after the Aztec Empire already fractured, like how the Zapotec kingdom of Tehuantepec worked with Conquistadors to topple the Mixtec kingdom of Tututepec (which as said last vid, was a remnant a major Mixtec Empire during the 11th/early 12th century AD), or the Iximche Maya doing so against the Kiche, etc. Lastly, as I allude to at the end there, the fall of Tenochtitlan did not mark the completion of Spanish colionization in Mesoamerica: Many states like Tututepec etc weren't a part of the Aztec Empire to begin with and had to be conquered later (many by Aztec armies now working with the Spanish), and in the last video I mentioned some of these, such as the Purepecha Empire to the west of the Aztec Empire. The intial smallpox epidemic was devastating and absolutely enabled Spanish campaigns, but the 95% death total is only reached by around 1600, roughly 80 years after contact, as a result of multiple epidemics rather then solely smallpox. Likewise, some Mesoamerican states remained unconquered all the way to the 1690s!
@@alberich3963 Mesoamerica as a whole probably didn't have 30m people. It's not an implausible figure, but i'd say it's a pretty high end estimate. like 15m to 20m i'd say is more the likely range. I used to be under the impression 20m to 25m was the consensus but I came across some recent stuff which makes me knock it down a bit, but i'm still looking into it more. In any case, there was almost certainly at least like a 90% population collapse by the 17th century, since you don't see the population hit even 2m again till the 19th century, and that's with proper censuses and stuff. Even if you go with a Mesoamerican pop estimate of like 15m, that's still a 90% population loss. Keep in mind also sometimes people mean "Central Mexico" when they say "Mexico", IE excluding the Maya areas, while Central Mexico itself can variously include or exclude the gulf coast and Oaxaca, etc, so when looking through demographic estimates and stuff that can get confusing.
@@MajoraZ The research I saw said that the population of New Spain( northern part of the Spanish empire) at the beginning of the 19th century was between 8 and 10 million, but that included all of Central America, Northern Mexico and most of the United States
6:15 Damn, an upstart government in the north that captures Beijing, chasing out the older Nanjing government, where they flee to Taiwan to continue the fight against the upstart Beijing government? Never heard of it
Gotta say, I'm seriously loving this series. I'm quite disappointed at the lack of native empires in North America, however. A few - especially the Iroquois - could definitely hold this position given the requirements outlined earlier on. I do get, however, that it's harder to define North American empires due to a lack of definitive sources. Hopefully Tecumseh's coalition will get a bit of a spotlight in the next video, although their claim is far shakier than the Iroquois.
Probably since the kalmar union wasn't too powerful, it was in constant civil war with Sweden throughout most of its existence. As for the north sea empire, it was neither comparable in power, size nor longevity to all of the other empires mentioned, if he were to show every single kingdom which claimed to be an empire, this video would be hours long.
@joacimjeppsson4952 he literally mentioned the hotak empire which lasted equally as long as the north sea empire. It was also comparable in size because it controlled Norway, Denmark and England.
@@mappingshaman5280 PH mentioned hotak due to its relevancy in the rise of later persian empires. Alot of states like the kingdom of France, Prussia and Aq Quanlu etc are mentioned in passing due to context being needed. The north sea empire isn't one of those states, not to mention that the north sea empire wasn't even an empire but rather a personal union, which it seems like PH was trying to avoid including in this video, he only included plc after it had United, and mentioned the iberian union due to its relevancy in both empires peaks and declines. The habsburgs are technically a number of personal unions, but considering the time and administrative effectiveness of their empire they could still be counted.
because they were an union of small merchant duchies and territories and they didn't have the size, nor the influence to call themselves an empire, not to mention they weren't really interested in forming an empire, they were just interested in making money
Given how there were hundreds if not thousands of princely states at the time, in which many rulers proclaimed themselves ‘emperor’ its just an impossible mission.
Fun fact: PH does not use the definition of "called themselves an empire/the ruler called himself an emperor", but rather the definition of "is a large and/or influential state in their region".
Great video PH. Just a remainder for next video that Mexico and Haiti both had two empires (albeit not very relevant ones) and Brazil was an empire for most of the 19th century. You probably already knew that but Latin American history often gets ignored, and I'd love to see them at least mentioned in the next video.
interesting video, but I really hope to see more of a shift back to alternate history videos after this series instead of more purely educational ones. Many of the people drawn to your channel are already pretty familiar with history, and while these sorts of videos can definitely fill gaps in our knowledge, your alternate history videos are really where you shine!
12:00 you forgot to note that spain inherited Portugal because the Portuguese king died with no heirs during the battle of the three kings, in morroco, great history
This is a great video, Mr. Possible History, and I love it. You mention the Maratha Empire; the Marathas were the ones to defeat the Mughals. And what do you think of a scenario where the Marathas unite India and modernize, similar to what Japan did, and what if the Marathas form a Greater India with Myanmar, Burma, Cambodia, Faun ( present-day Vietnam), Thailand, Indonesia, and the Philippines in a more peaceful way and have trade network and representation. Imagine the Marathas colonizing the Middle East, taking on Persia, and becoming a dominant power in South Asia and the Middle East. What do you think of that idea, Mr. Possible History? Any thoughts, comments, and opinions about this idea for a future scenario?
@@highgrounderAlbania invades and annexes all of the Balkans with their strong Albanian army, then outcompetes America and China economically with the mighty Albanian industry, finally inventing a death star and easily conquering the rest of the world. Glory the the new Albanian world order! 🇦🇱🇦🇱💪💪
@@Naderium Marathas/Sikhs would had easily defeated the Qajars or Durranis in a 1 vs 1. These 2 empires were unstoppable in the 18th century later defeated only by the British
India was always decentralized, the issue with the Mughals is that they failed to federalize and became increasingly intolerant of non-muslims as time went on.
A minor correction on 7:40 It is close to "Belligerent", thus "alii" means "others", not "war", as the word war does not appear when Marte/Mars is mentioned on the third line but rather the "aliis" means "others". Therefore it is "Ella", which for some reason is lacking the B (like in Casus Belli), that is "war".
Something I just noticed is the complete sidelining of Denmark's empire throughout this series. Even ignoring Cnut's North Sea Empire, the Danes were a major power in northern Europe during this time period, to the point where the Swedish Empire was only able to rise by breaking free of the Kalmar Union. It hurts to see Iceland and Greenland going uncolored.
There were obviously many other smaller regional empires all over the world that didn't get talked about. The video is only covering those that seem to have had significant impact in shaping history. Denmark's empire was for the most part inconsequential on the world scale. Sweden was talked about because history could have gone a completely different direction had things turned out differently for them with Russia. It would be impossible to cover everything in a relatively short video.
Because France didn't land 10,000 troops on American soil and defeat the English Royal Navy at Chesapeake with its new modern fleet La Royale, decisively crippling the British war effort that led to the final peace agreement? Fun fact, after this naval defeat, the British were afraid that the French would invade Britain itself within a few years. Fortunately they were saved by the French revolution which decimated the officers (nobles) of La Royale and destroyed the fleet itself (many ships joined the Royal Navy, were scuttled or sunk by the Revolution's adversaries). So yeah, thanks to Spain, you did a great job, but especially thanks to France for literally winning the war for the US not once but twice, on land and at sea en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yorktown_campaign en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington%E2%80%93Rochambeau_Revolutionary_Route en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Yorktown en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Chesapeake
No, it was definitely France, which is why Benjamin Franklin and later John Adam's were in France trying to convince the King to support them. Spain, the Netherlands, and France all helped, but France supplied troops, weapons, training, and finance.
@@Joker-no1uh George Washington himself said that without Spanish help they could have never won, they blocked British ports they conquered a lot of the south cities wich nowadays have spanish names and declared war directly defeating the royal navy and participing in most land battles
@@shinsenshogun900I remember a video that he made on what if Japan conquered Korea in the 1600s or something like that but I can’t find it. So I guess there could be two scenarios? A scenario of Japan after the Meiji restoration and one of Japan not failing in their war to conquer Korea (This war was mentioned in the video)
Portugal was done dirty the Treaty of Tordesillas wasn't spoken about and the fact that they had literally the most op navy at the time as well just that they where big for a few years which is rude to assume since they pioneered European maritime techniques and technology
I'm surprised you didn't include the gradual colonisation of Australia by the British since it began in 1788 and you did show a few timestamps of the 1800s
he didn't show really anything to do with British history except the Americas but little does he know ALOT was happening then i mean look at Africa not 1 mention of France and England and Spain and he just glances on Asia he just barely mentions India nothing about Afghanistan and Pakistan
11:00 The Habsburg Empire was already split in two all the way back in 1521/'22. Back then, Ferdinand received the Austrian Hereditary Lands to rule and own as his own, since the Hungarians wouldn't let him marry their king's sister otherwise. And then later on Ferdinand became King of Bohemia and of Hungary in 1526/'27. Further down the line in 1531, Ferdinand got elected King of the Romans (Emperor-elect, basically). It's nothing more than a meme that Charles V divided the Habsburg Empire in 1555/'56. It was already divided long before that, and Charles did not even have anything to do with Bohemia or Hungary for example.
Video Idea: What if Columbus discovered Antarctica instead of America What if Everything went perfect for Mongol Empire(idk why you skipped this one in your video pls explain in reply)
Did you really overlook and downplay the Ming Dynasty's involvement in the Japanese invasion of Korea???? The Chinese halted the Japanese troops and even pushed them back. I know Admiral Yi won decisive naval battles that were crucial to end the war, but straight out calling the Ming ineffective as a combatant before the Ming to Qing Transition is downright historical revisionism. But i also understand that you oversimplified and wanted to keep the video short, i just wanted to let you guys know. Sorry.
Myanmar and Cambodia were mentioned but not Thailand or Vietnam is kind of weird, given Thailand and Vietnam were and still are strong players in the region
@@andriusgimbutas3723no, it peaked during the Nguyễn dynasty, which control a large part of modern Laos and Cambodia, as well as some part of China, and prior to that you could made an agrument that Vietnam still held more lands than it does today. And based on what PH thinks of an "empire, both Thailand and Vietnam were empires just like Burma and Cambodia.
Sorry but your talk about your own nation (the Netherlands) was so oversimplistic that I nearly cried. 1672 was merely a setback and the Dutch Republic was considered a major power until 1747. Also, the Dutch Republic possessed one of the largest and best armies in Europe for most of its history. Their power wasn't just dependent on their naval might
I noticed a problem in this (and the last) video: African empires are still underrepresented; in Zimbabwe, the state of Great Zimbabwe exerted influence over southern Africa, even building a giant stone capital (so if we count tose pre-Aztec states as empires, then Great Zimbabwe deserves a mention), but more substantially, its successor states of Mwenemutapa and the Rozwi empire had much more territory, wealth and influence, so they definitely count as empires; in Madagascar, the Merina managed to unite most of the island (akin to the Khmer or Pagan); in the territory of modern-day Nigeria rose many empires, including the Oyo and Benin empires; in Ghana the Ashanti empire became the dominant force, subjugating neighbouring states, and stopping European advancement. On the other hand, many colonial empires are misrepresented: the Dutch Cape colony was started in 1652, Russia had control over Alaska since the 18th century, the Kingdom of Great Britain founded New South Wales in Australia in 1788, The Spanish had conquered more territory in South America than shown (e.g. Paraguay since 1536), and the Omani empire isn't even shown, albeit having control over southeastern Arabia and the East African coastline. Also also, how is Denmark controlling Norway, Iceland, Greenland, Svalbard... not considered a colonial empire? Looking forward to an update :)
I'm really curious what would have happened if the dutch had invested into their army and basically turn it into a force to be reckoned with. Would they be able to start becoming a major superpower given their already superior navy at the time?
This is the third time I write this to yoy PH. Please, stop calling the VICEROYALTIES colonies. The estructure of a viceroyalty is no the one of a colony. If you don't belive me, search info about this. Thanks
18:50 You forgot to mention the time Poland nearly got partitioned between Sweden and Russia because they occupied 95% of its land. Actually, that should be your next video. What if Poland had fallen in the Deluge?
Hungary was only partially conquered by the Ottomans. I can understand the Eastern Hungarian Kingdom being lumped into the Ottoman Empire, but about third of Hungary still remained outside the Ottoman Empire. This might not sound much, but the area was extremely important for the Habsburgs. Not only did it provide a buffer between the Turks and the Holy Roman Empire, but it also generated substantial revenues (about the same amount as the Austrian Hereditary Lands and the Lands of the Bohemian Crown did each), which covered the bulk of the usual annual expenses of defence against the Ottomans.
18:26 They didn't put up a puppet king. The whole of Russia swore allegiance to Vladislav, but his father did not allow him, who wanted to take Smolensk into his possession
Great video, but I don't like the empires being labelled as you mention them. I think the label takes away from the impressive maps you've prepared for the list, and I would rather see the colour stick out on its own.
I do posts & consulting on Mesoamerica (Aztec, Maya etc): So far in this series i"ve been listing Prehispanic empires that didn't make it in the videos since me and Possible History found each other too late... But since i've already covered most of the major empires that I felt deserved a mention as of the last/Late Medieval video, and we're at the period of Spanish Conquest, this final comment willbe touching on the Aztec Empire's political structure, and giving corrections on how and why it fell... As while the idea the video repeats that Cortes got allies against the Mexica of the Aztec capital of Tenochtitlan due to it being oppressive and resented is a common misconception, the truth is sort of the opposite! It's LOOSE political structure, and really the way Mesoamerican politics worked in general, was it's undoing (alongside diseases etc).
As mentioned in the pinned comment in the last video, the Aztec Empire has it's origins in a bunch of Nahuatl speaking nomads from above Mesoamerica in Northwestern Mexico migrating down into Central Mexico, and adopting Mesoamerican practices of city-building, state societies, and other cultural traits. The Mexica were among the last of these Nahua groups to arrive, founding their city of Tenochtitlan in 1325, and after initially helping the city-state of Azcapotzalco expand acting as soldiers for it, got caught up in the latter's succession dispute, which eventually results in Tenochtitlan, aided by the fellow Nahua cities of Texcoco and Tlacopan, overthrowing Azcapotzalco in 1428 and maintaining an alliance for further conquests, which is what we know as the "Aztec Empire", though the exact nature of that alliance is a bit disputed, and as we'll see, (and I've explained in less detail in my comments on prior videos) calling it an "empire" may be misleading.
The Mexica were undeniably conquerors: As I mentioned, even early on they made a name for themselves as soldiers, and as what we know as the "Aztec Empire" grew, the Mexica relied on military campaigns to expand and maintain their political influence. But their actual administration or meddling in the local affairs of conquered states after conquering them was usually pretty minimal, even compared to other major Mesoamerican players like the Purepecha Empire, Monte Alban, etc: There were usually tax demands, the expectation you wouldn't block roads, and would lodge Aztec diplomats, merchants and armies, and put a shrine up to Huitzilopochtli, the patron Mexica god... but if they did that, Subject states usually kept their existing rulers, laws, customs, and managed their own affairs, as long as they met those other conditions. In fact, Aztec subjects could even have their own subjects, or go to war against each other without the Mexica nessacarily getting involved.
As a result, subject states had their own identity, ambitions and the ability to pursue them: Attempts to secede via stopping payment of taxes, or switching allegiances to that of a different political network etc were common, the former particularly after the death of an Aztec Emperor, to see what they could get away with but also as a sort of traditional test to force the new emperor to prove their military might, since the threat of being reconquered, moreso then actual administrative control, kept subjects in line. Additionally, some states BENEFITTED from Aztec rule: Vassals which joined the empire voluntarily for protection or better trade access did so merely transactionally; but the core states within the Valley of Mexico with flourished from the taxes Tenochtitlan brought into the area; and those states heavily intermarried with Mexica royalty had more resulting influence, so it was in their interest for it's military power to be respected and new emperors to be tested too. There's a lot more that could be said about how political marriages and dynastic connections (and as I alluded to, economics) played into political influence, courting vassals etc , but I have to skip it sadly.
What about sacrifices? The Mexica absolutely did them (though less then people think: likely 100s-1000s a year, not 10,000s), but so did everybody else, as sacrifice was a universal practice in Mesoamerica: The Mexica just did it the most, as most sacrifices enemy soldiers captured in wars and the Mexica were at the top militarily. People given as captives as spoils when states were initially conquered was a thing too, but sacrificial captives as regular tax payments were rare: Taxes were were usually economic goods, and that was the real driver of Mexica expansionism moreso then collecting captives, though certainly proving military might was part of what kept subjects in line to pay taxes, and by extension large sacrificial ceremonies flexed one's military power, so it's not entirely unrelated.
So, why did Cortes make alliances against the Mexica? Opportunism, mostly. As I said, states even within the Aztec Empire mostly had their own interests and identity, and would switch sides if they thought they would benefit from it. By extension, Cortes in many cases was actively being manipulated by local kings and officials, who were calling the shots at least as much as Cortes was. For example, Cortes's first ally was Cempoala, the capital of one of 3 major kingdoms of the Totonac civilization. There, it's king Xicomecoatl and other officials DID claim to be under the yoke of Aztec oppression and desperately wanted to be free of tax demands, and to an extent that may have been true... but they also then lied about there being an "Aztec fort" nearby they wanted the Conquistadors help to take out, which was really it's rival Totonac capital of Tzinpantzinco, and then after that ploy was found out, the Totonacs led the Conquistadors to Tlaxcala to get attacked, possibly to get rid of the Conquistadors or to test them (possibly even under Aztec orders), and mostly ditched them.
Tlaxcala (which, by the way, was a republic with a senate) DID ally with Cortes primarily to be free of Aztec aggression, and people extrapolating Tlaxcala's motivations to other states is probably where the misconception of resentment driving Cortes's alliances comes from. But Tlaxcala was NOT an Aztec subject, it was an enemy state the Mexica were at war with and trying to conquer. And even it and it's officials like Xicotencatl II were not acting merely out of defense: En route to Tenochtitlan after allying with Cortes (an alliance the Tlaxcalteca set up), the Tlaxcalteca likely caused the Cholula massacre, placing a pro-Tlaxcalteca political faction in power there after Cholula recently switched from being aligned with Tlaxcala to becoming an Aztec ally.
Tlaxcala is just one of Corte's allied states, and all the other states which would contribute armies to the Siege of Tenochtitlan like Texcoco, Huextozinco, Chalco, Xochimilco, Iztapalapan etc only ally with Cortes AFTER Moctezuma II has died, the massacre of the nobles and elite soldiers during the Toxcatl ceremony, Tenochtitlan being struck by Smallpox (though see further down) all of which would have undermined Mexica military power, it's ability to collect taxes and project it's political influence, etc. Hell, Xochimilco only joined AFTER being beaten but intially sided with the Mexica, while plenty of states never switched to Cortes's side.
That timing/those details show they didn't join out of resentment, but opportunism: All of those bar Huextozinco were core states whom, again, married Mexica royalty and benefitted from the taxes they brought in. They DEPENDED on Mexica power and supremacy for their own political influence and economic prosperity, and only switched sides when Tenochtitlan was vulnerable anyways, didn't provide those benefits, and they had more to gain by turning on it. Some did have grievances (EX: Ixtlilxochitl II was a prince in Texcoco who was passed over for the throne in favor of a Mexica backed candidate: Half of Texcoco etc sided with the Mexica, he/his allies with Cortes), but overall Cortes got most of his allies not due to the nature of how it's political system worked, not because of resentment.
Even more evidence is that this side-switching happened in so many other circumstances unrelated to Mexica rule: In the Mesoamerican political system where you get your independence even as a subject, pledging yourself to some other state to help them take out your current capital or rivals means you aren't really giving anything up, and can gain status in the new kingdom you prop up: This wasn't just how Cortes got allies, but it's how the Aztec Empire itself formed (After Azcapotzalco had a succession dispute which destabilized it's influence, the up and coming Mexica had Tlacopan and Texcoco helped them overthrow it to have status in the "Aztec Empire"), and you also see it happen over the next few decades after the Aztec Empire already fractured, like how the Zapotec kingdom of Tehuantepec worked with Conquistadors to topple the Mixtec kingdom of Tututepec (which as said last vid, was a remnant a major Mixtec Empire during the 11th/early 12th century AD), or the Iximche Maya doing so against the Kiche, etc.
Lastly, as I allude to at the end there, the fall of Tenochtitlan did not mark the completion of Spanish colionization in Mesoamerica: Many states like Tututepec etc weren't a part of the Aztec Empire to begin with and had to be conquered later (many by Aztec armies now working with the Spanish), and in the last video I mentioned some of these, such as the Purepecha Empire to the west of the Aztec Empire. The intial smallpox epidemic was devastating and absolutely enabled Spanish campaigns, but the 95% death total is only reached by around 1600, roughly 80 years after contact, as a result of multiple epidemics rather then solely smallpox. Likewise, some Mesoamerican states remained unconquered all the way to the 1690s!
I read that it was around 80% to 90%, that the population had fallen from 30 million to between 3 and 6 million, I think 95% is an exaggeration
Not reading allat 😂😂😂😂😂😂
@@alberich3963 Mesoamerica as a whole probably didn't have 30m people. It's not an implausible figure, but i'd say it's a pretty high end estimate. like 15m to 20m i'd say is more the likely range. I used to be under the impression 20m to 25m was the consensus but I came across some recent stuff which makes me knock it down a bit, but i'm still looking into it more.
In any case, there was almost certainly at least like a 90% population collapse by the 17th century, since you don't see the population hit even 2m again till the 19th century, and that's with proper censuses and stuff. Even if you go with a Mesoamerican pop estimate of like 15m, that's still a 90% population loss.
Keep in mind also sometimes people mean "Central Mexico" when they say "Mexico", IE excluding the Maya areas, while Central Mexico itself can variously include or exclude the gulf coast and Oaxaca, etc, so when looking through demographic estimates and stuff that can get confusing.
@@MajoraZ The research I saw said that the population of New Spain( northern part of the Spanish empire) at the beginning of the 19th century was between 8 and 10 million, but that included all of Central America, Northern Mexico and most of the United States
@@MajoraZ Mexico is aroud 7 million after independence
6:15
Damn, an upstart government in the north that captures Beijing, chasing out the older Nanjing government, where they flee to Taiwan to continue the fight against the upstart Beijing government?
Never heard of it
Sounds familiar hmmmm
Also the part about the Beijing government conquering Tibet and g*nociding Xinjiang, never heard of anything like it
i think i don't heard of it but when u said that i heard i cat sound Mao
There is an old Brain4Breakfast video on that 😭
@@thedarkholegammertdhg9255 rest in peace
What if Austria-Hungary was made of chocolate?
What if Egypt conquered all of Africa?
Would the different ethnic turn into different chocolates
@@Kerguelen.Mappingwhat if egypt chocolated all of africa
This is amazing
🍫
I'm a bit concerned that the last episode hasn't been released yet.
Its been 3 month 😞
It's coming.... Maybe.... I hope...
Four Months now.
He
He said he’d release it soon, and apologized for taking so long.
Waiting for 5th and the final episode of this series!
Four months later...
Please finish the series 🙏🥺
13:40 OMG, a dutchman finally answered us about what his country did to their prime Minister in 1672 😂
Gotta say, I'm seriously loving this series. I'm quite disappointed at the lack of native empires in North America, however. A few - especially the Iroquois - could definitely hold this position given the requirements outlined earlier on. I do get, however, that it's harder to define North American empires due to a lack of definitive sources. Hopefully Tecumseh's coalition will get a bit of a spotlight in the next video, although their claim is far shakier than the Iroquois.
Big thing is that the Iroquois weren’t really a unified nation, more a close alliance or really loose confederation.
Too weak compared to contemporary states (in Europe and the rest of the old world)
@@DarthAwesome117kinda like the Etruscans (or as they called themselves, the rasnea)
@@DarthAwesome117 At their height in the Beaver Wars?
@@DarthAwesome117that would disqualify a lot of empires.
Technically in 1620 Portugal had influence and control over most of Africas and South Asias costlines
How is the kalmar union not an empire? North Sea empire too for that matter. I'm just surprised that Norway and Denmark aren't empire territories yet
Probably since the kalmar union wasn't too powerful, it was in constant civil war with Sweden throughout most of its existence. As for the north sea empire, it was neither comparable in power, size nor longevity to all of the other empires mentioned, if he were to show every single kingdom which claimed to be an empire, this video would be hours long.
@joacimjeppsson4952 he literally mentioned the hotak empire which lasted equally as long as the north sea empire. It was also comparable in size because it controlled Norway, Denmark and England.
@@mappingshaman5280he didn’t say that the hotak were an empire he just said that they were the ones to almost destroy the Safavid
@@mappingshaman5280 PH mentioned hotak due to its relevancy in the rise of later persian empires. Alot of states like the kingdom of France, Prussia and Aq Quanlu etc are mentioned in passing due to context being needed. The north sea empire isn't one of those states, not to mention that the north sea empire wasn't even an empire but rather a personal union, which it seems like PH was trying to avoid including in this video, he only included plc after it had United, and mentioned the iberian union due to its relevancy in both empires peaks and declines. The habsburgs are technically a number of personal unions, but considering the time and administrative effectiveness of their empire they could still be counted.
because they were an union of small merchant duchies and territories and they didn't have the size, nor the influence to call themselves an empire, not to mention they weren't really interested in forming an empire, they were just interested in making money
Where final part?
where is the next one??
I am mildly concerned that the final video has not been released yet. When are you going to release the last video in the series?
Great video! Can you someday make a what if everything went perfect for the Netherlands?
Username checks out
I love the orange Dutch empire
Just watch f1
You guys need to wash your hands like Turks %47 is very low and lowest in Europe
No
When is the next episode!
I only just noticed you have 125k subscribers. I remember when you were still small a year or two ago. Congrats it's well earned!
Need the final video asap..sir..
Here we are, four months later..
I hereby revoke your right to say “first”, lil bro
You are a hero to all!
I hereby revoke my chicken to blast whipped cream
Given how there were hundreds if not thousands of princely states at the time, in which many rulers proclaimed themselves ‘emperor’ its just an impossible mission.
Did you watch the first video?
Fun fact: PH does not use the definition of "called themselves an empire/the ruler called himself an emperor", but rather the definition of "is a large and/or influential state in their region".
He quite litteraly explains his criteria for an Empire at the start of the video
Awesome man! Love this series!🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉
When is the final part coming out?
My conspiracy theory brain tells me someone with power didn’t want the information getting out
let's go! I've been waiting for this!
really good video, keep getting better :D
Cool, these were my favorite type of videos
Great video PH. Just a remainder for next video that Mexico and Haiti both had two empires (albeit not very relevant ones) and Brazil was an empire for most of the 19th century. You probably already knew that but Latin American history often gets ignored, and I'd love to see them at least mentioned in the next video.
Another amazing video
i lost my SHIT when i saw that a new every empire vid had dropped i love this series and youre content
best for you that it is good
These videos bring back the meaning of life for m...
...y atlas of world history, of course, which I always leaf through and check how it matches.
Wooooo! PT2 babyyyyy
1:03 Minor correction, it's ArDaBil, not ArBaDil. Great video as always!
interesting video, but I really hope to see more of a shift back to alternate history videos after this series instead of more purely educational ones. Many of the people drawn to your channel are already pretty familiar with history, and while these sorts of videos can definitely fill gaps in our knowledge, your alternate history videos are really where you shine!
Suggestion: What if everything went perfect for Norway (pls)
12:00 you forgot to note that spain inherited Portugal because the Portuguese king died with no heirs during the battle of the three kings, in morroco, great history
You should do a what if everything went perfect for the ottomans after the siege of vienna
1:49 Finally correct ottoman map! Thank you.
My favorite series!
This video makes me want to play Europa Universalis IV so badly
This is a great video, Mr. Possible History, and I love it. You mention the Maratha Empire; the Marathas were the ones to defeat the Mughals. And what do you think of a scenario where the Marathas unite India and modernize, similar to what Japan did, and what if the Marathas form a Greater India with Myanmar, Burma, Cambodia, Faun ( present-day Vietnam), Thailand, Indonesia, and the Philippines in a more peaceful way and have trade network and representation. Imagine the Marathas colonizing the Middle East, taking on Persia, and becoming a dominant power in South Asia and the Middle East. What do you think of that idea, Mr. Possible History? Any thoughts, comments, and opinions about this idea for a future scenario?
Any Indian Empire outside of "India" is literally civil war
Bruh this starting to sound like an Albanian alternate history 🇦🇱🇦🇱🇦🇱
@@highgrounderAlbania invades and annexes all of the Balkans with their strong Albanian army, then outcompetes America and China economically with the mighty Albanian industry, finally inventing a death star and easily conquering the rest of the world. Glory the the new Albanian world order! 🇦🇱🇦🇱💪💪
Wtf? The People of God, MUSLIMS would never allow it.
@@Naderium Marathas/Sikhs would had easily defeated the Qajars or Durranis in a 1 vs 1. These 2 empires were unstoppable in the 18th century later defeated only by the British
I love this series
Asking for what if everything went perfect for the ottomans day 11
India was always decentralized, the issue with the Mughals is that they failed to federalize and became increasingly intolerant of non-muslims as time went on.
Bruuuh continue China warlord era series or German victory in ww1 scenario these were sooo good
It would be nice to see the maps from all episodes overlayed
It's a good day to be early to his videos
14:01 the Dutch were also actively trading with North American natives at this time, they had small settlements along Long Island and Connecticut.
Yay another PH vid
Idea for a video: What if Bohemia united Germany?
Could you do a
"What if history went perfect for spain" video? Theres many points in history where the Spanish Could have been better.
Are you going to make a part 2 of the "What if everything went perfect for Napoleon"?
Pls make whaf if everything went perfect for the axis
A minor correction on 7:40
It is close to "Belligerent", thus "alii" means "others", not "war", as the word war does not appear when Marte/Mars is mentioned on the third line but rather the "aliis" means "others". Therefore it is "Ella", which for some reason is lacking the B (like in Casus Belli), that is "war".
Something I just noticed is the complete sidelining of Denmark's empire throughout this series. Even ignoring Cnut's North Sea Empire, the Danes were a major power in northern Europe during this time period, to the point where the Swedish Empire was only able to rise by breaking free of the Kalmar Union. It hurts to see Iceland and Greenland going uncolored.
There were obviously many other smaller regional empires all over the world that didn't get talked about. The video is only covering those that seem to have had significant impact in shaping history. Denmark's empire was for the most part inconsequential on the world scale. Sweden was talked about because history could have gone a completely different direction had things turned out differently for them with Russia. It would be impossible to cover everything in a relatively short video.
Just more evidence that nobody cares about the Danish 😊
can you make a video of what if pokemon were real? how would this change history?
Spain was the most important state in the indepence of USA, lirerally give them soldiers, invade the british and they give them money
No one remember because they didnt collabe because of it
Because France didn't land 10,000 troops on American soil and defeat the English Royal Navy at Chesapeake with its new modern fleet La Royale, decisively crippling the British war effort that led to the final peace agreement? Fun fact, after this naval defeat, the British were afraid that the French would invade Britain itself within a few years. Fortunately they were saved by the French revolution which decimated the officers (nobles) of La Royale and destroyed the fleet itself (many ships joined the Royal Navy, were scuttled or sunk by the Revolution's adversaries). So yeah, thanks to Spain, you did a great job, but especially thanks to France for literally winning the war for the US not once but twice, on land and at sea
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yorktown_campaign
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington%E2%80%93Rochambeau_Revolutionary_Route
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Yorktown
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Chesapeake
No, it was definitely France, which is why Benjamin Franklin and later John Adam's were in France trying to convince the King to support them. Spain, the Netherlands, and France all helped, but France supplied troops, weapons, training, and finance.
@@Joker-no1uh George Washington himself said that without Spanish help they could have never won, they blocked British ports they conquered a lot of the south cities wich nowadays have spanish names and declared war directly defeating the royal navy and participing in most land battles
@@batmangamer75 You must live in a parallel universe bro i gave you the links to the real battles just above remember to consult them plz thx
Can you make a “What if everything went PERFECT for Japan” video?
Real question: which Japanese regime?
@@shinsenshogun900 The one with unit 731
@@shinsenshogun900I remember a video that he made on what if Japan conquered Korea in the 1600s or something like that but I can’t find it. So I guess there could be two scenarios? A scenario of Japan after the Meiji restoration and one of Japan not failing in their war to conquer Korea (This war was mentioned in the video)
@@asilkinder3609As a Japanese citizen, I can assure you that is all Chinese propaganda!1!1!
@@asilkinder3609 Daring tonight aren't we?
cant wait for the next video and see the chaos
Where is next episode of this series? Im not able to find it, was it taken down, or never published?
When’s the last episode coming?
Can you make the last episode it has not comed out yet🙁
Portugal was done dirty the Treaty of Tordesillas wasn't spoken about and the fact that they had literally the most op navy at the time as well just that they where big for a few years which is rude to assume since they pioneered European maritime techniques and technology
I'm surprised you didn't include the gradual colonisation of Australia by the British since it began in 1788 and you did show a few timestamps of the 1800s
he didn't show really anything to do with British history except the Americas but little does he know ALOT was happening then i mean look at Africa not 1 mention of France and England and Spain and he just glances on Asia he just barely mentions India nothing about Afghanistan and Pakistan
11:00 The Habsburg Empire was already split in two all the way back in 1521/'22. Back then, Ferdinand received the Austrian Hereditary Lands to rule and own as his own, since the Hungarians wouldn't let him marry their king's sister otherwise. And then later on Ferdinand became King of Bohemia and of Hungary in 1526/'27. Further down the line in 1531, Ferdinand got elected King of the Romans (Emperor-elect, basically).
It's nothing more than a meme that Charles V divided the Habsburg Empire in 1555/'56. It was already divided long before that, and Charles did not even have anything to do with Bohemia or Hungary for example.
Still waiting for the rewriting history series he promised
It takes a lot of time and effort to do something so big
@@KiraiKatsuji I know, I just want to make sure he didn't forget.
@@ChRoumeli have a good day
Video Idea: What if Columbus discovered Antarctica instead of America
What if Everything went perfect for Mongol Empire(idk why you skipped this one in your video pls explain in reply)
"I send you to find a route to India, but you came back with blocks of ice!!?"
Let's just say Columbus won't be nearly as sucessful
Small note: it's the Empire of Japan, not the Japanese empire
A bit pedantic, are we?
Japanese empire is also a official name but empire of japan is the most commonly chosen as offical
Different?
🤓☝🏽
@@calvincoolidge5943no, the empire of Japan was the official name (aka de jure).
Nice
Did you really overlook and downplay the Ming Dynasty's involvement in the Japanese invasion of Korea???? The Chinese halted the Japanese troops and even pushed them back. I know Admiral Yi won decisive naval battles that were crucial to end the war, but straight out calling the Ming ineffective as a combatant before the Ming to Qing Transition is downright historical revisionism.
But i also understand that you oversimplified and wanted to keep the video short, i just wanted to let you guys know. Sorry.
It is even called an empire by Korea.Korea has never had the title of empire. It has existed as a vassal state of China for most of its history.
When will the next episode come out?
Myanmar and Cambodia were mentioned but not Thailand or Vietnam is kind of weird, given Thailand and Vietnam were and still are strong players in the region
Vietnam today is at it's peak territorial extent
@@andriusgimbutas3723no, it peaked during the Nguyễn dynasty, which control a large part of modern Laos and Cambodia, as well as some part of China, and prior to that you could made an agrument that Vietnam still held more lands than it does today. And based on what PH thinks of an "empire, both Thailand and Vietnam were empires just like Burma and Cambodia.
I’ve watched every episode!
0:14 Damn, you used a painting about a revolution in 1830 to talk about about a revolution that was in 1789
I feel like the Haudenosaunee deserved a mention
The Majapahit was missed, but good video!
The Majapahit were in the previous episode
6:15 sounding very familiar
How far have you completed the final video?
Sorry but your talk about your own nation (the Netherlands) was so oversimplistic that I nearly cried. 1672 was merely a setback and the Dutch Republic was considered a major power until 1747.
Also, the Dutch Republic possessed one of the largest and best armies in Europe for most of its history. Their power wasn't just dependent on their naval might
0:13 bro censoring things for the first time
Day 25 asking for "What if Everything Went Perfect for Romania"
Sorry bit what happened to the Kalmar union?
Idea: What if Saxony United Germany
It’s gonna be a long one holy jesus
I noticed a problem in this (and the last) video: African empires are still underrepresented; in Zimbabwe, the state of Great Zimbabwe exerted influence over southern Africa, even building a giant stone capital (so if we count tose pre-Aztec states as empires, then Great Zimbabwe deserves a mention), but more substantially, its successor states of Mwenemutapa and the Rozwi empire had much more territory, wealth and influence, so they definitely count as empires; in Madagascar, the Merina managed to unite most of the island (akin to the Khmer or Pagan); in the territory of modern-day Nigeria rose many empires, including the Oyo and Benin empires; in Ghana the Ashanti empire became the dominant force, subjugating neighbouring states, and stopping European advancement.
On the other hand, many colonial empires are misrepresented: the Dutch Cape colony was started in 1652, Russia had control over Alaska since the 18th century, the Kingdom of Great Britain founded New South Wales in Australia in 1788, The Spanish had conquered more territory in South America than shown (e.g. Paraguay since 1536), and the Omani empire isn't even shown, albeit having control over southeastern Arabia and the East African coastline.
Also also, how is Denmark controlling Norway, Iceland, Greenland, Svalbard... not considered a colonial empire?
Looking forward to an update :)
I'm really curious what would have happened if the dutch had invested into their army and basically turn it into a force to be reckoned with. Would they be able to start becoming a major superpower given their already superior navy at the time?
2:57 cheeky Bill Wurtz reference
Bro, put subtitles for other countries, I'm Brazilian and I can't understand much
when is the next episode
This is the third time I write this to yoy PH. Please, stop calling the VICEROYALTIES colonies. The estructure of a viceroyalty is no the one of a colony. If you don't belive me, search info about this. Thanks
18:50 You forgot to mention the time Poland nearly got partitioned between Sweden and Russia because they occupied 95% of its land. Actually, that should be your next video. What if Poland had fallen in the Deluge?
Hungary was only partially conquered by the Ottomans. I can understand the Eastern Hungarian Kingdom being lumped into the Ottoman Empire, but about third of Hungary still remained outside the Ottoman Empire. This might not sound much, but the area was extremely important for the Habsburgs. Not only did it provide a buffer between the Turks and the Holy Roman Empire, but it also generated substantial revenues (about the same amount as the Austrian Hereditary Lands and the Lands of the Bohemian Crown did each), which covered the bulk of the usual annual expenses of defence against the Ottomans.
21:00 I see you've become familiar with Sam.
if the Joseon Korea made it to this list of Empire I have high hope that Đại Nam under the Nguyễn Dynasty would as well
i find it a bit weird you decided not to consider the kalmar union
"they were still allowed to call themselves emperor's and have very nice things." Definitely never heard that before
ty
10:20 Jesus Christ he looks like Mac Tonight… 😂😂😂
18:26 They didn't put up a puppet king. The whole of Russia swore allegiance to Vladislav, but his father did not allow him, who wanted to take Smolensk into his possession
What about the Kalmar union, it may not have lasted long, but it was still bigger than the swedish one, right?
Great video, but I don't like the empires being labelled as you mention them. I think the label takes away from the impressive maps you've prepared for the list, and I would rather see the colour stick out on its own.
Where is the last video? Modern empires?
You forgot to tell how Charles V defeated his enemies until every power on or near europe tried to beat him and thats why he abdicated