What if the Aztecs become civilized and meet the US

[Scholencia]

Except in fantasies of ceratin people there is no chance that the Aztecs defeat Cortez. The Spanish were brave soldiers, and they were far more developed in technology and science which they used to beat the Aztecs. Some open-minded tribes knew that and even joined Cortez in his conquest. We have to face the fact that Aztecs were savages.

[Mkuki]

What if Aztecs manage to defeat Cortes and his allies.

They would have been defeated, eventually.

We all know there will now be plagues killing most of the Aztec people.

Quite.

and learn to use gunpowder and become modernized?

Define modernized.

But what if the Aztec's abolish cannibalism and human sacrifices

The Aztecs were cannibals?
Why would they abandon one of the central tenets of their religion? That's like asking Christians to stop praying.

Could they be able to manage to able to meet US in the Revolution War?

I doubt there would have been a Revolutionary War.

[The Archregimancy]

Except in fantasies of ceratin people there is no chance that the Aztecs defeat Cortez. The Spanish were brave soldiers, and they were far more developed in technology and science which they used to beat the Aztecs. Some open-minded tribes knew that and even joined Cortez in his conquest.

This is as openly hilarious and wilfully misinformed a characterisation of the Tlaxcala and their motives for allying with Cortes as we're ever likely to find anywhere.

Kudos to you; kudos indeed.

Also, La Noche Triste and smallpox.

The Aztecs did defeat Cortes - in fact, routed him comprehensively - on the 30th of June 1520; but Cortes and part of his army escaped to the Tlaxcala. But for the combination of the Tlaxcala alliance and the impact of smallpox on Tenochtitlan - not least the death of Cuitláhuac after only 80 days as Aztec tlatoani - Cortes would have been a footnote in history.

That doesn't mean that the Spanish wouldn't have eventually beaten the Aztecs; they likely would have done given the impact of smallpox - but Cortes' own conquest was a very close-run thing.

[Czechanada]

Except in fantasies of ceratin people there is no chance that the Aztecs defeat Cortez. The Spanish were brave soldiers, and they were far more developed in technology and science which they used to beat the Aztecs. Some open-minded tribes knew that and even joined Cortez in his conquest.

This is as openly hilarious and wilfully misinformed a characterisation of the Tlaxcala and their motives for allying with Cortes as we're ever likely to find anywhere.

Kudos to you; kudos indeed.

Also, La Noche Triste and smallpox.

The Aztecs did defeat Cortes - in fact, routed him comprehensively - on the 30th of June 1520; but Cortes and part of his army escaped to the Tlaxcala. But for the combination of the Tlaxcala alliance and the impact of smallpox on Tenochtitlan - not least the death of Cuitláhuac after only 80 days as Aztec tlatoani - Cortes would have been a footnote in history.

That doesn't mean that the Spanish wouldn't have eventually beaten the Aztecs; they likely would have done given the impact of smallpox - but Cortes' own conquest was a very close-run thing.

Of course. Anyone can die from being moved by the beautiful melody of a pan flute.

[Timna]

Of course. Anyone can die from being moved by the beautiful melody of a pan flute.

Honestly that just sounds like a polite-yet-smutty way to cover up an MP's autoerotic asphyxiation.

[Surfistan]

They would have been in place of the British Empire, sacrificing people around the world for the greater glory of Huitzilopochtli.

Obviously.

[Benuty]

They would have been in place of the British Empire, sacrificing people around the world for the greater glory of Huitzilopochtli.

Obviously.

An empire built on slavery ( in the case of the Aztecs such a system could not have been permanent) is bound to collapse if proper reform isn't taken.

[Surfistan]

They would have been in place of the British Empire, sacrificing people around the world for the greater glory of Huitzilopochtli.

Obviously.

An empire built on slavery ( in the case of the Aztecs such a system could not have been permanent) is bound to collapse if proper reform isn't taken.

But, the Gods!!

[Benuty]

An empire built on slavery ( in the case of the Aztecs such a system could not have been permanent) is bound to collapse if proper reform isn't taken.

But, the Gods!!

Im sure they would understand besides, enforcing a system of loose control ( thus allowing rebellions and wars to constantly occur) is bound to be abandoned for the sake of stability.

[Surfistan]

But, the Gods!!

Im sure they would understand besides, enforcing a system of loose control ( thus allowing rebellions and wars to constantly occur) is bound to be abandoned for the sake of stability.

Sure.

[The Parkus Empire]

I think they would have been more likely to defeat Cortes by just killing him ASAP rather than fighting him and all those subjugated tribes.

The idea of such a radical social change in a couple of hundred years, without contact with outside cultures, is pure fantasy, not even an historical hypothetical.

In answer to OP's question: diseases would be an issue. I don't think the Mexica would give two shits about the Revolutionary War.

[Benuty]

I think they would have been more likely to defeat Cortes by just killing him ASAP rather than fighting him and all those subjugated tribes.

The idea of such a radical social change in a couple of hundred years, without contact with outside cultures, is pure fantasy, not even an historical hypothetical.

In answer to OP's question: diseases would be an issue. I don't think the Mexica would give two shits about the Revolutionary War.

So an ambush at Chola by the aztecs ( thus causing Cortez and his men to be massacred rather than what historically happened) would probably be a reasonable assumption.

[Ostroeuropa]

If the Aztecs managed to westernize technologically and we assume the rest of the continents development continued as normal, we'd see a significantly smaller mexico.
(I cannot imagine the Aztecs would be eager to merge with south mexico (Zapotec/Maya) which would be full of Spaniards.)

Coupled with the whole
Manifest ALL the destiny!
That the USA did, we may actually see the US decide to expand further southward from Texas and annex central america.
Since aztecs and natives aren't real people, and once you've annexed half of mexico you may as well annex the rest amirite?

So the US may end up a bit larger.
We'd have the aztecs oppressed by the US, possibly wiped out along the lines the Plains natives were, but that means at least some of their culture might survive.

I dunno.
Seems like a wash to me.

[Minarchist States]

I'll admit not bathing isn't civilized either, but for goodness sakes at least Europeans at the time didn't sacrifice people to God or engage in blood sports.

Like the sacrifice of those deemed heretics was so much different, and public executions At least that "Aztecs" had a public school system and sophisticated knowledge of agriculture.

Europeans had universities since the middle ages. Both were roughly similar in their agricultural techniques, though. Just adapted to different environments.

They publicly executed and tortured people. The Catholic Church burned people on the stake. There was serfdom. By modern standards, that's primitive.

Yet how often was this? The Aztecs had sacrifices everyday, mostly to their cannibalistic serpent god. Granted, the Europeans also had executions and shit, but when Europe was stable and NOT going through social upheaval (particularly years before the Reformation) deaths were mostly afflicted through war or starvation. (Hint: not bloody ritual sacrifice)

And yes, the Aztecs were cannibalistic:

I hate to come off sounding so "Eurocentric," but people can't possibly paint the Aztecs in a fairer light than the Europeans.

Sorry for getting so off topic. Didn't the Aztecs (or at least their descendants) drive the Americans back to Texas during the Mexican-American war and kick em out of the Alamo despite a pyrrhic victory? Doesn't that count as something?

[Anachronous Rex]

Anyway, moderation issues aside, does anyone seriously see a scenario where the Aztecs not only defeat Cortes, but then fight off all subsequent Spanish attempts to take Mexico (we'll just have to assume smallpox isn't an issue here) - and then the United States goes on to develop more or less historically undisturbed?

What if the Sumerians had fought off the Akkadians and met the British Empire, I wonder?

Obviously Uruk cannot hope to stand against Her Majesty's' Navy.

The fundamental problem with all of these faux history questions is that they reduce to asking something like, "what would have happened to the Aztecs, if the Aztecs weren't the Aztecs?" And how can you possibly make an informed guess as to that? We're not even talking about the same thing anymore.

[Third Mexican Empire]

Like the sacrifice of those deemed heretics was so much different, and public executions At least that "Aztecs" had a public school system and sophisticated knowledge of agriculture.

Europeans had universities since the middle ages. Both were roughly similar in their agricultural techniques, though. Just adapted to different environments.

They publicly executed and tortured people. The Catholic Church burned people on the stake. There was serfdom. By modern standards, that's primitive.

Yet how often was this? The Aztecs had sacrifices everyday, mostly to their cannibalistic serpent god. Granted, the Europeans also had executions and shit, but when Europe was stable and NOT going through social upheaval (particularly years before the Reformation) deaths were mostly afflicted through war or starvation. (Hint: not bloody ritual sacrifice)

And yes, the Aztecs were cannibalistic:

I hate to come off sounding so "Eurocentric," but people can't possibly paint the Aztecs in a fairer light than the Europeans.

Sorry for getting so off topic. Didn't the Aztecs (or at least their descendants) drive the Americans back to Texas during the Mexican-American war and kick em out of the Alamo despite a pyrrhic victory? Doesn't that count as something?

If you don't like coming off as Eurocentric, perhaps you should stop being so Eurocentric

[Bottle]

If my most recent Civ 5 game is any indication, they would build death robots and then travel backwards through time to murder Gandhi with said robots.

[The Parkus Empire]

If my most recent Civ 5 game is any indication, they would build death robots and then travel backwards through time to murder Gandhi with said robots.

Alt history is beginning to sound more interesting.

[The Rich Port]

... Kind of like it is now.

Aren't there descendants of Aztecs alive today?

[Breadknife]

If my most recent Civ 5 game is any indication, they would build death robots and then travel backwards through time to murder Gandhi with said robots.

I was just about giving up hope that anyone would mention something along those lines, as obvious as it was. (Although my comment would have been "They'd have gotten to Alpha Centauri first...", mainly being a Civ1 person.)

IR(ish)L: If Spain (and Portugal) doesn't get so much of a foothold in the southern part of the New World, but Britain and France and the Netherlands still do in the North for a while the top-end would happen the same as now, but if the Spanish still get around to the west coast (whether across the isthmus, round the cape or the "long way round") they may make more effort there, thus potentially comrpessing the Anglo-French possessions. Or strive more against 'unclaimed' Atlantic coastal areas/islands.

Then it gets messy.


However, one really has to wonder how the Aztecs became civilised. If somehow linked to them "becoming more 'western'" (as it were, i.e. able to meet European Powers on an equal footing) it's different from escaping military conquest and intellectually/socially developing (perhaps into a more idealised "cities of gold" sort of way) because Spain never even bothered and their culture evolved into something less barbaric, but still just enough to not be out-barbarised by their neighbours.

This changes how their first contact with the US (or proto-US) works. If Militarily European then they'd probably win out (assuming they've kept pace), mostly through direct overland supply and communication with their well-established homeland. If more utopian, I could see them failing, still, due to never having become prepared to handle the challenge.

[Nazis in Space]

And the european nations at that time wouldn't be considered uncivilized by modern standards? They were barbaric as well, in many ways the "Aztecs" were less barbarous than many "civilized" European kingdoms at that time.

I'll admit not bathing isn't civilized either, but for goodness sakes at least Europeans at the time didn't sacrifice people to God or engage in blood sports.

Omnia ad maiorem Dei gloriam

[Nazis in Space]

Anyway, moderation issues aside, does anyone seriously see a scenario where the Aztecs not only defeat Cortes, but then fight off all subsequent Spanish attempts to take Mexico (we'll just have to assume smallpox isn't an issue here) - and then the United States goes on to develop more or less historically undisturbed?

What if the Sumerians had fought off the Akkadians and met the British Empire, I wonder?

London would be dotted with ziggurats instead of glass dildos.

[Nazis in Space]

Also, it is one of the inherent injustices of history that people always forget about the Purépecha.

Actually territorial, quasi-nationstate with proper fortifications who beat off Aztec invasions and enjoyed arguably* the highest level of metalworking in mesoamerica? Forgotten :(

* The folks along the pacific coast of modern Mexico weren't exactly bad, either, what with their quasi-monopoly on mesoamerican bronze

[Mushet]

Like the sacrifice of those deemed heretics was so much different, and public executions At least that "Aztecs" had a public school system and sophisticated knowledge of agriculture.

Europeans had universities since the middle ages. Both were roughly similar in their agricultural techniques, though. Just adapted to different environments.

They publicly executed and tortured people. The Catholic Church burned people on the stake. There was serfdom. By modern standards, that's primitive.

Yet how often was this? The Aztecs had sacrifices everyday, mostly to their cannibalistic serpent god. Granted, the Europeans also had executions and shit, but when Europe was stable and NOT going through social upheaval (particularly years before the Reformation) deaths were mostly afflicted through war or starvation. (Hint: not bloody ritual sacrifice)

And yes, the Aztecs were cannibalistic:

I hate to come off sounding so "Eurocentric," but people can't possibly paint the Aztecs in a fairer light than the Europeans.

Sorry for getting so off topic. Didn't the Aztecs (or at least their descendants) drive the Americans back to Texas during the Mexican-American war and kick em out of the Alamo despite a pyrrhic victory? Doesn't that count as something?

I'm not talking about universities I'm talking about public schooling, I'm talking about schools that would teach commoner kids like the Tepochcalli, I'm talking about more universal education.

What? Bullshit they did not sacrifice people every day, this just shows how little you actually know, instead of study the history you were listening to Eurocenntric boogy-man tales. Even history books don't teach that they did it every day anymore, that's such old news even high school textbooks have caught up to it already, now people that know what the fuck they're talking about know about the scope of the exaggeration when it comes to this, Spain had the vested interest in lying to make them look bad so their conquering can be seen as more justified, the Mexihca would inflate the numbers dramatically to intimidate their enemies, and their enemies wanted to make them look bad so they'll talk shit too. But when you think about it these claims are completely nonsensical, some say they would sacrifice 80,400 in one festival, Auschwitz wasn't even able to match that pace, and it'd be pretty damn unsustainable to sacrifice somebody every day. And are you kidding me about agriculture? Slaves in Tenochtitlan would eat better than European kings. And I don't think Europe had irrigation systems as complex, or anything like chinampas. Seriously instead of just talking shit about non-European civilizations you should actually learn about them, it's a very rich and interesting history they're depriving you of in school.

[Southern Babylonia]

Are you implying the Aztecs one of the major south american native powers at the time were simply "savages"?.

South American?