Historical Discussion: What if the Aztecs had a Shaka-like leader?

If you aren't fully familiar with the collapse of the Azetc Empire, one of there mistakes is that they didn't kill Cortez ASAP (the "Cortez is god" story is probably false), and they usually din't fight to kill, but rather fight to capture and sacrifice people.

Now, what would have happened, in your opinion, if the Aztecs had their Shaka: a brilliant leader who reformed the army, and shifted the focus to killing enmeies, as well as improve their weapons and training, and scare the shit out of his enemies?

edited 12th Dec '10 2:16:19 PM by Erock

They'd have still gotten hit by the diseases the Europeans brought that wiped out 90% of the native population of the Americas.

It's an interesting scenario, and it might have wiped out the first expedition of Spaniards entirely. But the issue wasn't Spanish guns, it was Spanish smallpox, and the next expedition of conquistadors might find a considerably weakened resistance. Their best hope would be that the throne deciding another expedition too expensive after Cortez disappeared.

Colonization was going to happen eventually, even if the first batch of conquistadors did die. The Europeans were just way more advanced. They might have been colonized by the Portuguese, French or English instead, though.

But if the Sapinards did come back, the population might have boomed back by the time another expedition came, as they would have need more men then Cortez had. Also, Cortez had a lot of help from other natives, and if they didn't offer their help then he probably would have lost.

If the Aztecs survived the diseases and recovered back to thier previos numbers, they would have a few hundred thousand proffesional warriors. No amount of technology can counter something like that, and they might have adopted guns too.

Well, actually, sooner or later, it can. The Aztecs wouldn't have gotten conquered soon, but they would have gotten conquered in the end.

It would take at least three generations for the Aztecs to rebound to resistance-capable levels after a smallpox epidemic. That disease ravaged the natives of the Americas. If no European power tried to colonize Mexico in that time, sure, they might have stood a chance.

What I don't get is why the diseases didn't go the other way. Why didn't Cortez and his band get ravaged by South American diseases?

(I came about two clicks away from writing 'South African diseases' there.)

edited 12th Dec '10 2:39:34 PM by GameChainsaw

Becuase they didn't have the populatin density for nearly as long as Eurasia. Diseases are the result of farming and a contact across long distances. The Aztecs only had dense population for the last 200 years of their history.

Also, I think you are overestimating the potential of the Spanish. If they had lost their first real war, then they might have just stopped trying. Plus, they would need more men for the next invasion, and that would take a long time to happen.

In general, most agriculture-oriented societies develop more nasty diseases and the necessary immunities to them.

Europe was a much dirtier place and had (relatively) recently had a large scale disease wipe out a decent portion of their population leaving people with much more aggressive immune systems.

There is evidence that syphilis was brought from South America back to Europe-

but that's only one disease, vs. the supposed dozens that Europe brought to South America.

It's not just population density that increased the number of diseases Europe had to spread, but their larger degree of travel and trade as well. They had been all over the world by the time they came to America, and consequently brought a larger number of diseases.

Plus, Europeans had developed the idea of quarantine, successfully isolating diseases that crossed over to them, while the Native Americans didn't have that and sometimes would do just the opposite- surrounding their ill with concerned and healthy individuals, allowing diseases to spread like wildfire.

EDIT: I take too long to post.

Now, the difference between europeans killed by American diseases and natives killed by European diseases was an entirely different scale due to genetics. The Aztecs' ancestors came across the Siberian land-bridge, which is like a multigenerational trek through a meat locker. Thus the majority of the disease organisms being parasitic, since the other microbes froze to death. They also had little in the way of animal husbandry. Europe, on the other hand, had incredibly high population densities in its cities but terrible sanitation. Plus, the heritage of the Black Death, and all the domesticated animals that shared disease vectors. The African slaves brought over to the Americans had lots of exposure to the Europeans and their diseases as well. So you have one population with a genetic heritage of incredible disease resistance, and one population with little genetic heritage of exposure to viral or bacterial infection.

I wonder if the French or Portugese would have moved in after a failed Spanish attempt.

edited 12th Dec '10 3:05:24 PM by RadicalTaoist

Most diseases that mutated to kill Eurasians developed after the crossing actually.

There is also the fact that the "Aztecs" were relativly homogenous as a group. They were like the spartiartoi of Ancient Sparta more than anything else. It was the fact that a whacking great chunck of their none affiliated native populations signing up with spainish en masse because at least the strange beardy white faced people didn't start wars so they could sacrifice you to their gods.

The Aztecs with a "shaka" would have ended up ground to paste by their own people and spanish canons anyway.

edited 12th Dec '10 3:20:00 PM by JosefBugman

Interesting AH idea, but as has been said earlier, it was the GERMS that was the European's greatest weapon, despite Jared Diamond's book title putting it second (and which the British apparently used smallpox-infected blankets to great effect for).

Even with a great leader, if the majority of the population croaks after contact with Eurasian diseases, it's game over man, game over.

Not to mention that until quite recently Europe was a very dirty region.

And the blood spewing temples were renowned for their cleanliness? Apparently the rock at the top of the temple had turned pink from the amount of blood that was used on it.

And yeah, although the diseases were a problem I would say that the Aztecs were just the wrong sort of people to be considered for this. Now a united confederacy of the Northern Plain's? Now THAT would have been something, as they recovered from the diseases faster, took up weaponry and learned to ride horses so fast the Europeans were shocked. All it would have taken was a true "nation builder" to come out of the west and we might now still have an entire east coast of America inhabited by the original settlers.

You know what would be interesting? If European colonists had somehow reached the Americas, but been cut off from reinforcement by Europe while the plagues burned their way through the indigenous peoples. A replay of the colonization of the Americas with a) the disease advantage removed, and b) the native populations being aware that there were funny coloured bearded people on the other side of the big water who would kill to take their yellow metal.

THAT would be interesting.

Even more intriguing would be an invasion in the other direction.

"So... you're telling me that not only have they now learned how to make muskets and cannon, but... they've just built their first galleon and now have a taste for European blood?" Admiral

"Uh... yes, admiral." Unfortunate Messenger.

"You have got to be kidding me..." Admiral

Highly unlikely but...

edited 12th Dec '10 4:18:07 PM by GameChainsaw

An aside: Wasn't Shaka Zulu well known for reforming the Zulu tribes to battle against other tribes rather than Europeans?

This is starting to sound a lot like Pastwatch. Which is cool, because that was a good book.

edited 12th Dec '10 5:02:02 PM by deathjavu

Yeah he died before he could fight white men. He might have won if he lived that long.

And I think people are still giving the Spanish a bit too much: getting enough men to Mexico would be very har, and 200,00 men using even more advanced weapons then the first time around would have been kickass.

Actually, I could see an Aztec army using muskets invading Spain by 1650...

Considering his own brothers stabbed him to death and he refused to have kids in case it "aged" him I doubt that shaka would have done all that well if he had lost a battle and suddenly everyone is going around asking what all the fuss is about.

Yes but the Aztecs weren't defeated by the Spainish alone. However much you want to slice it the Aztec empire failed because its own oppressed people rose up against the "aztecs" who had been attacking them alongside the Spainish and crushed them. There may only have been 200 spaniards but there were thousands upon thousands of native troops who wanted some serious pay back.

Since Orson Scott Card was already mentioned, I'd add that the Indians of today's USA had Tecumseh, who was quite close to being the "nation builder".

But with a better leader they might have either been happy or so scared to not fight with the Spanish. And by a Shaka I didn't mean exactly like him, just a revolutionary man ina technologically backward society.

edited 13th Dec '10 1:28:49 PM by Erock