how do you think they would be? If the western powers would have left these empires alone, how do you think they would've turned out? Would they have turned out like many countries in Africa? If only some country would of left the secrets of gunpowder to these empires (like the portuguese left gunpowder to the japanese) would they have turned out to be powerful nations? I am guessing that gunpowder would of allowed them to jumpstart their tech speed.

Maybe like Africa but it hard to tell. So i gues its one of the things we will never know..

If the Incas and Aztecs would have been spared by cortez and friends they would have modernized like Japan did. Not sure about Incas since they had somekind of civil war but the Aztecs would have become a big power in america.

Originally posted by tossi
...but the Aztecs would have become a big power in america.


I think they would've self-destructed by now, and the area they controlled would probably be made up of a mess of little nations, all feuding with each other. There was too much hostility coming from the tribes they conquered for them to ever coexist.

The Aztecs... they're not an empire in our sense. They're a major power, lording or controlling over a number of other tribes surrounding them. There was no effort at creating a centralized bureaucracy or anything, to create a unified vaster whole. The arrival of gunpowder could conceivably allow the underling tribes to rebel and form their own patchwork of nations. Mexico could be a little like Europe, with feuding statelets.

The Incas might work out... not sure.

yeah I agree with XII

the Aztecs were probably doomed, but the Incas had a very centralized government there was hope for them.

How powerful do you think the Maya were, before whatever happened to them happened? (Most people assume it was a massive natural disaster, but..)

Originally posted by Smellincoffee
How powerful do you think the Maya were, before whatever happened to them happened? (Most people assume it was a massive natural disaster, but..)

The mayans did not have a military as powerfull as the one the Aztecs had, but they were considerably more advanced. Their knowledge on astronomy and engeneering was impressive.

I never heard about the natural disaster theory. Every history article I read states that the mayans decayed because of constant wars between their city-states.

The Aztecs would have had to do some major overhauling of their social system before they could have become a nation with any staying power. For one thing, they would have had to have stopped taking enormous portions of their populace to the tops of temples and cutting their hearts out so often. For another, they would have had some major P.R. repair work to do with the other tribes around them. One of the main reasons the Spanish took them out so quickly was because the other tribes of the area despised the Aztecs and were willing to help anyone who looked like they might be able to stop them. Even if the Spanish hadn't tried to conquer the Aztecs, I don't think they would have lasted much longer anyway. If nothing else, some other local tribe would have taken their place.

As for the Inca, I think they would have had an excellent chance if it hadn't been for the civil war they fought right before they met the Spanish. Their system was stable and very powerful. It's easy to imagine that if Huayna Capac had survived his illness, thus never leaving a power vacuum that took a civil war to fill, they probably could have resisted Pizarro at least long enough for Spain to decide it wasn't worth the expense of sending in more troops. Then they could have set up a system of trade with Europe, developed a written form of Quechua (probably based on Spanish), and continued to expand. Eventually the absolute power of the Emperor would have dwindled, and it would have become a constitutional monarchy. Or perhaps there would have been an outright revolution, and the Republic of Tahuantinsuyu would have been born. Either way, I think it could easily have survived into the modern world as a globally significant nation.

Originally posted by Smellincoffee
How powerful do you think the Maya were, before whatever happened to them happened? (Most people assume it was a massive natural disaster, but..) One book I read on the Maya said it was the result of an overly successful exploitation of their environment, leading to a very large population. This far larger population was a lot larger than could be supported by their means, which in turn led to a vicious cycle of inter-state wars to secure whatever resources available for pure survival. Eventually the whole region collapsed, the populations died off and the land was returned to the jungle.

Though bits and parts of the Mayans lived on... The Spanish even managed to visit one of their last few surviving city-states.

Those cultures were too fundamentally religious to ever progress. Spain and Portugal just hurried the inevitable.

However, if Spain and Portugal didn't intervene, would American explorers have gone down through Latin America and have amassed a substantially larger empire by now?

One big thing you guys are forgetting here - even with friendly contact with Europeans, the Aztecs, Incas, and other native tribes are going to be hit very hard by disease, causing massive social disrubtions.

Smallpox even killed the Incan Emperor, setting off a civil war; this is one of the reasons the Spanish were able to so easily conquer the Inca, as the Spanish showed up right as the war ended.

which Inca emperor, last time I checked the Spanish killed the emperor which started a civil war

Originally posted by kmad
Those cultures were too fundamentally religious to ever progress. Spain and Portugal just hurried the inevitable.

However, if Spain and Portugal didn't intervene, would American explorers have gone down through Latin America and have amassed a substantially larger empire by now?

and big deal Spain and Portugal were very religious remember both had recently come out of a 800 reconquest and crusade to push the Moors out of Iberia, not only that but the Europeans were still fighting religious wars between Protestants and Catholics that were devastating all of Europe.

by American explorers do you mean Inca or European explorer that happan to be in the Americas

if you mean Inca then I think they would of expanded there empire much more, especially when you could consider there empire was only about 200 years old when the Spaniards arrived

by American explorers I meant British explorers, really. The settlements would probably have fought for independence from Britain alongside America, and possibly could have formed into part of the United States.

Originally posted by Revolutionary
which Inca emperor, last time I checked the Spanish killed the emperor which started a civil war

Smallpox kill the Inca Emperor Huayna Capac. There was a disagreement on which of his two sons, Huascar & Atahualpa, was to take the throne, starting a civil war. Atahualpa & his supporters won the war, only to have the Spanish show up and take Atahualpa captive; Pizarro later had him killed.

Wikipedia has more details. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incan_Empire)

Originally posted by kmad
by American explorers I meant British explorers, really. The settlements would probably have fought for independence from Britain alongside America, and possibly could have formed into part of the United States.

I doubt the British would have had enough force in the Americas to conquer the incas they would of been too busy fighting the other Europeans

but if they would of conquered them then I can say without a doubt that the Native American peoples would of never become one nation with the British-Americans of the time nor would the British-American want that.

the British were not like the Spanish and Portuguese, they probably wouldn't have inter-married with the natives, the Spanish and Portuguese had been a diverse people for centuries, they were accustomed to living side by side with very different and non-European cultures, the British were not and they would of never accepted the Native Americans as part of there nation

Originally posted by Revolutionary
the British were not like the Spanish and Portuguese, they probably wouldn't have inter-married with the natives, the Spanish and Portuguese had been a diverse people for centuries, they were accustomed to living side by side with very different and non-European cultures, the British were not and they would of never accepted the Native Americans as part of there nation

The British did inter-marry with Natives, at least in North America.

And remember that it was the Spanish that completely destroyed and dismantled every empire they conquered. The British tended more toward a policy of leaving the empires themselves intact, at least on the rare occasion they dealt with established empires with solid social systems, but placing themselves at the head of things and abolishing indigenous practices they found distasteful.

As for whether the Natives are "accepted" as part of the nations the Spanish built, that's debatable. In Peru today, the Inca and other indigenous peoples are still treated more like parasites than like citizens. The Quechua language has such low prestige that most average Inca you'd encounter on the street will flatly deny they even speak it. You can't have any status in Peruvian society unless you have some European blood in your veins. I'm not saying the Inca would have had a great time of it if the British had conquered them instead, and I'm not saying that the English in the sixteenth century could, would, or should have tried, but I have to think that at least the harshness of their treatment would have been less severe and less enduring than it's been with the Spanish and their descendants.

Originally posted by Loaf Warden
The British did inter-marry with Natives, at least in North America.

And remember that it was the Spanish that completely destroyed and dismantled every empire they conquered. The British tended more toward a policy of leaving the empires themselves intact, at least on the rare occasion they dealt with established empires with solid social systems, but placing themselves at the head of things and abolishing indigenous practices they found distasteful.

As for whether the Natives are "accepted" as part of the nations the Spanish built, that's debatable. In Peru today, the Inca and other indigenous peoples are still treated more like parasites than like citizens. The Quechua language has such low prestige that most average Inca you'd encounter on the street will flatly deny they even speak it. You can't have any status in Peruvian society unless you have some European blood in your veins. I'm not saying the Inca would have had a great time of it if the British had conquered them instead, and I'm not saying that the English in the sixteenth century could, would, or should have tried, but I have to think that at least the harshness of their treatment would have been less severe and less enduring than it's been with the Spanish and their descendants.

Sorry, but I've to disagree. Like they did in India? See all the former English colonies in America and you will not see a thriving native culture like in the Countries that were colonized by Spain or Portugal. In Guatelamana, for instance, the Native language is speaken as much (or more) than the Spanish language, and it's as official as Spanish. Tell me where I can find such a thriving Native Culture in English America... And I also would love to hear about the English equivalent of Bartolome De Las Casas.

Sorry I sound too agressive, it's not my purpouse, I've problems with moderating my English too not sound too polite or too agressive.

I've always had problem - not with you, but in general - with the pattern of English Historian to put in Quarentine any Iberian (or French) advance.

Rereading my posts, it sounds rather agressive. It was not my intention, though, so I apologize if I've harmed anyone.

Originally posted by yaroslav
Sorry, but I've to disagree. Like they did in India? See all the former English colonies in America and you will not see a thriving native culture like in the Countries that were colonized by Spain or Portugal.

That's why I specified "established empires". Now, I'm not going to defend English (or, later, American) behavior toward the native peoples of North America, because that behavior is indefensible. I'm not saying what the English did over here was right. But I still consider it mild compared to what the Spanish did. I admit the official Spanish policy was nice enough, but it would have been nicer if reality had followed it more often. And getting wealthy through trading with the Aztecs and Inca, or even setting up puppet rulers, would still have been a lot more enlightened than betraying their leaders, destroying their societies, and stomping down the people so thoroughly that even today, Natives in some regions don't even like to admit they are Natives.

I can't say for sure the English would have done better. I was merely speculating. And I'm certainly not saying that it should have been the English instead of the Spanish. Obviously, it would have been better if it hadn't been anyone. Maybe the Inca would have "thrived" under English domination, and maybe they wouldn't have. Probably not, but we'll never know. But they certainly have not under Spanish and Peruvian domination.

I'm afraid I think you're paying attention only to some bad examples in Peru, and not to the big picture - or at least that's my humble opinion. Natives in many Spanish-colonized countries are rigthfully proud of being natives, and their cultures are very important to some countries. Mexican citiziens though them be of aztect, Chielan people are proud of the way the Natives resisted Spanish people etc.

And about Peru... The current President, Alejandro Toledo, is of native heritage. I wonder if there have been a high politician in America of Native American heritage.

I don't see anything in English behaviour in America that was more pacific than Spanish behaviour; not for speaking of English behaviour in Africa and India, so I'm not sure if I can folow your speculation - and I'm sorry for that. The fact is that the English people in the same age than Spanish colonizated America hardly found any society comparable to what Spain found, and - whats follows now is my opinion and not a fact - that the English colonizers were as destructive (if not more) for USA Natives than Spaniards were for South America Natives.

exactly what I'm talking about, Spanish and Portugese culture combined with many Native America cultures and with many African cultures

you can go to many Latin American countries and you'll find that the majority of the people who are of Native American descent are very proud of that in fact it was used as a form of nationalism to unite the people during the Revolutions against Spain rule

there are no examples of the British ever accepting any form of Native American or even Africa culture, the Spanish and Portugese have many examples, many white Spanish and Portugese men and women of noblity and of wealth did treat the natives very badly but many who were poor and who were of the catholic church treated them decently

if the British had conquered them there probably would not have been any strong form of native culture still around and certainly not any form of inter-marrage if you don't believe me look at the US, Canada, and many other places there is very very little "mixing" and the very few examples of inter-marrages are of modern times

the British had a very strong dislike to Catholic cultures and these were European, just imagine how would of treated the native cultures

most Spanish and Portugese people eventually accepted people of native descent

the Spanish destroy the native's resistance to there rule they did not destroyed there societies remember many native allied with the Spanish because they we sick of the Aztecs and Incas and they viewed life under the Spanish to be better then under these empires, the Spanish changed there societies to fit there propose they did not destroy it completely and rebuild it from scratch

I am not defending what the conquistadors and what many white Spanish and Portugese people did but under there rule the native cultures not only survived but they also flourished and actually change the very culture and society that had conquered them

British conquest and rule would have been much much worst, they had a very homogeneous culture and society, compare that to the diverse cultures and societies the Spanish and Portugese had in Iberia for centuries, at best under British rule the native peoples would of been exploited and isolated in remote parts of the new British society never to be accepted , at worst they would of been completely eradicated by the British with no form of there culture still intact

the Iberian cultures merged so completely with that of the native and African cultures that it created a completely new culture and society, something that is unheard of in almost any other part of the west and almost unseen in the rest of the world

Ya but the Spanish came to loot. But the English came to settle.
And i do not think any meso-american empire would have lastedfor a century. But maybe there would be a suceesion nation with that heritage.

@Ballazic

the Spanish didn't only come to enrich themselves they also came to control and rule the natives

the English on the other hand just came for land to settle and rule there own people and they wanted nothing to do with the native peoples, the English wouldn't have accepted them into there society