Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

radio_allah t1_j0y1it0 wrote

Reply to comment by absolutelyshafted in TIL that the ancient Mayan city of Caracol in modern-day Belize was founded in 1200 BCE, held more than double the population of the largest current day city in Belize (of 61,461), and the one of its temples, Caana, built ~9th century CE, is still the tallest building in the country today. by embrace-monke

Considering what happened to China, India and Japan etc, the natives wouldn't have been solid enough. Even the best of the pre-gunpowder nations struggled against the Europeans, if we give both sides 200 more years I'm not sure if the natives would not be pounded into the ground even harder.

5

absolutelyshafted t1_j0y1pa8 wrote

Maybe not, but I think history would have been changed forever. Like the ripple effects would be massive. America and Mexico would have not formed when they did. Technologies would be delayed

0

radio_allah t1_j0y1ukj wrote

As a history major, I think history would've been largely the same. The main thing you'd change would be Spain's rise, but Spain's rise was already pretty irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, aside from flooding Europe in silver (that when we factor in modern economics, did not actually pay for anything) and being very important when it comes to native American history only.

But take away Spain and the Aztecs, and the consequence of the Renaissance, in turn the consequence of the Crusades, would still have been felt. And that's much more important to the rise of the west compared to the Spanish colonial efforts. It would still have happened, just with someone else as the poster boy. There are many factors at play in Europe's technological rise, and the presence or absence of the Spanish colonisation would have changed little of those factors.

2