On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 2:26 AM, Kevin O'Malley <kevmol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The classic case is the Aztecs.   They were taken out over a few short
months in a military engagement from a vastly outnumbered force, not by

There are a lot of factors involved in any historical developments -- most
all of them acting non-linearly. For instance, the spanish 'Conquista'
would not have proceeded as easily -- spectacularly -- as it did in México,
if the Aztecs were not actually holding a tenuous balance-of-power over
other, resentful peoples: who joined-in with the spanish to attack the
mexicas. The spanish had plenty of experience in intrigue and duplicity and
bribery, etc. Europa was full of it. The spanish had a well-blooded,
experienced military structure, having begun in Afrika and the Canary
Islands... etc. The balance of forces _favored_ any powerful outsider
coming in to stir things up.

So if the Aztecs had been in a stronger position -- the Conquista would
have taken a different course; but the outcome would *still* have been much
the same, in the end. At a longer, larger scale (i.e., the spanish might
not have gotten such a large empire out of the process, etc.)

> On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 5:20 AM, Brian Ahern <ahern_br...@msn.com> wrote:
>> The Spanish had cholera. It was 100 times as effective as gunpowder.

Reply via email to