NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, it is. But this one does not concern vague war strategies or geological redistribution. This two-part AR is simple, and based on three large empires.

1500s: The Spanish conquistadors reach the Inca lands, home of much gold. Their warriors overthrow the Son of the Sun. The Incans become ill with the smallpox virus and largely die out, leaving the Spanish to take the gold and silver to Europe.

Well, my first part is: What if the Spanish didn't carry the smallpox virus to the Americas?

Well, without the virus, the native populace would have kicked the conquistador force out. What does this mean? That Europe does not get the surplus it used to start the Industrial Revolution. No revolution=no imperialism=no World Wars= no Western superpowers=no US world hegemony.


Part Two: If the Forbidden City didn't burn down, would the Ming have become the world power?




BTW, here's a great web resource: http://wps.ablongman.com/long_stearns_wcap_4/0,8810,1189431-,00.html

Well, without the virus, the native populace would have kicked the conquistador force out. What does this mean? That Europe does not get the surplus it used to start the Industrial Revolution. No revolution=no imperialism=no World Wars= no Western superpowers=no US world hegemony.


1. Why the assumption that the Industrial revolution depended on the surplus from the Andean and Mexican regions? What about Africa, Asia, North America etc.

2. The Europeans colonized large areas of the world, very successfully, without the variola virus wiping out the local population. If anything it would probably mean that South America would be Dutch or English speaking, rather than Spanish as the Spanish were not effective colonizers. Brazil would still be Portuguese speaking, as the variola virus had little effect there.

3. How can you assume that imperialism derives from the success of the industrial revolution. It seems to me that it derives much more from the successful colonization of most of the world - events that occurred prior to the industrial revolution.

Go from there for now.

1. Why the assumption that the Industrial revolution depended on the surplus from the Andean and Mexican regions? What about Africa, Asia, North America etc.

2. The Europeans colonized large areas of the world, very successfully, without the variola virus wiping out the local population. If anything it would probably mean that South America would be Dutch or English speaking, rather than Spanish as the Spanish were not effective colonizers. Brazil would still be Portuguese speaking, as the variola virus had little effect there.

3. How can you assume that imperialism derives from the success of the industrial revolution. It seems to me that it derives much more from the successful colonization of most of the world - events that occurred prior to the industrial revolution.

Go from there for now.

1) Because the Andean and Mexican regions were where the surplus gold and silver for surplus capital originated in the actual line of history. This caused a surplus which led to the Industrial Revolution which led to even more capital.

2) However, the Incan and Aztec Empires were strong. Though the Spanish had (horrible) guns and steel, they would have been outnumbered without the effects of the variola. Later imperialism had a later tech advantage as it was post-industrial.

3) Actually, colonization of most of the world was post-industrial


Please view the link in the OP. It's a very accurate site on world history made by some of the best in the field. I believe it's around the twenties.

1) Because the Andean and Mexican regions were where the surplus gold and silver for surplus capital originated in the actual line of history. This caused a surplus which led to the Industrial Revolution which led to even more capital.
Which clearly explains why the Industrial Revolution happened in the UK when the gold and silver from the Incas, Aztecs and Potasi went to Spain - England's arch enemy.

2) However, the Incan and Aztec Empires were strong. Though the Spanish had (horrible) guns and steel, they would have been outnumbered without the effects of the variola. Later imperialism had a later tech advantage as it was post-industrial.
The Incans were defeated by Cortez, through his ability to persuade other local tribes and peoples to join him in the fight. Although smallpox did wipe out a large percentage of the Incan population, this did not occur until after the Incans had been defeated. As such, you proposal that the Incans would have kicked the Spanish out needs some further support.

I do not know enough about the sequence of events regarding the Aztecs to comment on their case.



3) Actually, colonization of most of the world was post-industrial
Irrelevant. All that is implied is that the industrial revolution would have been delayed - if it had actually depended upon the capital from the colonies in the first place. Secondly - if colonization was post-industrial where was Cabral going when he got lost and bumped into Brazil in 1500? Yes - a lot of colonization was post-industrial, but not all of it, by a long way.

Which clearly explains why the Industrial Revolution happened in the UK when the gold and silver from the Incas, Aztecs and Potasi went to Spain - England's arch enemy.


The Incans were defeated by Cortez, through his ability to persuade other local tribes and peoples to join him in the fight. Although smallpox did wipe out a large percentage of the Incan population, this did not occur until after the Incans had been defeated. As such, you proposal that the Incans would have kicked the Spanish out needs some further support.

I do not know enough about the sequence of events regarding the Aztecs to comment on their case.




Irrelevant. All that is implied is that the industrial revolution would have been delayed - if it had actually depended upon the capital from the colonies in the first place. Secondly - if colonization was post-industrial where was Cabral going when he got lost and bumped into Brazil in 1500? Yes - a lot of colonization was post-industrial, but not all of it, by a long way.

Cortez defeated the Aztecs, I'm not much better than you however because I do not know who defeated the Incas.

Cortez defeated the Aztecs, I'm not much better than you however because I do not know who defeated the Incas.
Wasn't it Pizarro?

Yup, Pizarro conquered the Incas, with just a handful of men by getting close to the Inca chief and making him prisoner. Cortez had it more difficult with the Aztecs, since they didn't have the same kind of extremely centralized government, but he could rely on alliances with enemies of the Aztec.

Anyway, most of the gold went to Spain, but from there it made it's way to France, Holland, Italy, England and the rest of Europe through trade. Spain practically didn't manufacture a single thing during that period, it was able to import everything with its vast reserves of American gold and silver.