Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Zardnaar" data-source="post: 8489514" data-attributes="member: 6716779">That article quoted 40%.   The diseases were really bad during the battle of the city. Cf with the Incas who were already fight a smallpox induced civil war.  Not claiming the disease had no effect. The death toll was horrific post conquest that's when most died.  Even if the Spanish stayed away after contact the diseases would have arrived anyway with similar effect. Had they waited 50 years or more I'm guessing Mexico and Peru would have resembled the collapse in NA more.  Disease definitely had an impact but not 90% at time of conquest.  And in the Incas case the arrival of disease predated the Spanish bit different with Aztecs.  If you're gonna run an empire the Inca example is a better way if doing it than Aztec which in some ways resembles Assyria<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />. Aztec empire was already unstable due to their regime, Inca unstable due to disease but it also probably expanded to quickly relative to when the Spanish turned up.</blockquote>