| Europeans of the late 1400s and early 1500s weren't technologically "godlike" to the aztecs, incas or anyone else. It wasn't until the 1800s when industrial revolution in the US and Britain put the real separation between the west and the rest. > Anyone doubting this just read the history, a handful of Spanish conquering a whole empire (twice!). They didn't conquer the "whole empire". They conquered the elites. Big difference. > Imagine if Spain wanted to engage in a full fledged war with the Aztecs or Incas. Spain would have been utterly crushed. There is a reason why spain didn't wage a full fledged war against the aztecs or the incas. > They could have easily wiped out everybody. With what? A bunch of useless and inaccurate muskets? I think you are highly overestimating what europeans were back then and their technological capabilities. Spain conquered the aztecs like the british conquered mughal india. They bought some elites, killed other elites and for whatever reason were at the right place at the right time to exploit the aztecs. Why and how is completely lost to history sadly. But one thing we know for certain is that the atzecs elites were completely incompetent and ignorant and most likely divided. Which is a recipe for disaster. But all empires seem to verge towards that state amongst the elites - persians, romans, mongols, etc. |
>> the british conquered mughal india.
It was not the Mughals but the Marathas, however the methods essentially were as you described.
The Mughals were already in decline, during the EIC's rise. The dominant power in India during that time was the Maratha Empire. This period is often glossed over in history.
Fun fact, the Anglo-Maratha war was the first major campaign of one Arthur Wellesley, who later went on to defeat Napoleon at Waterloo. The battle of Assaye is one of my favourites [1].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maratha_Empire
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Assaye