I accept that these points are evidence in your favor. Here are some more of my own:
--Smallpox didn’t hit the Aztecs until Cortes had already killed the Emperor and allied with the Tlaxcalans, if I’m reading these summaries correctly. (I really should go read the actual books...) So it seems that Cortes did get really far on the path towards victory without the help of disease. More importantly, there doesn’t seem to be any important difference in how people treated Cortes before or after the disease. They took him very seriously, underestimated him, put too much trust in him, allied with him, etc. before the disease was a factor.
--When Pizarro arrived in Inca lands, the disease had already swept through, if I’m reading these stories right. So the period of most chaos and uncertainty was over; people were rebuilding and re-organizing.
--Also, it wasn’t actually a 90% reduction in population. It was more like a 50% reduction at the time, if I am remembering right. (Later epidemics would cause further damage, so collectively they were worse than any other plague in history.) This is comparable to e.g. the Black Death in Europe, no? But the Black Death didn’t result in the collapse of most civilizations who went through it, nor did it result in random small groups of adventurers taking over governments, I predict. (I haven’t actually read up on the history of it)
The Plague of Justinian is possibly responsible for the failure of the Roman Empire to reunite (Justinian had reconquered Italy and if he was able to secure those holdings European history might look more like Chinese history). Later iterations of the plague might have been responsible for the rise of the Muslim empires. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plague_of_Justinianhttps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22992565/
Interesting, thanks! Still though, it’s not like the Roman Empire got taken over by some wandering band of 1,000 men during the plague. My position is not that plagues aren’t important, but rather that they aren’t so overwhelmingly important that the factors I mentioned (tech, cunning/experience) aren’t also very important.
I accept that these points are evidence in your favor. Here are some more of my own:
--Smallpox didn’t hit the Aztecs until Cortes had already killed the Emperor and allied with the Tlaxcalans, if I’m reading these summaries correctly. (I really should go read the actual books...) So it seems that Cortes did get really far on the path towards victory without the help of disease. More importantly, there doesn’t seem to be any important difference in how people treated Cortes before or after the disease. They took him very seriously, underestimated him, put too much trust in him, allied with him, etc. before the disease was a factor.
--When Pizarro arrived in Inca lands, the disease had already swept through, if I’m reading these stories right. So the period of most chaos and uncertainty was over; people were rebuilding and re-organizing.
--Also, it wasn’t actually a 90% reduction in population. It was more like a 50% reduction at the time, if I am remembering right. (Later epidemics would cause further damage, so collectively they were worse than any other plague in history.) This is comparable to e.g. the Black Death in Europe, no? But the Black Death didn’t result in the collapse of most civilizations who went through it, nor did it result in random small groups of adventurers taking over governments, I predict. (I haven’t actually read up on the history of it)
The Plague of Justinian is possibly responsible for the failure of the Roman Empire to reunite (Justinian had reconquered Italy and if he was able to secure those holdings European history might look more like Chinese history). Later iterations of the plague might have been responsible for the rise of the Muslim empires. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plague_of_Justinian https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22992565/
Interesting, thanks! Still though, it’s not like the Roman Empire got taken over by some wandering band of 1,000 men during the plague. My position is not that plagues aren’t important, but rather that they aren’t so overwhelmingly important that the factors I mentioned (tech, cunning/experience) aren’t also very important.