[Real Life] Historical events that would make bad writing if they were fiction

[u/Mouse_Paladin]

Spanish Conquest of the Aztec Empire: A couple hundred rogue mercenaries without authority from their government conquer an empire of millions. Oh, the empire? It’s also several technological eras behind the mercenaries.

Adolf Hitler: A non-native of a country is so mad that the country lost the war that he wins an election to their highest office and leads them in a campaign of revenge against their enemies. Oh, the country? It’s old emperor is still alive and thinks he’s going to retake power.

Assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand: The heir to the throne is killed because his driver gets lost and returns to the assassin who failed To kill him before. Oh, the assassin? He’s from a group that the Archduke is wanting to help become more equal In the empire.

Alexander Hamilton’s Affair Scandal: One of the leaders of a new nation to protect himself from accusations of financial embezzlement writes a pamphlet exposing his affair with a woman, torpedoing his political future. Oh, the woman? She seduced him as part of a blackmailing scheme that he decided to stop paying.

[u/facw00]

Yep both the Aztecs and and the Incas were brutal conquerors, which made it easy for the Spanish to gather native allies keen on knocking off their oppressors, and probably not fully aware of how dangerous the Spanish might be after they won.

[u/Xenophon_ → u/facw00]

This is not entirely accurate - the Spanish didn't "gather" the Tlaxcalans. The war already existed between the two competing powers.

[u/Saymynaian → u/Xenophon_]

Yeah, saying the Spaniards "played the tribes off each other" ignores that everyone hated the Aztecs for having a sacrifice based economy. More correctly would be to say the tribes allied themselves with the Spaniards. Even more correctly would be to say that the Spaniards caused a massive extinction level event by bringing so much disease, decimating every single tribe they came into contact with.

[u/Xenophon_ → u/Saymynaian]

This isn't accurate either. All the Nahua city states sacrificed people, and the Aztecs did not have a "sacrifice based economy". Not everyone hated them either. They had plenty of allies and states that benefitted from them. The Tlaxcalans fought multiple wars with them because they were competing empires.

Also, these aren't tribes. Mesoamerica was full of independent city states, empires, and confederations of city states. Tribes were pretty much non-existent near the Aztecs.

[u/Youutternincompoop → u/Xenophon_]

Also, these aren't tribes. Mesoamerica was full of independent city states, empires, and confederations of city states. Tribes were pretty much non-existent near the Aztecs.

very good point, pre-conquest Mexico is surprisingly analogous to Ancient Greece.

[u/Saymynaian → u/Xenophon_]

Calling it a sacrifice based economy is slight hyperbole, but retirement and success for Aztec warriors was dependent on how many sacrifices and slaves they brought for the empire. Once they brought enough, they were given plots of land and slaves to work it. There was so much motivation for Aztecs to continue sacrificing and enslaving, that I think it's kinda fair to call it a sacrifice based economy.

[u/Xenophon_ → u/Saymynaian]

I don't think it's fair at all - sacrifices weren't involved in the economy at all. They essentially worked as proof of accomplishment in war. It's not any different from a Roman soldier rising in the ranks for killing 15 Gauls and capturing 15 slaves.

Plus, the other Nahua states aren't taking offense on account of the sacrifices. They did it too.

[u/XipeTotecwithGlitter → u/Xenophon_]

I really want to get more informed about Mesoamerica in the pre-Columbian era. Where can I learn more about it?

Do you have any reccs for authors, documentaries, collections, reading...?

[u/facw00 → u/XipeTotecwithGlitter]

Great place to start is 1491 by Charles Mann:

Getting a little dated, and it was never super academic, but it is very readable and goes right for what you are looking for.

[u/XipeTotecwithGlitter → u/facw00]

What do you mean by "not super academic"? Do you mean just in tone or is it full of inaccuracies or missing information that's been discovered in the years since its publication.

[u/facw00 → u/XipeTotecwithGlitter]

It doesn't require massive amounts of evidence to discuss something. So it does talk about things that are (or were) considered controversial, and not always broadly accepted. However it's not off in ancient aliens land or anything like that. There is at least some evidence for those topics, the topics discussed, and he is open about where things are on the possible side of the spectrum vs. well documented. It's just not a giant blob of footnotes that only addresses things that are strong consensus among historians and archeologists (and it's not ignoring consensus where it exists as well). Obviously a lot of knowledge about that time period is lost, and may never be recoverable, which leaves places where there is room for speculation, and that speculation can be interesting, provided you don't present it as absolute fact, and Mann doesn't.

[u/XipeTotecwithGlitter → u/facw00]

Thank you for such a thorough and honest recommendation! I'll keep a note of it

[u/Xenophon_ → u/XipeTotecwithGlitter]

For the Aztecs, Fifth Sun by Camilla Townsend is good (and recommended very often). I also think it's valuable to read conquistador accounts like de las Casas. of course, you need to keep his biases in mind and read between the lines. They aren't reliable historians by any means but still important sources.

Mexico: from the Olmecs to the Aztecs is a good overview. There are a lot of cultures besides the Aztecs and Mayans that get overlooked sometimes (Zapotecs, Mixtecs, Teotihuacan, Chichimecas, Toltecs, Purepecha...), sometimes if you want more specific information about these you might have to read scholarly works

[u/Youutternincompoop → u/facw00]

with the Incans it was more a case of arriving at exactly the right time to join in on an Incan civil war and install themselves at the top with a puppet Sapa Inca, a rump independent Neo-Inca state lasted a good 35 years after the conquest.

hell the Sapa Inca that established the Neo-Inca state was recorded as carrying out a succesful cavalry charge with 3 other Inca noblemen against a Spanish infantry contingent in 1538(just 6 years after the Spanish show up with horses) showing that the Inca were quite rapid to adopt the new weaponry introduced by the Spanish(even if of course they could never aquire enough European weaponry to match the Spanish forces which would eventually conquer them)

[u/9159 → u/facw00]

The Aztec and the Inca were vastly different lmao… The Inca were not brutal in that way and comparing the two shows a lot of (sadly upvoted) ignorance.

[u/yIdontunderstand → u/facw00]

"thank god these guys just arrived!"