Germ theory did not take hold until the 19th century.
He documented evidence that some of these diseases had already made their rounds around the Americas before Cortez ever stepped foot on the continent: "Xicotencatl made various other offers of his services in the name of his country. This Xicotencatl was a tall man, broad shouldered, and well built, with a large fresh coloured face, full of scars, as if pitted with the smallpox."
A specific case of smallpox did arrive later, according to the conquistador, on one of the ships sent by Governor Velázquez to capture Cortez (the ships were captured instead by Cortez, and their supplies used to take the Mexican capital): "But to return to Narvaez. He happened to have a negro servant with him ill with the smallpox, through whom this terrific disease, which, according to the accounts of the inhabitants, was previously unknown in the country, spread itself through New Spain, where it created the greater devastation, from the poor Indians, in their ignorance, solely applying cold water as a remedy, with which they constantly bathed themselves; so that vast numbers were cut off before they had the blessing of being received into the bosom of the Christian church."
He goes on to document several contact dying from Smallpox afterwards. It does seem highly likely however though, that the moment Columbus made his expedition around the Caribbean, the introduction of these novel diseases already had likely begun spreading in waves through the Americas.
Some researchers talk about a sustained decline linked with environmental problems and bad manage of a too fast growing population long before the arrival of spanish.
Paleontological data from Mexico show a dry period extended between 500 and 1150 A.D. Mayans where wipped just by environmental problems and climate change after they distroyed the nature trying to feed their growing population. It seems that we are wired to commit the same stupid mistake again and again (Ethiopy, Sahara, Indonesia, Brazil... No forest -> no water -> no agriculture -> no humans). Big cities where deserted by climate changes when agriculture stopped to work, entering in a "tragedy of commons" process.
We must take in mind also that the "before" number is just that, a stimate. Is adopted because it fits with the narrative but is also possible that the population numbers given to invaders were inflated for tactical purposes.
This is 500-1000 years before the Spanish invasion. About as long ago as the Spanish conquest is to us. It is not a relevant event when considering the population at the time.
>Is adopted because it fits with the narrative but is also possible that the population numbers given to invaders were inflated for tactical purposes.
The narrative is that most of the death happens well outside the knowledge of the invaders, there isn't much trust in the invaders estimates as a whole.
And some people still blame spanish conquerors today for it...
This article is probably related with the Mexico independence celebrations planned for 2021. In this context maybe will be a temptation to reinforce the relate of spaniards bad / natives innocent (even if they ate the hearts of other people to appease their gods).
Rightfully so. That the area had experienced a separate collapse over five hundred years before is completely unrelated.
>In this context maybe will be a temptation to reinforce the relate of spaniards bad / natives innocent (even if they ate the hearts of other people to appease their gods).
The Spanish invaded, conquered, and enslaved. Nobody is claiming the native population were some saintly people who did nothing wrong, but the Spaniards were definitely bad. Bringing religion into it only makes them look worse.
Name me one single culture that never invaded, conquered and enslaved other people. From Egyptians to Romans, Chinese, Muslims, Aztecs, Belgians, and of course US Americans. Everybody did it, and the other are dead.
Some people could argue that christianism, occidental medicine, and an unique lingua franca was definitely an improvement over the former myriad of isolated tribes unable to understand and speak with their neighbors, the trepanations to cure diseases, the wars against everybody and the human sacrifices and spreading terror as part of the way of life.
The current situation can be improved of course, but nobody would want today a world with followers of mayan or aztec gods.
This doesn't make it morally acceptable.
>Some people could argue that christianism...
What I think is your description of the areas Spain conquered, quoted here,
>former myriad of isolated tribes unable to understand and speak with their neighbors, the trepanations to cure diseases, the wars against everybody and the human sacrifices and spreading terror as part of the way of life.
Describes sixteenth century Europe perfectly.
Not of course, but to blame your neighbor for acting evil, when everybody, including your own people does exactly the same thing, is an exercise on hypocrisy written in the sky in flashing giant neon letters.
Lets take the current destruction of statues. I'm 100% against the glorification of evil people but also against the infantilisation of the society. I couldn't care less if all US Columbus statues have their head replaced with a whooper, a gun or a nice cast of the head of Terry Crews. Is their country, after all, and this is just a fully replaceable object... but I can't hardly wait for this people to eventually discover that the Greek philosophers fathers of the concept of democracy had slaves.
Maybe we should abolish the democracy as the rotten symbol of slavery that it is, and behead the Aristotle statues because the father of modern medicine was also a slave owner. Maybe we should rename America to Shalalaland (How we can still allow in 2021 an entire continent having the name of a despicable slave trader?)
It seems that after all those years we aren't much more mature as society than the people that broke the Venus de Nilo's arms
No, hypocrisy would be engaging in or supporting similar acts carried out by my nation, and I also view those as evil. Discussing one of the many bad acts that have happened without mentioning every other one doesn't make me a hypocrite.
>Maybe we should abolish the democracy as the rotten symbol of slavery that it is, and behead the Aristotle statues because the father of modern medicine was also a slave owner
Or we can judge historical actions independently without either the hero worship or the condemnation of every thing connected to them. Aristotle was a flawed human being who wrote a fantastic treatise on logic.
I can't see why. Invaders must report to the crown, and be very precise about what they were seeing, each city, each wall and each new culture or useful plant. Historians have many particularly detailed reports about this historical period.