The conquistadores were able to overthrow an Empire because they made allies with everybody else who was bullied by them.
Sadly diseases killed a lot of people. More than 90% of the deaths were caused by said diseases, I think it was close to 94%.
If Spaniards were marrying into the native nobility is because it mattered to the locals as they were the majority.
“ The crimes committed there were not different than the ones committed in Europe between Europeans.”
Just over 100 years ago Belgians were “harvesting” the right arms of Congolese for who knows what reason. The Spaniards were always much more benign than their Northern cousins.
Oh, by the way. Spain never had colonies. They had provinces and everyone in those provinces was just as citizen of the empire as someone from current Spain.
Um. Okay. A colony is:
1. "an area over which a foreign nation or state extends or maintains control"
and
2. "a group of people who establish residence in that area and who retain ties with the parent state."[1]
So, to say that Spain had no colonies is patently false- it most certainly had pockets of emigrants from the homeland who were still culturally tied to it and under its rule (the Philippines, Louisiana, any number of Caribbean islands, colonial Mexico, and the list goes on and on during Siglo de Oro and beyond).
I don't have a horse in this race, but if you wanna act like a pedant, you're gonna be treated like one. Ridiculous.
Living in a province of the -same- nation that has granted you a fully citizenship is a different situation than living in a colony ruled by a -foreign- nation. As everybody knows, the later typically comes with none or a restricted set of rights. Ask a Puerto rican friend for more details.
Let me ask you this: was the colony of Jamestown not a colony? English citizens in a foreign land ruled by a governor beholden to the crown?
Because that's how all the "provinces" populated by Spanish settlers were set up. King Charles V chartered the Council of the Indies, which set up viceroys to govern the "provinces" in the New World, which was beholden to the monarchy.
Aside from this, the actual charter of the Council of the Indies uses the words "colonias" and "territorios" when referring to their "jurisdicciones" as opposed to "provincias". I think those cognates can be fairly easily understood.
Look, I'm happy to admit I'm wrong if you can provide a better source than the charter for the council over Spain's colonies.
"an area over which a foreign nation or state extends or maintains control".
"a group of people who establish residence in that area and who retain ties with the parent state."
And I don't know why do you call me pedant. I just pointed out something that I think was relevant to the conversation. What I find ridiculous is you being triggered by it.
The first law is from 1512, 20 years after the discover of the Americas. Given transportation at the time it is clear that he vast majority of the troops overthrowing the Inca were recruited by the subjugated native peoples. Kinda what progressives [1] tried to do in Afghanistan. Pray, what noble accomplishment do we have to show in Afghanistan after 20 years?
The enslavement of natives was against the law of King. Ignored by criminals, sure, but the law was clear and its violators criminals.
Forced conversion to Catholicism from a blood thirst cult that stained their monuments with the blood of innocents. Ya, they were real bad for that. Btw, if you insist on cultural relativism, what were progressives doing in Afghanistan but proselytizing feminism?
[1] I used the word progressive, as opposed to Americans, on purpose as the war was a multi nation effort cheered on by people, “right” or “left” who believe we have to impose democracy and liberalism on others. I remember before 9/11 when leftist wanted to liberate Afghani women. I remember in August, when leftists were aghast we left the women behind
You will forgive me for not engaging further if you are the sort of person that regards the econmienda system as a magnificent accomplishment, especially compared with the horrors of female education "leftists" inflicted in Afghanistan. It is the same reason I don't speak to the sort of person that argues the holocaust was basically self defence and signs his posts off Deutschland Uber Alles.
I should point out that the Spanish also imported slaves from Africa in prodigious quantities. However, instead of doing it themselves, the Spanish crown let out a single contract for who would be the sole importer of slaves into the American colonies (the asiento)--and all of the major maritime powers of Europe were vying to win that contract at various points in time.
Anyway, every time I've watched Germany at the World Cup they only sing the third verse of the Deutschlandlied which doesn't include that phrase. You'd be shocked to learn why it's fallen out of fashion. So that was a really pointless tangent for you to go off on...
Not sure you want to bring into focus Catholicism's history as it relates to the blood of innocents..
The Inca were probably the most astonishingly advanced Native Americans, and they surely had great thinkers (definitely great engineers). And here come the conquistadors, rock-headed barbarians from the most desperate segments of Spanish society (little else drove people to risk their life for riches in the New World), absolutely slaughtering them, burning their cultural artifacts or melting them down into ingots when applicable.
It's like if (a much more desperate and destitute version of) the January 6th protesters were sent to conquer new worlds.
As an aside, a colorful example[0]: they lured the Emperor in a plaza (he came to show he was unafraid, and his army were disarmed of all but ceremonial weapons), and, in the slaughter that ensued, they tried capturing him. He was up on a palanquin, carried by servants. Unable to reach him, the Spanish began cutting off the limbs of the servants, who it's said, without thinking, bore the load on their shoulders instead (it was unthinkable to do otherwise, as they considered the Emperor a god). Eventually, they captured him. In captivity, they taught him to play Chess, and I think it's said he was good at it. Later, panicked that an army was going to come and re-capture him, they killed him. Before his death, he was offered conversion to Catholicism, which he accepted, which awarded him the clemency of being strangled instead of burned alive.
The earlier ships were a mixture of those "barbarians" as you mentioned, and very learned people.
The concept of international law and human rights started with the discussions in Spain after the discovery of America:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/school-salamanca/#IusGent...
I didn't realise the universities at Takshashila and Nalanda were built by Visigoths. /s
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_universities_in...
The universities that you mention are ruins. No need for the sarcasm.
"But apart from killing 80% of the native population, who definitely weren't slaves because in return for their forced labour they were forcibly converted to Catholicism, what exactly did the Spanish do wrong?" The bills of rights were inspired by the extent of the conquistadors' brutality, were generally ignored and the New Laws lasted three whole years and one dead viceroy before the Spanish settlers forced the King to back down. I'm not sure missionaries teaching one nobleman Spanish so that he could write a petition to be ignored really offsets that.