Seems like the americas was doing OK. Big civilizations and they had armies and court systems. Did spain ruin the americas or did they improve on it.

>>17787075 (OP)
Ruin. Millennia of unique art, philosophy, history, culture, statecraft and more crudely twisted and demolished in a matter of decades to make way for re-warmed Baroque/manierism and the most rancid dregs of culture streaming down from Europe's gutters. That was then swept away by a racial chaos Europeans are still unable to actually grasp.

>>17787075 (OP)
>Seems like the americas was doing OK.
If by OK you mean cannibalistic societies based on war, slavery and neolithic technology they were doing ok. It was one of the most cruel and backwards society in the world and the own natives given the chance destroyed their former empires to welcome the new invafers.

>>17787379
>cannibalistic societies
Moralfaggotry
>based on war, slavery
Woke nonsense.
>neolithic technology
Oretard babbling.
>It was one of the most cruel
Also Moralfaggotry
> the own natives given the chance destroyed their former empires to welcome the new invafers.
Never happened; fan-fiction.

>>17787399
These societies were so weak they could not fight a speck of matter less than a thousandth of a hair’s breadth wide. They did not deserve to exist on God’s earth. Those that deserved a warrior’s death received it. Those who did not died of a foe they could not even see.

>>17787379
>we must spread Christianity / enlightenment value / freedom n democracy / liberal international order / wokeism to all parts of the world!
>it's all just imperialism disguised as progressivism / altruism
Just realized conquistadors are essentially medieval version of neocons

>>17787399
>Never happened; fan-fiction.
So they got BTFOed by 500 people with no supply lines? That speaks worse of them if you unironically believe that

>>17787446
Conquistadors gave 0 fucks about any of that, they just wanted to get rich. The monarchy was the one that cared about evangelizing

>>17787465
Both of those can be wrong. It was mostly the plagues that did their culture in, rather than the conquest itself. They'd be probably thrown out by 1600 without those.
Same for Perú. Sapa Inca Pachakuti Yupanqui 'the great' would be turning the viceroy into a skin drum and burning Lima to the ground by 1585.

>>17787075 (OP)
>Did spain ruin the americas or did they improve on it.
Spain just exploited America for precious metals to fund their pointless wars in Europe to battle the Reformation. And even then they failed to crush the Reformation.

The Indians had great civilizations. They built with cities that rivaled the ones in the Old World. Their knowledge in agriculture was deep. They had chinampas, terrace farming, and all sorts of unique farming methods to grow the best crops. New World crops are literally the reason why Eurasia had such a sharp increase in population in the Early Modern Era after remaining basically stagnant for centuries.

>Muh human sacrifice
The Europeans were literally slaughtering each other over slight differences in beliefs in Jesus. It was like every year in Europe there was another grand war. Plus this is really only a thing the Mesoamericans did. Human sacrifice was a pretty rare thing in other Indian civilizations like the Andeans.

>>17787500
Even with the plagues you have to be an absolute moron to believe 500 people could conquer entire civilizations with local help.
>>17787528
t. clueless moron

>>17787528
>Spain just exploited America for precious metals
That is why there are 50 UNESCO World Heritage sites in America funded by the Spanish Empire.

Dozens of universities, hundreds of cities, hospitals, monasteries, aqueducts, roads, churches, etc.

Because "they just exploited America". All the gold taken during 300 years is less than nowadays is taken out in 1 year in Peru alone.

Ridiculous lies spreaded by stupid people.

>>17787634
Spain transformed what could have been a unique culture and civilisation and like Japan, China, India, etc. (and yes all of them did human sacrifice at some point) into just a discount Iberia. It's a tragedy

>>17787644
they went downhill AFTER they got independized. They have been in their own government for 200 years.

During the Spanish Empire even anglo outsiders (Humboldt, Darwin) praised how developed, prosperous and stable were the lives of all the people living under the Spanish Empire.

There would have been 200 wars in the last 200 years if not because they were unified by language, religion, and certain common traditions. If the tribes advanced without the unification that the Spanish gave to them, lots of tribal wars with millions of deaths would have happened.

>>17787075 (OP)
They'd crumble before the first other advanced civilisation they met. Every human group outside of Afro-Eurasia missed out on critical technological developments, not to mention the institutional and economic structures that the old world visitor would bring. I don't see how the Pre-Columbian civilisations could survive the shock created by the introduction of new technologies and new economic pressures. Also smallpox.

>Seems like they were doing OK
By what standard? Great civilizations ≠ destined long-term success. Many Mesoamerican societies were deeply unstable, engaged in brutal warfare, human sacrifice, and political fragmentation long before Castile ever set foot on the continent.

>Big civilizations and they had armies and court systems
Your question implies that these disappeared overnight. Castile Spain introduced written legal systems, urban planning, the university, printing press, and Christianity. The very foundation of Latin America is built on the 'mestizaje' and blending they initiated. I'll ask this: is there any proof that these civilizations would have thrived without European contact?

>>17787379
>>17787465
Your view on that particular matter is romanticized and childish. The native allies of the Spanish were native city-states helping the conquistadors wage war against their rival states out of pure opportunism, who later found themselves converting Christianity because that was what the result of their actions recquired them to do. It wasn't some righteous peasant's revolt aimed at overthrowing their cruel masters, it was led by the very same noblemen who were gladly sacrificing children to the rain god the month before Cortez, whom some accounts even claim allowed his allies to continue practicing sacrifice and cannibalism during the conquest of the Aztec Empire, arrived.

>>17787528
>The Europeans were literally slaughtering each other over slight differences in beliefs in Jesus.
Comparing this with up to 20k human sacrifices per year (actually the lower estimate if you take into account historical sources), abducted among weaker tribes because they believed their god Huītzilōpōchtli needed fresh human heart and blood to continue his journey in the cosmos? They believed the sun would not rise if they stopped human sacrifices.
They believed Tlaloc needed children tears and sometimes children lives to ensure rainfall, leading to either torture or sacrifice.
This was beyond religious quarrel as you describe, it was industrialized human slaughter.
>Human sacrifice was a pretty rare thing in other Indian civilizations like the Andeans.
The Incas had the Capacocha Ceremonies where they killed children, it was indeed not on a daily and a scale comparable to the Aztecs, they still routinely practiced it.

>>17787992
>literally doesn't disprove the fact that the conquest was done by other natives
How do you call this cope? Literally the Mexicas were a tiny empire, most of what became New Spain was slowly conquered by a slow process for centuries in which most of the shock troops were natives

>>17788656
Probably because I'm not trying to disprove that in the first place, retard-kun? I'm just telling the good anon over there (you?) that the reason the Spaniards got native allies wasn't because of silly moralistic reasons like he was clearly trying to imply with that post.