Anonymous
11/1/2025, 8:24:57 PM
No.64469714
>>64469698
>>64469480
cont:
Again, both you and the other anon should see >>64443973, >>64443995, >>64446179, >64446201, >>64449789, >64463581, >>64466255, >>64466289, >>64466346, and the additional posts I link within the pastebin, arch.b4k.dev and desuarchive threads I linked within that last post. This is a topic I have spoken about at length.
As an analogy, saying "Cortes got allies against the Mexica due to them being sacrificed and being hated" is a bit like saying "The allies banded together to fight the Axis powers in WW2 because they were opposed to them attacking naval bases in the pacific": You're projecting the motives of Tlaxcala/the US onto all the other allied states, who didn't nessacarily share those motives, and you're also framing sacrifices/attacking naval bases as something the states had an inherent moral opposition to, rather then only caring if they were the military targets in question and would have no issue doing it to others themselves. And as I say in >64446602, even Tlaxcala, the closest thing here to a clear victim rising up against the Mexica due to their aggression, still used the Conquistadors to further their own political influence and power.
Even if I tried to steelman my own point here and tried to come up with counterpoints to myself, and I have done this in the past and would be happy to do so here, at BEST you could say that resentment was *a* factor for the states that allied with Cortes, not the main or only or biggest factor for most of them, and that resentment still would not be more intense then it would be towards any capital that had rule over any other subject in history were they were conquered into it.
>>64469698
See above, they were not.
37/37 for now
>>64469480
cont:
Again, both you and the other anon should see >>64443973, >>64443995, >>64446179, >64446201, >>64449789, >64463581, >>64466255, >>64466289, >>64466346, and the additional posts I link within the pastebin, arch.b4k.dev and desuarchive threads I linked within that last post. This is a topic I have spoken about at length.
As an analogy, saying "Cortes got allies against the Mexica due to them being sacrificed and being hated" is a bit like saying "The allies banded together to fight the Axis powers in WW2 because they were opposed to them attacking naval bases in the pacific": You're projecting the motives of Tlaxcala/the US onto all the other allied states, who didn't nessacarily share those motives, and you're also framing sacrifices/attacking naval bases as something the states had an inherent moral opposition to, rather then only caring if they were the military targets in question and would have no issue doing it to others themselves. And as I say in >64446602, even Tlaxcala, the closest thing here to a clear victim rising up against the Mexica due to their aggression, still used the Conquistadors to further their own political influence and power.
Even if I tried to steelman my own point here and tried to come up with counterpoints to myself, and I have done this in the past and would be happy to do so here, at BEST you could say that resentment was *a* factor for the states that allied with Cortes, not the main or only or biggest factor for most of them, and that resentment still would not be more intense then it would be towards any capital that had rule over any other subject in history were they were conquered into it.
>>64469698
See above, they were not.
37/37 for now