Sure, but nations survived worse. Even if they endure instability, with a strong ruler they could survive.The problem even if Cortez fails the plagues will come and also mexico will kinda be screwed also with the drought of 1540
This is mostly post hoc reasoning. It's clear that modernisation wouldn't be easy, and a very possible fate for the Aztecs is eventually being annexed in some alt-colonialism. But I think this impression of the Aztecs is exaggerated. We can say that people hated them, but that's because they were recently conquered and especially because they were saying it after the Aztecs fell. If Cortez's coalition was crushed--which it could've been, then the rebellion ends and Aztec hegemony continues.This is a ridiculous statement. The Aztecs didn't simply have "bad luck"; they were in a perpetual state of untenability. The "Empire" wasn't really an empire, but a collection of largely independent states. The Aztecs can theoretically survive longer, but to the point of "modernization" is frankly fantastical. A civil war between the Acohua and the Mexica could very easily tear the Empire apart -- and rivals like the Purepecha could defeat them in any case. The Aztecs were ironically quite weak and relied on terror and violence to keep their subjects in line. And when you harbor enough enemies and the people you rule are sick of your presence, a single slip or crisis can very very quickly crash the house of cards. It's no coincidence that when the Spanish arrived, they, with their native allies, were able to induce a collapse so easily. Gold, feathers, jaguar skins, jade... getting those was hard, and for many altepemeh, it was a nightmare to get those; and often the Aztecs punished rebel subjects by making them pay in exotic items, like quetzal feathers or white deer skins. It's also the situation of the altepetl system that easily manifested Cortez's coalition. And this is just geopolitics; the introduction of disease will completely reshape the region. Most rebellions actually took place because the local rulers had their own political agenda and ambitions and didn't want to be subjects to anyone. That's why most rebellions took place in the most distant provinces, next to enemy states, like Tlaxcallan; and they were mostly carried out during monarchic transitions in Tenochtitlan. And when the Triple Alliance starts to weaken, they are going to quickly jump ship.
At this point, it's just "What if the Triple Alliance survived", and in which case it'd be a landlock rump state.
We know for that nearby Teotihuacan was powerful and influential for nearly 3 centuries, and while the details are unknown, they were installing kings as far away as the Yucatan Peninsula, or at the very least acting in a way that made it very wise for Maya kings to adapt Teotihuacan styles and in the process were obtaining Maya to sacrifice. So there's nothing inherently wrong with the Mesoamerican political system to build longlasting empires with widespread influence. And should the Aztecs truly have been brutal by the standards of their region, then it could be mitigated by decrees of rulers or lack of sacrificial victims during the crucial period in the 16th century.