Could Crusader level technology Europeans have successfully conquered the Americas?

[Workable Goblin]

Because Europeans (and other foreigners) were constantly there in Hawaii for all those years, and constantly coming into those lands. How many Europeans will visit the trans-Appalachian South or Midwest in the Middle Ages? Not many.

How many Europeans visited the trans-Appalachian South or Midwest in the early modern period? Not many. It wasn't really until the late 18th and early 19th century that there were large European populations away from the coast of North America (or even large portions of South America). And I'm confused about why you're bringing up the interior of North America as if it's a big trump card, because, first of all, I never claimed that Europeans would be able to conquer it (or, indeed, conquer anywhere easily; merely that it is plausible that they could conquer some regions) and because, secondly, I barely even mentioned conquest at all. My point was just that WeissRaban was being overly optimistic in the demographic impacts of Eurasian diseases, and I brought up Hawaii because it's a well-documented example and lacks the element of direct colonialism often (now) blamed for the severity of the death rates in the Americas.

And of course I know Europeans were constantly there in Hawaii; that's why I explicitly mentioned that WeissRaban was being overly optimistic in the case of "intensive contact". Obviously areas that do not see intensive contact but just a few maybe infectious travelers every now and then will not suffer as much from disease. The point was just to emphasize that you don't need colonization as such to see major death rates in naive populations.

All you'll get is enclaves on the coast, and maybe some European-influenced Amerindians.

Well, duh? I don't think anyone's been claiming that medieval Europeans could conquer all of the Americas in the short-term. Certainly my notion was more that crusaders might be able to carve out (not necessarily very large) empires in Mesoamerica, perhaps some accessible areas of South America and the Caribbean, and coastal regions of North America--you know, exactly the places that OTL Europeans were able to establish toeholds. In the long-term, though, these could very well prove to be a base for European conquest of the continent, much as similar coastal enclaves proved in our history. I wouldn't say that this is necessarily likely, since it is probably the case that the Native Americans can more easily "catch up" with whatever areas that the Europeans are ahead in and then have a major demographic advantage over European settlers--but on the other hand such enclaves also proved to be a base for conquest in the case of India, which wasn't particularly behind and certainly had a major demographic advantage over the European traders who were present. So I could see it going either way in the long run.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

@metalinvader665 It would depend on the crusader force sent to subjugate these peoples. One may argue, the medieval war machine was better equipped to deal with Indigenous American warfare than the modern european tactics. Mainly because in Europe, heavy armors had become obsolete often, thus giving more credence to bows. In medieval armies of Europe, knights had armor that could force recurve bow fires from Saljuq horse archers to bounce off in high numbers. Thus, the same sort of well placed bow shots will not damage a mounted medieval horseman of the period to the same degree as the cloth clad modern european horseman.

Middle age armies also have ready access to crossbows and longbows that will present great damage to an American company. As was the case with the Spaniards at Otumba, the most effective weapons were those the Spaniards possessed for centuries, such as swords (lacked by Americans), pikes, crossbows, horse charges, maces, axes and their heavier armor.

Ultimately it will certainly be a more gradual campaign and european settlement would be limited. However, do not underestimate a medieval army from Europe or China or the Islamic world.

 

[Arkenfolm]

How many Europeans visited the trans-Appalachian South or Midwest in the early modern period? Not many. It wasn't really until the late 18th and early 19th century that there were large European populations away from the coast of North America (or even large portions of South America). And I'm confused about why you're bringing up the interior of North America as if it's a big trump card, because, first of all, I never claimed that Europeans would be able to conquer it (or, indeed, conquer anywhere easily; merely that it is plausible that they could conquer some regions) and because, secondly, I barely even mentioned conquest at all. My point was just that WeissRaban was being overly optimistic in the demographic impacts of Eurasian diseases, and I brought up Hawaii because it's a well-documented example and lacks the element of direct colonialism often (now) blamed for the severity of the death rates in the Americas.

And of course I know Europeans were constantly there in Hawaii; that's why I explicitly mentioned that WeissRaban was being overly optimistic in the case of "intensive contact". Obviously areas that do not see intensive contact but just a few maybe infectious travelers every now and then will not suffer as much from disease. The point was just to emphasize that you don't need colonization as such to see major death rates in naive populations.

Even in the coastal area, there's plenty of areas where substantial populations will be able to resist. It won't be hard to carve out a few enclaves on the coast. But further beyond that? It's an endless fight against barbarians. I'm mostly questioning the idea of crusaders claiming victory as "easy" as later Euroamericans did.

I mainly bring up the trans-Appalachian region because the 11th-14th century was somewhat of a "golden age" for the native civilisation (although that was the case on the coast too), and the idea that any Old World group could secure rule over it is rather doubtful. It's a big dent in the idea medieval Europeans can conquer the area, let alone the Americas.

Well, duh? I don't think anyone's been claiming that medieval Europeans could conquer all of the Americas in the short-term. Certainly my notion was more that crusaders might be able to carve out (not necessarily very large) empires in Mesoamerica, perhaps some accessible areas of South America and the Caribbean, and coastal regions of North America--you know, exactly the places that OTL Europeans were able to establish toeholds. In the long-term, though, these could very well prove to be a base for European conquest of the continent, much as similar coastal enclaves proved in our history. I wouldn't say that this is necessarily likely, since it is probably the case that the Native Americans can more easily "catch up" with whatever areas that the Europeans are ahead in and then have a major demographic advantage over European settlers--but on the other hand such enclaves also proved to be a base for conquest in the case of India, which wasn't particularly behind and certainly had a major demographic advantage over the European traders who were present. So I could see it going either way in the long run.

More or less, I agree. But even coastal Mesoamerica won't just roll over, especially since it's less likely there will be a lot of cavalry involved, and gunpowder is out of the question. Even the Taino of the Caribbean will be a challenge, although seizing some island in the Bahamas might be doable. Settling Bermuda would be helpful.

@metalinvader665 It would depend on the crusader force sent to subjugate these peoples. One may argue, the medieval war machine was better equipped to deal with Indigenous American warfare than the modern european tactics. Mainly because in Europe, heavy armors had become obsolete often, thus giving more credence to bows. In medieval armies of Europe, knights had armor that found force recurve fires bows from Saljuq horse archers to bounce off in high numbers. Thus, the same sort of well placed bow shots will not damage a mounted medieval horseman of the period to the same degree as the cloth clad modern european horseman.

Middle age armies also have ready access to crossbows and longbows that will present great damage to an American company. As was the case with the Spaniards at Otumba, the most effective weapons were those the Spaniards possessed for centuries, such as swords (lacked by Americans), pikes, crossbows, horse charges, maces, axes and their heavier armor.

Ultimately it will certainly be a more gradual campaign and european settlement would be limited. However, do not underestimate a medieval army from Europe or China or the Islamic world.

It's a logistics problem. They can't fight well without people bringing food, repairs, etc. If we're speaking of the same post-Mississippians groups who gave Spain in the 16th century plenty of problems or the coastal Indians who caused plenty of problems for the British in the 17th century, then there will be a problem in fighting them. The single best tactic is to go scorched earth and sack enemy villages and towns, just like OTL natives and Euroamerican colonists. But I'm thinking the same sort of issues which led to St. Clair's defeat would be compounded here even worse. Yes, medieval armies often won victories against more "primitive" forces (i.e. Northern Crusades), but when you're thousands of kilometers from home and with no allies but a few hundred people in your settlement, you don't have much advantage. Disease will kill your enemy well, but it will take decades before they're beaten down by it. The model here is more like the French model, where we have our crusader "colonists" as a new "tribe" in the area with nice goods to trade. Sure, they're pretty violent, but it will be hard for the locals to say no to their iron tools and weapons. But I don't think they have enough manpower to subdue more than some coastal villages in their "crusade".

 

[Basileus444]

(Leaving aside that Crusades-era Europe doesn't have the maritime tech for sending forces to the New World)

The medieval conquistadors would have horses and steel and smallpox still; the only significant military technology missing from Cortes' kit is gunpowder. That would make things more difficult, particularly in any urban or naval battles, but the heavy lifter, smallpox, is still in play.

But if this is taking place in, say, 1200, Mexican geopolitics are completely different. When Cortes showed up, there was a despised hegemon, the Aztecs, in place, so he was able to recruit literally hundreds of thousands of native allied soldiers in the fight against Tenochtitlan, and then take the Aztecs' place after they were conquered. But in 1200, there is no great native empire (are the Aztecs even in the Valley of Mexico yet?). Instead there'd be a slew of tribes and city-states, each one of which would have to be conquered piecemeal. A good political operator in command of the crusades could play divide and conquer between the various small polities and build up strength that way. But I don't see this being a Cortes-style conquest where 3 years after he arrives, the Crusader Conquistador is in charge of the place. The Crusader state that he starts may be a 'Christian Aztec Empire', in the sense that it starts out as a small player and over a few generations grows to become a dominating hegemon over the region.


Now I want to write a TL about a Byzantine expedition from Anatolia fleeing the Turks that ends up in coastal Mexico, sets up a coastal enclave, and gradually with steel and smallpox conquers the place. Alexios III Philanthropenos, Emperor of Mexico? Except I can't think of a realistic way to get them there...

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

@metalinvader665 My approach was to counter your allusion to native victories against modern lightly armored western forces, as being an example. When in my view, a medieval army would be more effective in defeating a force of lightly armored bow wielding natives than colonial troops or settlers.

I have no answer for logistics. But if a medieval old world army can interact with America as it could in its regions, then their armies will certainly hold advantages and it’ll be more difficult to adopt their system and styles of war. Mainly because in the case of otl colonialism, American indigenous peoples did not need to adopt armor or such or develop stronger bows to breach heavier armor.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

(Leaving aside that Crusades-era Europe doesn't have the maritime tech for sending forces to the New World)

The medieval conquistadors would have horses and steel and smallpox still; the only significant military technology missing from Cortes' kit is gunpowder. That would make things more difficult, particularly in any urban or naval battles, but the heavy lifter, smallpox, is still in play.

But if this is taking place in, say, 1200, Mexican geopolitics are completely different. When Cortes showed up, there was a despised hegemon, the Aztecs, in place, so he was able to recruit literally hundreds of thousands of native allied soldiers in the fight against Tenochtitlan, and then take the Aztecs' place after they were conquered. But in 1200, there is no great native empire (are the Aztecs even in the Valley of Mexico yet?). Instead there'd be a slew of tribes and city-states, each one of which would have to be conquered piecemeal. A good political operator in command of the crusades could play divide and conquer between the various small polities and build up strength that way. But I don't see this being a Cortes-style conquest where 3 years after he arrives, the Crusader Conquistador is in charge of the place. The Crusader state that he starts may be a 'Christian Aztec Empire', in the sense that it starts out as a small player and over a few generations grows to become a dominating hegemon over the region.


Now I want to write a TL about a Byzantine expedition from Anatolia fleeing the Turks that ends up in coastal Mexico, sets up a coastal enclave, and gradually with steel and smallpox conquers the place. Alexios III Philanthropenos, Emperor of Mexico? Except I can't think of a realistic way to get them there...

This is a good point. A crusader state that joins the fabric of mesoamerican geopolitics as a minor hegemony, but not total control. Interesting.

 

[Michael B]

The model here is more like the French model, where we have our crusader "colonists" as a new "tribe" in the area with nice goods to trade. Sure, they're pretty violent, but it will be hard for the locals to say no to their iron tools and weapons. But I don't think they have enough manpower to subdue more than some coastal villages in their "crusade".

This is a very good way of looking at the situation. After all look how much of the Middle East the Crusaders actually captured. Moreover, look at what they did not capture, eg Damascus.

A North American Crusade has a manpower problem as did OTL Outremer. Want to be a Crusader? You can go to Spain, which is nearer for a lot of wannabes.

So a crusade as described is launched against the pagans of the New World and a few coastal villages fall. Then build some form of castle as a tradepost and unlike the Muslims the locals will never get the Crusaders out because they don't have siege techniques. As someone will always do business for goodies the castle-tradeposts remain and as more Crusaders come in more get built.

So this is slower occupation than on OTL, but it is achievable with the technology available.

 

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

Honestly? Yes.

The key is the infrastructure involved. I'm sure it has been said already, but your best Crusade route would really have to be a sustained Vinland scenario.

If I can offer a PoD for this - the Vikings are rebuffed at Lindesfarne, and this makes the British Isles less of a prospect for raids. Instead this leads to a positive trade relationship, with the Danes/Norwegians instead going to Iceland, Greenland and Vinland - crucially they are trading with the British Isles, effectively creating a cold "Med" in the North Atlantic and North Seas. Not to say that they don't raid elsewhere (potentially injecting gold into this northern trade network) but we see that northern economy grow much larger rather than having it tear itself to pieces with wars to unite it as an Empire.

We see similar factors lead to the conversion of the Scandinavians, including Vinland via trade and pressure.

What we then have is a Christian Vinland that was larger and more well developed, and a stronger economy backing it. I think this should survive, and expose this Northern Christendom to the "heathens" of the New World.

When the Crusades have begun to kick off, these make sense as targets for Northern Crusaders. English, Irish, Scottish, Welsh, Danish, Norwegian Crusaders could effectively organise and campaign from Vinland. None of this really leads to a great capture of wealth like in the Levant, but it does mean vast estates, especially if the Crusaders keep following the coast - which I expect they would do, and when they find gold? That'd change the game, and bring others too.

So yeah - it IS possible with Crusader tech - but only because the numbers that can be brought to bear are slightly absurd, alongside the horsemanship and martial equipment of Europe. The key is that you need that strong northern economy for the northern route to be used early, so we can see Vinland be the staging ground for the Western Crusades.

 

[Michael B]

The key is that you need that strong northern economy for the northern route to be used early, so we can see Vinland be the staging ground for the Western Crusades.

Furs would provide the economy although the New World Crusaders would be in competition with Scandinavia and Muscovy. Dried fish (cod) could supplement the trade.

 

[SwampTiger]

From what I have read of the period, no. The Europeans were too disorganized at the time to conquer the Americas. Could they have established a strong, surviving colony, or group of colonies? Yes.

The technology differences would allow a level of success, but not enough to overcome the multiple tribal structures they would face. Over time, and after multiple plagues/disease outbreaks, the new counties/duchies/kinglets could expand away from coastal settlements. After several centuries, you could have settlements deep in the interior. Unless a major gold or silver strike is found in a less populated area, the European focus will remain at home or in the Near East.

In other words, you need a strong draw. The Crusades were a religious, economic and population pressure release for Europe. They ran along established, well used trade routes. America has no Jerusalem. The knowledge of its wealth is still unknown.

 

[Gloss]

A compilation of some of the probles to solve to allow people in this period(850-1350) to approach the New world:

->Lack of naval technology

Possible solutions:

-Earlier integration between Mediterranean and Atlantic/North Sea navies
-Earlier pressure and incentives for oceanic travel
-Bigger amount of long distance sea trade


->Lack of knowledge/lack of incentives to explore

Possible solutions:

-Earlier challenges to the Italian dominance over the European trade in the East
-More lingering information about the Viking explorations/settlements, with potential propaganda

->Lack of available states/organizations

Possible solutions:

-Stable Anglo-Saxon England
-Faster Reconquista
-Stronger Hansa

>>>Proposed changes:

-Quicker reconquista in the 10th and 11th century. Earlier Iberian Atlantic states, free to challenged Italian dominance.
-No OTL Vikings or Normans(important for England and HRE), maybe pushing the Vikings towards the Atlantic coast(Western France, Iberia and Celtic fringe? Macaronesia and Morocco too?), possible discovery of Madeira and Azores
-Earlier Nordic Crusades? Strenghtens the Hansa and the North Sea trade routes.
-Norwegian "Normandy" in the Netherlands(transfer of knowledge, better access to the North Sea?)
-Earlier adoption of cannons, focus on bigger ships, more oceanic fishing

 

[SwampTiger]

Larger/better ship technology is not really needed. Carvel built hulls are stronger, but not necessary for smaller shipping. Nails are not really needed. See Indian Ocean sewn ships sailing into the 21st century. The most worthwhile improvements are multiple masts for balanced sailing, central mounted rudders and fore/aft sails. The OTL expeditions mostly used the trade winds westward outbound and eastward inbound. The knowledge of the existance of these tradewinds was limited in the Atlantic before the 15th century.

The northern route used by the Norse, and maybe some Irish, was to skirt the northern edge of the west-east trade winds while heading west. However, they really did not take great advantage of the northern trade winds coming eastward. The Hanseatic cog was more than capable of the passage west. A balancing sail would greatly improve its seaworthiness. So any time after 1000 C.E. would do. The caravels used by the Portuguese and Spanish were smaller than these.

 

[Mitchell Hundred]

In other words, you need a strong draw. The Crusades were a religious, economic and population pressure release for Europe. They ran along established, well used trade routes. America has no Jerusalem. The knowledge of its wealth is still unknown.

Unless you can get a religious figure to claim it's located in Missouri?

 

[Tripledot]

I mean, it's not like Cortez or Pizarro conquered what they did solely due to their technological advantage. Their use of native allies, trickery, and frankly-insane luck was what helped them most. I don't really see the situation being all that different had they lacked gunpowder.

 

[SwampTiger]

The "frankly-insane luck" of Pizarro and Cortez was near ASB levels. Each expedition survived several near death experiences. The very centralized political structures of the Inca and Aztec were helpful for the Spaniards. The internal rebellions/civil wars of the natives hindered coordinated defenses of the central polities. Add in the pressures on the societies and economies from war and disease which destroyed the ability of the surviving governmental/religious institutions to react.

The shock of gunpowder, metal arms and horses of the Spaniards quickly faded. The well disciplined, coordinated, though small, forces of the Spaniards proved more useful in combat and in drawing allies against their opponents.

Technology had little to do with the final outcome.

 

[RGB]

The "frankly-insane luck" of Pizarro and Cortez was near ASB levels. Each expedition survived several near death experiences.

Those particular expeditions were lucky. Sure. And they could have failed. But here's the thing: there is a near-endless list of small Spanish and Portuguese expeditions that were lost to the man. Didn't stop subsequent, equally small expeditions conquering an incredible proportion of wherever they landed.

I basically can't comprehend how someone can look at what was happening around the world at the time and decide that these two expeditions are somehow more representative of "luck" than the other hundreds of conquests are representative of a solid pattern.

I mean, even Alvarado's experience is an immediate counter-argument to any "only the Aztecs could have been conquered" claims. And if it's not warfare technology that won Alvarado his conquests, then what was it?

 

[Gloss]

The "frankly-insane luck" of Pizarro and Cortez was near ASB levels. Each expedition survived several near death experiences. The very centralized political structures of the Inca and Aztec were helpful for the Spaniards. The internal rebellions/civil wars of the natives hindered coordinated defenses of the central polities. Add in the pressures on the societies and economies from war and disease which destroyed the ability of the surviving governmental/religious institutions to react.

The shock of gunpowder, metal arms and horses of the Spaniards quickly faded. The well disciplined, coordinated, though small, forces of the Spaniards proved more useful in combat and in drawing allies against their opponents.

Technology had little to do with the final outcome.

I don't get this argument, if technology doesn't matter here of all places, it stands to reason that it shouldn't matter anywhere and that's clearly not the case.

 

[SwampTiger]

Ignore the technology and look at the military/social/political/religious organization of the Spaniards. The Conquistadors, named for the recently completed Reconquista, had just completed the long, arduous war versus a religious and cultural opponent spanning over ten centuries. They were raised to view war as a path to social and economic advancement. The large, relatively landless mass of young men seeking advancement left Spain towards Europe and and Mediterranean wars once the Hapsburgs took the throne. Many young men focused upon the new land to the west. These men threw their entire lives into the search for land, wealth and power. Then, they learned of the wealth of the Mexicans. The expedition led by Cortez was the largest force in the Mexico gathered to that point. Its success was due less to steel, horses and gunpowder, than to organization, singleness of purpose and the discipline of men marching knowingly into an actual Valley of Death. They were defeated and escaped out of the city. Throughout the campaign, the Spaniards fought as a highly coordinated unit within the mass of native allies.

The Spaniards themselves noted the dangerous weapons of the Aztecs. They noted the inability of their armor to completely protect their soldiers. Reading the accounts, you note how quickly the Aztecs attempted counters to horses and cannon. In time, disease disrupted the Aztecs and allied natives. Additional forces from Cuba resupplied the expedition after the disaster of the Noche Triste. The steady loss of population and subject tribes reduced Aztec defensive arrangements. Yet, the Spaniards fought on for God, glory and gold.

The two year campaign required the Spanish to assemble several expeditions from Cuba, assemble allied native armies, build a navy on the lake, survive several defeats, and besiege Tenochtitlan.

There were several major events within the campaign which could have destroyed the expedition.

1. Governor Velazquez could have sent a less capable commander.
2. Cortez could have failed to ally with the Totonac, and later the Tlaxcalans
3. Montezuma could have reacted forcefully to the expedition.
4. The capture of Montezuma could have failed.
5. Panfilo de Narvaez could have defeated Cortez and taken command.
6. The Aztecs could have succeded in destroying the expedition during the Noche Triste.
Okay, this is through mid-July, 1520. The Spanish are back in Tlaxcala with over half of the Spaniards dead.
Their steel, horses and gunpowder have not stopped this complete rout of their forces. Now is when disease appears in Tenochtitlan.

The Spaniards are picked up by their native allies. Gathered more men. Gathered supplies. Then, the Spaniards and allies returned to Tenochtitlan in December, 1520.

This was not a victory by technology, but one by men.

 

[Gloss]

Ignore the technology and look at the military/social/political/religious organization of the Spaniards.

Why can't I look at both?

Its success was due less to steel, horses and gunpowder, than to organization, singleness of purpose and the discipline of men marching knowingly into an actual Valley of Death. They were defeated and escaped out of the city. Throughout the campaign, the Spaniards fought as a highly coordinated unit within the mass of native allies.

Not sure why this is an argument, you seem to imply that technology DID have an effect and that's what I say, you seem the argue against the idea that it was THE most important thing but I didn't say that.

The Spaniards themselves noted the dangerous weapons of the Aztecs. They noted the inability of their armor to completely protect their soldiers.

Yes they were not space marines, that's not a surprising, British industrial weaponry didn't save everyone from the Zulu weaponry, numbers and tactics either and yet the difference was important.

Reading the accounts, you note how quickly the Aztecs attempted counters to horses and cannon.

Using the example of the Zulu, they also found ways around the difference in force, but obviously this difference still mattered.

There were several major events within the campaign which could have destroyed the expedition.

Why does technology have to be 100% deterministic to be a factor at all? This is an extreme dichotomy that shouldn't exist.

1. Governor Velazquez could have sent a less capable commander.
2. Cortez could have failed to ally with the Totonac, and later the Tlaxcalans
3. Montezuma could have reacted forcefully to the expedition.
4. The capture of Montezuma could have failed.
5. Panfilo de Narvaez could have defeated Cortez and taken command.
6. The Aztecs could have succeded in destroying the expedition during the Noche Triste.

Well many things could have gone better too(there is redundancy, considering some of those literally cause other things from not happening automatically):
1. The expedition could have been legal and had more resources from the start.
2. Smallpox could have been spread from the get go.
3. The entire Tecochtitlan captivity things could have been avoided.
4. La Noche Triste could have not happened either.
5. The siege of Tenochtitlan could have gone way better overall.

Okay, this is through mid-July, 1520. The Spanish are back in Tlaxcala with over half of the Spaniards dead.
Their steel, horses and gunpowder have not stopped this complete rout of their forces. Now is when disease appears in Tenochtitlan.

Technology could have done as little as allow Cortez to survive up until the end and this small effect would have had large consequences.
Cavalry, according to Diaz, saved the Spaniards in Otumba and even that is enough to have an huge effect, the idea proposed by you makes the importance of technology even more important, because maybe it's this factor that allowed the Conquistadors to survive those defeats.

This was not a victory by technology, but one by men.

Spoiler: Meme

 

[SwampTiger]

Sorry, I may have been a bit harsh.

Technology aided a better organized and motivated invader. The allied natives filled out the force. Without the solid discipline of the Spanish troops, they are just another small unit within the larger alliance. The armor did assist in close combat. The Aztec tactics, stressing capture of opponents, initially weakened their attacks. Once the Aztec adapted to the Spanish, they were more successful. If the number inequality was not offset by the native allies, the Spanish would have been destroyed quickly, as nearly happened on Noche Triste.

The cavalry performance before Otumba was limited by numbers. They were useful when used correctly and in adequate numbers.

The real success of the campaign was after the plague, when the Triple Alliance broke. Texcoco support allowed the invaders a secure base within the Valley of Mexico.

I think any well organized and led force of greater than 1000 European warriors could have established a secure colony on the Gulf Coast of Mexico by 300 BC. The issue is the conquest. The centralization of power in the Mexican highlands allowed for a realistic conquest of central Mexico.