Five hundred years ago, in February of 1519, the Spaniard Hernán Cortés set sail from Cuba to explore and colonize Aztec civilization in the Mexican interior. Within just two years, Aztec ruler Montezuma was dead, the capital city of Tenochtitlan was captured and Cortés had claimed the Aztec empire for Spain. Spanish weaponry and tactics played a role, but most of the destruction was wrought by epidemics of European diseases.

Conquest of the Aztec empire

After helping conquer Cuba for the Spanish, Cortés was commissioned to lead an expedition to the mainland. When his small fleet landed, he ordered his ships scuttled, eliminating any possibility of retreat and conveying the depth of his resolve.

Cortés with his 500 men then headed into the Mexican interior. This region was home to the Aztec civilization, an empire of an estimated 16 million people at this time. Through a system of conquest and tribute, the Aztecs had established the great island city of Tenochtitlan in Lake Texcoco that ruled over an area of about 80,000 square miles.

A 17th-century copper plate of Tenochtitlan. Photo By Jan Karel Donatus Van Beecq

Discovering widespread resentment toward the capital city and its ruler, Cortés formed alliances with many locals. Though vastly outnumbered, he and a small force marched on Tenochtitlan, where Montezuma received them with honor. In turn, Cortés took Montezuma prisoner.

It took Cortés two years, but he finally conquered the Aztec capital in August 1521. His ally in this fight was the European germs he and his men unwittingly brought with them.

Cortés’s microscopic secret weapon

Although Cortés was a skilled leader, he and his force of perhaps a thousand Spaniards and indigenous allies would not have been able to overcome a city of 200,000 without help. He got it in the form of a smallpox epidemic that gradually spread inward from the coast of Mexico and decimated the densely populated city of Tenochtitlan in 1520, reducing its population by 40 percent in a single year.

Smallpox is caused by an inhaled virus, which causes fever, vomiting and a rash, soon covering the body with fluid-filled blisters. These turn into scabs which leave scars. Fatal in approximately one-third of cases, another third of those afflicted with the disease typically develop blindness.

Smallpox existed in ancient times in Egyptian, Indian and Chinese cultures. It remained endemic in human populations for millennia, coming to Europe during the 11th century’s Crusades. When Europeans began to explore and colonize other parts of the world, smallpox traveled with them.

The native people of the Americas, including the Aztecs, were especially vulnerable to smallpox because they’d never been exposed to the virus and thus possessed no natural immunity. No effective anti-viral therapies were available.

Recalling the epidemic, one victim reported:

“The plague lasted for 70 days, striking everywhere in the city and killing a vast number of our people. Sores erupted on our faces, our breasts, our bellies; we were covered with agonizing sores from head to foot.”

A Franciscan monk who accompanied Cortés provided this description:

“As the Indians did not know the remedy of the disease, they died in heaps, like bedbugs. In many places it happened that everyone in a house died, and as it was impossible to bury the great number of dead, they pulled down the houses over them, so that their homes became their tombs.”

Smallpox took its toll on the Aztecs in several ways. First, it killed many of its victims outright, particularly infants and young children. Many other adults were incapacitated by the disease – because they were either sick themselves, caring for sick relatives and neighbors, or simply lost the will to resist the Spaniards as they saw disease ravage those around them. Finally, people could no longer tend to their crops, leading to widespread famine, further weakening the immune systems of survivors of the epidemic.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5760553&forum_id=2#49170660)

Yes — **ancient Greece and Rome had far more direct contact with ancient India** than northern or western Europe did in the same periods.

Here’s the breakdown:

---

## **1. Geographic & Maritime Advantage**

* **Greece & Rome** (especially after Rome absorbed Egypt in 30 BCE) had access to the **Red Sea and Arabian Sea** trade routes via the Nile and ports like Berenike and Myos Hormos.

* This connected them directly to **Indian ports** such as Muziris (Kerala), Barygaza (Gujarat), and Barbarikon (near Karachi).

* **Northern and western Europe** (Britain, Germany, Gaul) had no such routes — all trade from India reached them only through intermediaries in the Mediterranean.

---

## **2. Trade Evidence**

* **Roman coins** (especially gold aurei) have been found in large numbers in South India, especially in Tamil Nadu and Kerala.

* Indian goods in Rome included **pepper, silk, gemstones, ivory, cotton textiles** — so much pepper was imported that Pliny the Elder complained about Rome’s gold draining to India.

* **Northern/western Europe** received only small amounts of these goods, mostly via Roman redistribution.

---

## **3. Cultural & Diplomatic Links**

* Greek historians like **Megasthenes** lived in India (as ambassadors to the Mauryan court in Pataliputra around 300 BCE).

* Greco-Bactrian and Indo-Greek kingdoms ruled parts of northwest India (2nd century BCE), meaning there was **actual Greek settlement in India**.

* Roman writers such as **Strabo, Pliny, Ptolemy** described Indian geography in detail — knowledge that northern/western Europe didn’t have firsthand.

---

## **4. Northern/Western Europe’s Isolation**

* In the **Iron Age and Roman period**, northern and western Europe were peripheral to the global trade networks.

* Their connection to India was **entirely mediated by the Mediterranean world**, mainly through Rome.

* A person in ancient Britain might own an Indian gemstone — but it likely passed through **India → Arabian Sea → Egypt → Rome → Gaul → Britain**.

---

✅ **Conclusion:**

Ancient Greece and Rome had *orders of magnitude* more contact with India — both direct and indirect — than northern or western Europe did.

Only in the **Age of Discovery (\~1500 CE)** did northern/western Europeans (Portuguese, Dutch, English) begin matching or surpassing that level of interaction.

---

If you want, I can give you a **timeline of every known Greco-Roman–Indian contact event** so you can see exactly how sustained it was. That would make the contrast even sharper.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5760553&forum_id=2#49170769)

Greek stereotypes and impressions of Indians

Exotic and distant: Indians were often portrayed as people of an exotic and almost mythical land at the far edge of the known world.

Philosophical and ascetic: Greeks admired Indian philosophers (Brahmins), seeing them as ascetics practicing self-denial and wisdom—comparable to Greek Cynics or Stoics.

Notable Greek accounts

Megasthenes: Praised Indian society as orderly and just, highlighting the caste system and religious practices.

Strabo: Discussed India in his Geography, mixing reliable info with secondhand stories.

Pliny the Elder: Detailed India’s riches but also included some fanciful tales.

5. Overall Greek view

Greeks saw India as a land of wealth, wisdom, and mystery, populated by people who were both admirable (philosophers, disciplined) and alien (exotic customs, distant geography).

India was part of the eastern “other” in Greek worldview—both respected and misunderstood

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5760553&forum_id=2#49170812)

now u get mad at jose doing the same?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5760553&forum_id=2#49170665)

but really one thing no one talks abt is that a TON of birdshits who migrated actually moved back, incl trumps nazi german grandfather i think

so when idiots act like their ancestors were all patriotic and assimilated immediately ljl many were just trying it out and many left and went back

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5760553&forum_id=2#49170689)

The resource draw was a factor but it was largely due to religious and especially economic oppression from calcified and stratified European class systems

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5760553&forum_id=2#49170747)

The indians bring India with them and don't meaningfully try to integrate into American culture imo

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5760553&forum_id=2#49171008)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5760553&forum_id=2#49170759)

sounds retarded, saar

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5760553&forum_id=2#49171057)

Agree re stupidity of importing hordes of blacks

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5760553&forum_id=2#49171067)