Mexico Without Spain: The Counterfactual Debate

Mexico Without Spain: The Country That Never Existed

Mexico did not exist before 1519. What we now call Mexico was a mosaic of kingdoms, tribes, and lordships in constant conflict, with the Aztec Empire as a tributary and sacrificial power. Based on this reality, the question "What would Mexico have been like without the Spanish?" triggers a counterfactual exercise that has recently generated 158 contributions and an uncomfortable conclusion: there probably would be no Mexico at all.

The most cited projection, attributed to an AI, argues that without the Spanish conquest, the territory would today be "a highly developed nation, with its own technological advances and a cultural identity deeply rooted in pre-Hispanic roots." The majority response in the debate is that this image is fantasy: the most repeated scenario involves late conquest by another European power—British, French, or Dutch—with an exploitation model similar to India, resulting in a country with Anglo-Saxon surnames, northern phenotypes, and architectural heritage mirroring that of the United States.

What Was Mexico Before the Arrival of the Spanish?

There was no nation, nor even the concept of one. There was an archipelago of peoples with different languages, gods, and enemies. The Aztec state lived off tribute extraction and human sacrifice as tools of control, a model that several participants describe as unsustainable in the long term: without enemies to sacrifice, the system's internal logic exhausts itself.

Some take the argument to the extreme: the Aztecs "had already consumed almost all their neighbors," and faced with a lack of raw material, they would have ended up consuming each other. It is a hypothesis, not a fact, but it summarizes the general tone: the idea of a harmonious and prosperous pre-Hispanic Mexico does not hold up against what is known.

The Counterfactual Few Question: Others Would Have Arrived

The broadest consensus in the debate is that isolation was impossible to maintain. If Castile did not arrive in the 16th century, England, France, or the Netherlands would arrive decades later. And the model would have been different: less mixing, more segregation, more extermination.

A recurring argument compares this with the north of the continent: the Thirteen Colonies functioned as a zone of European settlement because indigenous density was low. Mexico was much more populated, so any conquering power would have ended up creating a mestizo society stratified by race, just as New Spain did. The difference would not lie in the mixing, but in who managed it.

New Spain Was Rich: The Data That Surprises

One of the most repeated points is economic. In 1800, the Viceroyalty of New Spain was one of the most prosperous territories in the world, above Spain and far ahead of a nascent United States. The figure circulating in the debate is striking: the viceroyalty exported 25 times more than the United States at those dates.

It is also recalled that 75% of the current United States—Texas, California, Florida—was part of the Spanish empire. That is, much of what is now presented as an Anglo-Saxon power was built on Hispanic vice-regal structures. The counterfactual, then, is not "rich Mexico versus poor Mexico," but which European power would have capitalized that territory.

The Minority Thesis: Intellectual Development as a Variable

One stream of the debate introduces a biological and cognitive development factor to explain differences in development between regions. It argues that the average level of intellectual development of populations explains why some areas pogre and others did not after the arrival of Europeans. This is a controversial thesis, unsupported by the material beyond the assertion of whoever formulates it, and the article presents it as an opinion, not a fact.

In contrast, other participants emphasize that civilization and the State do not depend on the age of a metal: there were societies with bronze and iron before Europe. The discussion shifts toward democracy: it is argued that choosing rulers in assembly was a prior tribal practice, and that indirect democracy emerged when the population grew too large for direct participation.

The Final Twist: Indigenismo as Distraction

The debate closes with a political twist. An opinion is cited stating that contemporary indigenism "never comes from indigenous peoples," but from urban ideologues, and serves to fragment further. The underlying argument: Mexico is falling apart due to violence, corruption, and drug trafficking, not because of Spain, and blaming the colonial past distracts from present problems.

The discussion stops there, unresolved. There is no consensus on whether, without Spain, Mexico would be a power today, a failed British colony, or simply another country. The only clear thing is that modern Mexico cannot be understood without Spain, and that the counterfactual exercise says more about those who perform it than about the past.