> they only survived because they were better at politics than the Aztecs, and made many regional alliances. And because they got extremely lucky. According to

> they only survived because they were better at politics than the Aztecs, and made many regional alliances. And because they got extremely lucky. According to 1491, this myth is inaccurate. I believe Mann's argument is more along the likes of "if Genghis Khan came through Europe during the black plague, none of us would be speaking Romance languages". I am also sure bringing a disease that wipes out 30-90+% of your enemy should not be considered luck. I do believe the metaphor is apt, because it's a story of leaders who come in loud, destroy things, but are lauded as civilizers or advancers of humanity. We have no counterfactual for post-1491 in the Americas, but there are reasonable arguments that indigenous people were more advanced in a number of fields.