The proof is in the pudding. You can not conquer with so few so much unless, the locals welcome you as a useful liberator from grotesq tyranny and try to use you as a tool of liberation. The conquistadores are a display of how volatile tyranny based empires are. To then only be replaced by even more tyranny, after the chaos of revolution and disease.

Here is the main cause why the conquistadores won:

80-90% of the natives died from European diseases before they had a chance to oppose the invaders. This was purely accidental! 300 years before germ theory, no one knew how and why this happened, but in the end conquering nations that were mostly dead already isn't that hard.

Of course, the conquistadores were incredibly cruel by modern standards, as were the natives. But that's not why they won.

> the European explorers and colonists did commit horrific crimes against humanity

not only horrific but the biggest hollocaust in the entire human history, with around 34 million people killed from 1500 up to 2025

with that said, people romanticize them too much. canibalism, war and also a (probably) big impact in one of the most rich ecosystems of Earth: the Amazon was ripped with their practices of burning stuff and planting dominant species among the forest that reduced for sure the amount of biodiversity in their +15,000 years of existence there. tho not defending EU ppl ripping out their forest till the border of rivers

The Aztecs in particular were kind of uniquely terrible, both for their own citizens and for every oppressed pseudo-vassal-state around them. It's one of those weird accidents of history that Spanish colonizers were able to step into the power vacuum after the fall of Tenochtitlan and have at least some people genuinely think 'yes, this is better than the last boss'.

While I have no doubt that most Western colonial empires did not have the conquered's best interests at heart, I've read a theory (particularly about the Spaniards and Portugese in Latin America), is just Westerners are in aggregate were just better at running civilization, which is a horrible crime to utter in some circles, but I feel like the evolution of Western systems of governance, diplomacy, technology, culture made it superior to most civilizations in the marketplace of ideas.

One could see the mass appeal of a faraway king who promises three square meals, a decent lodging, a reasonable legal system, and preaches unconditional brotherly love, to every human being. And even if some of those things are only true some of the time, when taken in aggregate, this led to these people winning just often enough that the scales tipped in their favor over time.

And while most non-Western civilizations were certainly superior over certain time periods in some aspect, those who ended up not being conquered, either had constant contact with the West to know what to expect, or recognized their own shortcomings and rapidly endeavored to remedy them.

I don't think military conquest of a faraway land can be maintained without the consent of the populance, certainly not as a profitable endeavor, and that usually involves offering something to the populance they couldn't get otherwise.

There are plenty of examples of people subjugated for centuries who have kept their religion, customs and identity, likewise most of the jihadists who shout 'Death To America!' probably still like Star Wars.