Who would win if the two forces ever met?

The Ewoks

Infraction for spam. Pls don't. Thanks. - KD

Who would win if the two forces ever met?

They did meet... Surely, you must know who won.

The Ewoks

Infraction for spam. Pls don't. Thanks. - KD

In Annex's defense, it's hard to take the OP's question seriously. It's no different than asking, "what would happen if Europeans discovered a continent in the Western Hemisphere?" I don't get it.

In Annex's defense, it's hard to take the OP's question seriously. It's no different than asking, "what would happen if Europeans discovered a continent in the Western Hemisphere?" I don't get it.
That is because the thread is basically just a satire of the other stupid comparisons of various historically divorced militaries, and not actually meant for real discussion.

They did meet... Surely, you must know who won.

Ultimately true but I don't think it was as clear cut as that. I know the OP thread isn't serious but it's worth saying that Cortez and his men came pretty close to being wiped out and actually defeating the Aztecs and capturing Tenochtitlan was quite a drawn out affair even with more advanced weapons, reinforcements and tens of thousands of Tlaxcala allies not to mention the biological advantage that the Spanish enjoyed.

In Annex's defense, it's hard to take the OP's question seriously. It's no different than asking, "what would happen if Europeans discovered a continent in the Western Hemisphere?" I don't get it.Much as I would like to shut this down, unfortunately I also can't shut every one of them down so long as there's the slightest room for discussion generally...

You shld just ignore threads and posts, if you have nothing further to add.

Also in future, pls do not discuss moderator actions in public (it is in fact an infractable offense in itself) - you shld send me a PM. ;)

Ultimately true but I don't think it was as clear cut as that. I know the OP thread isn't serious but it's worth saying that Cortez and his men came pretty close to being wiped out and actually defeating the Aztecs and capturing Tenochtitlan was quite a drawn out affair even with more advanced weapons, reinforcements and tens of thousands of Tlaxcala allies not to mention the biological advantage that the Spanish enjoyed.Reason why I didn't lock the thread right away...

It wasn't a straightforward conclusion. If it weren't for the many local allies the Spanish found to fight the Aztecs, as well as the Aztec leadership's delusions about 'gods returning from the east', and other factors, I think Cortez and his party could just as very easily been wiped out.

And not even the Aztecs alone. The Tlaxtcalans could have as easily wiped out the conquistadors out as well (which they almost did at one point).

Cortéz was VEEERY lucky, but he was also very SMART. Aztecs were hated by pretty much everybody in the neigbourhood so he used the other tribes against them.

If he failed, others would not. It was just a matter of time before diseases reduce the Aztec population and before Europeans conquer them because of the gold they had.

The Spaniards would win unless they threw a heart-ripping competition.

That is because the thread is basically just a satire of the other stupid comparisons of various historically divorced militaries, and not actually meant for real discussion.
Someone who didn't get the joke is probably kicking himself for not mooting this thread topic first. Which is to say that this vein of discussion has gone so far as to actually be beyond parody.

Umm... I'd gotta say the Aztecs would have won. They only lost because they tried to capture the Spaniards and sacrifice them. So, if the Aztecs just tried to kill them, they would have won. How could you explain Shaka and the one battle he won against the British that used gunpowder? How could you explain the 300 Spartans?:They only lost because of a Greek traitor that helped Xerxes because he thought he would get rich or recieve a prize.

Umm... I'd gotta say the Aztecs would have won. They only lost because they tried to capture the Spaniards and sacrifice them. So, if the Aztecs just tried to kill them, they would have won.

They did try to kill them, and failed. Granted, that was after the spanish managed to kill most of the aztec ruling class with a surprise attack (ok, treachery, so Cortéz was smart...), but if the spanish could break out from a siege inside Tenochitlan, I don't think that the aztec could beat them on open battle. Still they could have won against Cortéz (postponing the inevitable for a few years), depending on tactics and luck.

How could you explain Shaka and the one battle he won against the British that used gunpowder?

You might as well mention Isandlwana some 50 years later, where the british managed to lose despite having even breech-loading rifles available! (in fact I do believe you meant that one...)
That battle just proved that incompetent command, and underestimating the enemy, is always dangerous. But I couldn't compare it to the fighting during the spanish conquest of Mexico. To start with, the zulus had better tactics than the aztecs, and they had not been totally isolated from their new enemies. And then I'd say that should a fight be joined under unfavourable circumstances for the invader (surprise attack) late medieval/renaissance spanish soldiers, combining armor, bladed weapons and arquebuses, were probably better armed to fight off the aztecs that the 19th century british at Isandlwana, who suffered from limited ammunition and ended up having to fight with bayonets against spears (no advantage).

How could you explain the 300 Spartans?:They only lost because of a Greek traitor that helped Xerxes because he thought he would get rich or recieve a prize.

First, the greeks entrenched there were not 300. Second, they'd lose anyway, the persians were simply smart enough to win as easily as they could. Why waste more soldiers with frontal assaults if they could outflank the enemy?
And I don't get how this last part of your argument would fit with the rest. Were you trying to argue that the numerically superior army would win, or the opposite?

But the Spartan's spears would be taller if you measured it to my closet! Persia used swords, shorter spears, and only a few bows, and maybe a couple chariots being slaughtered ruthlessly to the phalanx and hoplites. Zululand? The Aztecs beat the Zulu, hands down. Azteca had way more soldiers than Zululand, and the Zulu had only about 1,000,000 in their total numbers. The Aztecs with the triple alliance had about 1,200,000 soldiers. Oh, and remember La Noche Triste? Where the Spanish lost most of it's army both fighting AND escaping with the gold? They lost half of their army when the boats sank.

to actual contribute to this topic:

1: The Castillian(see what I did there :mischief:) tercio were the great infantrists of the early modern age. Backed by an apolostic church and a social system which endorsed militarism heavily.

these 600 men were good troops, led by poeple who are known with warfare, and the finer arts of it. such as using diplomacy and trickery. Ruthless success though.

anyway, the governor of cuba already knew Cortéz was a tad too ambitious.

The only reason Cortez's and pals weren't wiped out is that the diseases did the most killing, and the Aztec imperialism pretty much made enemies of all nearby tribes. Even if the spanish did had muskets, horses and steel, they were just too few against a empire of millions. Like someone said, Cortez was VERY lucky and VERY smart.

The only reason Cortez's and pals weren't wiped out is that the diseases did the most killing, and the Aztec imperialism pretty much made enemies of all nearby tribes. Even if the spanish did had muskets, horses and steel, they were just too few against a empire of millions. Like someone said, Cortez was VERY lucky and VERY smart.

Funny how they managed to destroy two such empires then, both times with just a small force...

Well, the Inca were too busy with a civil war between various dead emperors (or rather the representatives of each "immortal" emperor's house), some of whom allied with the Spaniards. The current Emperor hadn't actually been coronated yet, as the old one had just died of Smallpox. A lot of the Incan army was sick before they met the Spanish. Still, they probably could have won if they knew about using anti-cavalry formations and sticking to their (in the Spanish view, haunted) roads. Firearms were good at scaring people, but they weren't really superior weapons yet once the enemy is used to the noise.



Pretty much the only time that New World diseases worked against the Conquistidors was after the Spanish destroyed the sewers Tenochtitlan, but as the sewer system had limited the native's exposure to the disease too both sides were effected pretty evenly.

I would also like to make a point that Aztec weaponry was not actually designed to kill, but rather to injure so that the wounded would survive long enough to be sacrificed. Aztec stone weapons were thus were very ineffective against Spanish steel weapons and armor.

I would also like to make a point that Aztec weaponry was not actually designed to kill, but rather to injure so that the wounded would survive long enough to be sacrificed. Aztec weapons were thus were very ineffective against Spanish steel weapons and armor.

You try piercing steel armor with obsidian which shatters, or stone which doesn't cut steel, even with weapons intended to kill.

Strangely enough, that's actually quite an interesting question. If you strip away all the historical circumstances, and present a pitched battle, it's certainly a different scenario...

I'd still go with the Spaniards, though. Unless the Aztecs vastly outnumbered them, they're tactics, not to mention their equipment, was simply far superior. The Europeans abandoned the Aztecs individualistic style of warfare in the Iron Age, so I see no reason why the Aztecs would overpower a pike-and-shot formation when similar Celtic tactics consistently failed to overpower Roman legions. True, if the Aztecs managed to break up a formation, there formidable close-quarters abilities would likely have overpowered the Spaniards, but I think that it's unlikely that the Aztecs would manage this, given that it usually took more than a headlong charge by lightly armoured troops for Europeans to break such a formation.
Certainly, if you allow the Spaniards their full military ability, and not just a Conquistador band, then the addition of swordsmen to the forces would help check even those lucky Aztec warriors who managed to penetrate the pikes.

if you don't count germ war-fare and "civil wars" in the native American Empires, I'd say the Aztecs would've beaten the Spanish, simply due to size. Since the continents were so far away, it would've been harder at that time for Spain to send a massive army over there for that purpose, but since germs wiped a lot out, and it was easy to cut down the opponent who was already on the ground, that's how Spain won.... well... essentially. Spain did have superior weapons and excellent horse skills