Aztecs vs. Romans

[Alpine Trooper]

In a game of Civilization the player can easily match up some of the greatest civilizations against each other in a contest of domination. But what would really happen if two great powers were pitted against each other in a struggle for survival?

Imagine if Caesar's empire and Montezuma's empire were linked together by land and water during the height of their reign and both were to go to war.

Who would win? The Romans or the Aztecs.

I would argue in favour of the Aztecs but I'll abstain from providing my reasoning until later.

 

[Fifty]

Wasn't Caesar's empire much, much larger than Montezumas?

 

[Evil Tyrant]

Rome would win, they have horses, Iron and are heavily armed and armored. The Aztecs would be difficult to subdue and it might take several wars, but Rome would win in the end.

 

[Alpine Trooper]

Wasn't Caesar's empire much, much larger than Montezumas?

Depends how you look at it I suppose. Land size, population, etc...

 

[Own]

Jaguar warriors stand no chance to the 3/3/1 legionaries

I think it would be Rome, cause their army was so organized and powerful.

 

[Insane_Panda]

Rome. Steel beats obsidian and jaguar pelts, end of story. Rome was centuries ahead of the Aztecs even though the Aztecs existed centuries after Rome.

 

[Alpine Trooper]

But the Aztecs would not engage Rome in a direct battle. How would Rome combat the raids that highly educated (martial arts) warriors made upon them? Or the sheer quantity of Aztec warriors.

The Aztec had metal weapons aswell.

 

[LLXerxes]

Aztecs, compared to the Romans, had primitive weapons. The Romans had the superior military, empire, amount of money, leadership, and numbers.
Then again, it would be more interesting if it was in Meso-America.

 

[Alpine Trooper]

If I am correct the Aztec also outnumbered the Romans 4 to 1. However, that isn't indictive of warriors but merely population. But its a consideration nonetheless.

 

[luiz]

The Romans had far superior weapons and strategies, not to mention a much larger and more organized army. The aztecs were very primitive compared to the romans, and wouldn't stand a chance.

 

[Alpine Trooper]

The Romans had far superior weapons and strategies, not to mention a much larger and more organized army. The aztecs were very primitive compared to the romans, and wouldn't stand a chance.

How would the Roman strategy be effective against millions of warriors making frequent raids on their marching armies - and to give the Aztecs a better chance what if the Romans were on the offensive in a south American climate and ecosystem?

 

[I am the Future]

IRON
HORSES
That beats wood and stone any day. It is realy a no brainer.
Ancient Cavalry Vs. Jaguar Warrior

 

[Alpine Trooper]

I posted this already. The Aztec had metal weapons.

 

[Chieftess]

Rome would win. The Aztecs weren't around yet.

BTW, shouldn't this be in the history forum?


And if they were linked, then the Aztecs might have horses, military trade (tactics, weaponry, metals, etc.).

If it was 1vs1 at their height, then Rome. Obsidian would shatter against metal. That's why the Aztecs had such a hard time with the Tarascans.

 

[Alpine Trooper]

And horses dont do wonders in guerilla combat.

 

[Lozzy_Ozzy]

That's what I was thinking .

 

[Narz]

The Aztecs were pretty stupid, no? Very superstitious. Didn't they get their asses kicked by a few Spainards and a few neighboring tribes?

 

[Alpine Trooper]

Spain had a secret weapon via germ warfare.

 

[Maniacal]

Well, in europe rome would win, they would lose in the thick jungles though, via germ warfare as well. It worked both ways, except the jungle diseases were a little more containiable than small pox. I declare stalemate.

 

[GenMarshall]

The might of the Roman army can certanly crush the Aztecs .