Aztecs vs Spanish

[Inhalaattori]

"Hernán Cortéz

This guy, with a few hundred free-booters, conquered modern Mexico despite being at war with his own government during the conquest. If you read Bernal Diaz, you'll encounter a whole range of anecdotes which show he was quite a character. I don't usually like to see distinctive civilizations disappear, but the Mexican Indian states, esp. the Aztecs, were as or more savage than any fiction that the sickest imagination could ever hope to contrive. It's a pleasure to know that their cannibal-sacrifice civilization was replaced. "

You know that becouse of spaniards population in Central- America dropped from 16 to 1 million. Spaniards burned people at that time as "witches". And these spaniard conquerors were just bunch of criminals.

And SPANIARDS DIDNT DESTROY aztecs alone, other indians had maybe more to do with it. Spaniards just united the tribes that opposed Aztec- Power in Mexico. There were maybe 1000 spaniards and 200 000 indian soldiers conquering Tenoctitlan, the Aztec capital. After it was conquered it was burnt to ashes and completly destroyed.

The reason why spaniards attacked aztecs was, becouse aztecs had so much cold. Spaniards didnt want do anything good to indians, they just wanted their cold.

You never should condemn things that happened so long time ago, the world was different then. We are always blind to crimes of our own time. Destroying of nature is crime of our era.

Sacrificing of people and war was also some kind of necessity in Mexico, becouse of overpopulation. If people hadnt been sacrificed in great numbers, population would have grown too much, and people would have died in famine.

Aztec had also different conception of the world than modern man. The world was different, people lived short and hard life in every case, so the death was nothing to be afraid of. In fact many who werte sacrificed died voluntarily. And aztecs werent the only one to do these sacrifices in "New World", mayans and all other Central american nations sacrificed people. Also Phoenicians sacrificed babies to their cods. Vikings hanged people in trees to please their gods...

 

[Inhalaattori]

http://www.rose-hulman.edu/~delacova/aztecs/montellano.htm

This is about aztecs and their sacrifices.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Originally posted by Inhalaattori


You know that becouse of spaniards population in Central- America dropped from 16 to 1 million. Spaniards burned people at that time as "witches". And these spaniard conquerors were just bunch of criminals.

I know, those evil Spanish B*st*rds. Evily bringing disease wherever they went.

How were they criminals? Because you decide to call them such?

A criminal is someone who breaks the law of their nation. The Conquistadors were acting on behalf of their nation. They’re heroes, not criminals!

Originally posted by Inhalaattori


The reason why spaniards attacked aztecs was, becouse aztecs had so much cold. Spaniards didnt want do anything good to indians, they just wanted their cold.

You mean Gold, right? I'm not being cheap. It's just an unfortunate mistake given I just mentioned Old World diseases!

Originally posted by Inhalaattori
"Hernán Cortéz

And SPANIARDS DIDNT DESTROY aztecs alone, other indians had maybe more to do with it. Spaniards just united the tribes that opposed Aztec- Power in Mexico. There were maybe 1000 spaniards and 200 000 indian soldiers conquering Tenoctitlan, the Aztec capital. After it was conquered it was burnt to ashes and completly destroyed.

.

Nope, the other Indians didn’t have more to do with it. These Indians you talk about are the same ones who got whipped by the Mexicans before the Spanish arrived. And they abandoned the Spanish during the hardest part of the siege of Mexico. But, no matter; I can see that you want to discredit the Spanish in every way you think you can get away with!

Originally posted by Inhalaattori
"Hernán Cortéz

You never should condemn things that happened so long time ago, the world was different then. We are always blind to crimes of our own time. Destroying of nature is crime of our era.

Sacrificing of people and war was also some kind of necessity in Mexico, becouse of overpopulation. If people hadnt been sacrificed in great numbers, population would have grown too much, and people would have died in famine.

Aztec had also different conception of the world than modern man. The world was different, people lived short and hard life in every case, so the death was nothing to be afraid of. In fact many who werte sacrificed died voluntarily. And aztecs werent the only one to do these sacrifices in "New World", mayans and all other Central american nations sacrificed people. Also Phoenicians sacrificed babies to their cods. Vikings hanged people in trees to please their gods...

Of course, this is only my opinion, but what you just said is utter hogwash. I mean, you slander and condemn the glorious conquerors of New Spain, but you tell me not to judge things in history You justify the barbaric practises of the Aztecs, but then you yourself condemn the Spanish.

Tripe, my friend

And, you think that sacrifice was a method of population control. Why were the victims eaten then? Eh? Extra food I hear you mutter! Well, why did they only consume the limbs?

Even though all that is garbage, given that you believe it, would you recommend then that the starving folk of Black Africa adopt that policy?

One of the funny things about population control, is that every society in history has a system for it! Population control my foot! Why did the Mesoamericans find that the system of sacrifice and limb-consumption was a particularly good one?


You're suffering from a severe case of inconsistent, un-historical, moral relativism! Get over it, mate

 

[Inhalaattori]

Thanks from your polite comments.
But, you are writing some rubbish also.

Its truth that Cortes or Pizarro couldnt have beaten Aztec/Incas without assistance from other indian nations. That is a FACT.

If Cortes was a hero, then Hitler was much bigger hero. These "Conquistadors" really were very often criminals. So it was not just my opinion. And these men were not thought to be heros in Spain.

I agree that sacrification of people wasnt a exactly necessity, but
Mexico was very overpopulated...

And yes, i writed cold, when i should have written GOLD. Im so sorry, you honoured centleman.

 

[Inhalaattori]

Your heroes in work. Killing unarmed aztecs. :slay:

 

[Pangur Bán]

Originally posted by Inhalaattori
Thanks from your polite comments.
But, you are writing some rubbish also.

Great!

Originally posted by Inhalaattori


Its truth that Cortes or Pizarro couldnt have beaten Aztec/Incas without assistance from other indian nations. That is a FACT.

How, pray tell me, does a hypothetical situation amount to a fact.

You're lucky that there is no rule on these boards against the hard of thought!

Originally posted by Inhalaattori


And yes, i writed cold, when i should have written GOLD. Im so sorry, you honoured centleman.

No probs, just don't do it again

 

[Pangur Bán]

Originally posted by Inhalaattori
Your heroes in work. Killing unarmed aztecs. :slay:

So, have we to never judge history then, unless the people in question are Spanish?

That's racism you know

 

[Inhalaattori]

The conquest of the Aztec empire is portrayed in legend as the victory of a few hundred valiant Spaniards, equipped with several dozen horses and an equally small number of guns and cannons, over thousands of hostile Indians. Writing in 1791 the Mexican scientist and journalist, Joseph Antonio Alzate y Ramirez, urged his readers, "Let us not say that a few hundred Spaniards conquered New Spain. Let us say, rather, that powerful armies united and inspired by the gallant and enterprising Spanish battled against the Aztecs, and then we will not be untrue to history." The Tlaxcalans were the main Indian allies of the Spanish. Without their extensive support the conquest would not have been possible.

From site: http://bancroft.berkeley.edu/Exhibits/nativeamericans/25.html

So shut your mouth!

 

[Inhalaattori]

Flowers and Songs of Sorrows
(Written by a post-Conquest Aztec poet)

Nothing but flowers and songs of sorrow are left in Mexico and Tlatelolco, where once we saw warriors and wise men.

We know it is true that we must perish, for we are mortal men. You, the Giver of Life, you have ordained it.

We wander here and there in our desolate poverty. We are mortal men. We have seen bloodshed and pain where once we saw beauty and valor.

We are crushed to the ground; we lie in ruins. There is nothing but grief and suffering in Mexico and Tlatelolco, where once we saw beauty and valor.

Have you grown weary of your servants? Are you angry with your servants, O Giver of Life?[

 

[Pangur Bán]

Originally posted by Inhalaattori
The conquest of the Aztec empire is portrayed in legend as the victory of a few hundred valiant Spaniards, equipped with several dozen horses and an equally small number of guns and cannons, over thousands of hostile Indians. Writing in 1791 the Mexican scientist and journalist, Joseph Antonio Alzate y Ramirez, urged his readers, "Let us not say that a few hundred Spaniards conquered New Spain. Let us say, rather, that powerful armies united and inspired by the gallant and enterprising Spanish battled against the Aztecs, and then we will not be untrue to history." The Tlaxcalans were the main Indian allies of the Spanish. Without their extensive support the conquest would not have been possible.

From site: http://bancroft.berkeley.edu/Exhibits/nativeamericans/25.html

So shut your mouth!

I admire you for your persistence here, but the Tlaxcalans really weren't that important. The Tlaxcalans had their bottoms tanned by the Mexicans before the arrival of the Spaniards. Cortez actually had to defeat them before he could get an alliance. ANyway, like I said, they abandoned the Spanish during the most important part of the siege of Mexico. The Tlaxcalans were - let's be fair - naked cannon, or rather, dart fodder. Their main role was to carry the Spanish equipment through during the road to Mexico, mop up Mexican darts and spears and join in the plundering. I really don't regard them as very critical to the success of the expedition, although they obviously helped with manpower and local knowledge!

 

[Inhalaattori]

Ok. Enough of this.
History is always a matter of taste.

 

[wildWolverine]

No one seemed particularly riled except you...

 

[Inhalaattori]

Im the bad guy here. Oh yes.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Moderator Action: Alright you two, stop getting personal. And stick to the facts, and stop coloring all your arguments with your present-day morals and biases.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Richard III]

I am somewhat disturbed to say it, but I have to take Inhalaattori's side here; Tlaxcala and other allies were critical to the Spanish takeover, especially give the number of times the Spanish were in peril before they actually reached the Aztec capital.

Having 5,000 men with you, however weak, makes it that much easier to avoid getting surrounded by 10,000 or more.

But I was actually struck by Diaz's account in a different way: first, the spanish clearly treat the natives as humans, and as pagans but not necessarily as inferiors; the superiority of Spanish arms and Spanish people is, I think, an erroneous addition of hindsight. Second, until I read Diaz's account, I was unaware of the key role of the allied contribution. But it in no way diminishes the scale of Cortez's "achievement." On the contrary, I was more impressed with the boldness of Cortez's behavior in soliciting allies and working with allies.

Oh, and Calcagus, "their main role was to carry the Spanish equipment through during the road to Mexico" sounds an awful lot like logistics to me. And we both know how important that is in hostile terrain. Cortez wouldn't have been able to reach Tenochtitlan if he'd starved first.

R.III

 

[Richard III]

Originally posted by Inhalaattori
Im the bad guy here. Oh yes.

No, but someone who speaks favorably of Adolf Hitler's "honor to his allies," etc. certainly is.

 

[pawpaw]

the spanish were arrogant and thought god was personally on their side-woo anybody that got in their way

 

[Pangur Bán]

Originally posted by Richard III
I am somewhat disturbed to say it, but I have to take Inhalaattori's side here; Tlaxcala and other allies were critical to the Spanish takeover, especially give the number of times the Spanish were in peril before they actually reached the Aztec capital.

Give me some instances where the Spanish were saved by their Indian allies!

The Tlaxcalans actually put the Spanish under the greatest peril they had in New Spain, with the exception of the time when they were trapped in Mexico.

Originally posted by Richard III

Having 5,000 men with you, however weak, makes it that much easier to avoid getting surrounded by 10,000 or more.


R.III

Since you've read Diaz, you'll know that the Spanish got surrounded all the time. But these were armies badly matched in equipment, surrounding the Spanish for a long time was suicidal.

Originally posted by Richard III
I

But I was actually struck by Diaz's account in a different way: first, the spanish clearly treat the natives as humans, and as pagans but not necessarily as inferiors; the superiority of Spanish arms and Spanish people is, I think, an erroneous addition of hindsight. Second, until I read Diaz's account, I was unaware of the key role of the allied contribution. But it in no way diminishes the scale of Cortez's "achievement." On the contrary, I was more impressed with the boldness of Cortez's behavior in soliciting allies and working with allies.

I was struck by the same thing. I wasn't expecting the Spanish to be as humane as they were. Although, Cortez did get kinda nasty towards the end, when he suddenly started enslaving Indians because of "revolt". I was also kinda taken aback by the way he suddenly had those Mexican captains burned to death in front of Montezuma for doing very little wrong.

There was was a clear superiority in the Spanish arms. Not even a madman could possibly convince himself otherwise. I would comment though, that their superiority was based as much on the strength of Spanish swords as anything else. These things could cut through as many naked people at one time as the wielder chose. The Indians had nothing like that. Too often, people will try to make out that muskets were the key. The swords kept the Indians away from making too many frontal assaults (which meant certain death for everyone who took part), and allowed the Spanish to make use of their crossbows, cannons and muskets, which all required space. Spanish armour was of course, the other area of critical superiority; it essentially made the whole system of Aztec warfare obsolete. And of course, there were the horses.

Originally posted by Richard III
IOh, and Calcagus, "their main role was to carry the Spanish equipment through during the road to Mexico" sounds an awful lot like logistics to me. And we both know how important that is in hostile terrain. Cortez wouldn't have been able to reach Tenochtitlan if he'd starved first.

R.III

Of course logistics are important; but, the logistical role of the Indians here could have been filled by anyone. It's not exactly hard to carry a cannon.
I don't mind giving the Indians credit, as long as one doesn't go over the top or pretend that Indians were more important than the Spanish, or use this as a device for downplaying the achievement of these men. Anyway, Cortez rarely used his Indian allies in large numbers until the later stages of the siege of Mexico.

 

[Inhalaattori]

Yes. The muskets really werent the thing, I remember that Pizarro really didnt have many muskets with his army when he conquered Peru.

You shouldnt forget the horses and "fighting dogs" of spaniards. Spaniards were also heavily armored so the weapons of aztecs didnt made bad damage to them.

In the beginning aztec also tried to imprison spanish soldiers, not to kill them. Their goal was to sacrifice spaniards to their gods.

The cannons were much more effective. When you shot with that thing to big group of warriors, oh boy!

You are talking about some "Diaz". Maybe Bartholome Diaz?

 

[Inhalaattori]

And is this Diaz reliable source?
I believe he isnt, becouse he was a spaniard. (I suppose he was)