Aztecs vs. Spartans

[RalofTyr]

I have often wondered, if an Aztec army and a Spartan army met on the field of battle, who would win? It's not as straight forward or obvious as one might think. Both societies were military societies. Every Aztec was told from birth they would die in battle. I guess it really depends on the circumstance. If the Spartans, made good friends with the Phonetians and did a time wrap, and actually invaded Central Mexico, I think the outcome would be in favor of the Aztecs, given their great numbers, the effects of moisture on Spartan armor, heat, disease and an alien environment would devestate the Spartans. If they met in Greece, the outcome would be more in question. Now, the Aztecs don't fight like normal Greeks. First, they will try to intimidate the Spartans, which probably won't work. Secondly, they'll pelt the Spartans with their spears and slings, which might cause a few injuries, but nothing serious. Then, the attack will occur. Right from the start, a lot of Aztecs will be killed, however, a lot of Spartans will be casualties. It's not so much in the superior craftsmenship of Aztec weapons, it's how they use it. They're not interested in killing Spartans, only wounding them. Spartan defense armor, is meant to protect against being killed, not wounded. There would be a lot of dead Aztecs on the ground, but also a large number of Spartans with broken legs and such who are out of commission. The Aztecs will probably retreat and regroup, to sacrifice any captured Spartans. A smart Aztec commander won't try a direct assualt again. He will use Aztec's superior manueverability to hit and run the slow moving Spartans. I guess the final outcome would be that of will. Who's will is stronger, the Spartans who fight for honor or the Aztecs who fight for their gods?

 

[silver 2039]

It's not so much in the superior craftsmenship of Aztec weapons, it's how they use it.

A stone age society against a bronze age one will not fare well. Stone weaponry is not in any way superior to bronze weapons and armor.

think the outcome would be in favor of the Aztecs, given their great numbers, the effects of moisture on Spartan armor, heat, disease and an alien environment would devestate the Spartans.

The other way around. The disease would affect the Aztecs...you know like how it did in real life....

And then you forget the Aztec style of warfare focuses on capturing the enemy for sacrifices, it would be ill suited in such a situation.

Spartan defense armor, is meant to protect against being killed, not wounded

Compared to the Aztecs who have no armor?

The Aztecs are inferior in terms of weaponry, tactics, and organization.

And the question itself is foolish.

 

[Archbob]

The spartans would destroy the Aztecs without doubt. Looking at the comparative technologies, its no contest.

 

[pawpaw]

The spartans would destroy the Aztecs without doubt. Looking at the comparative technologies, its no contest.

But whats the senerio?

100 Aztecs vs 100 Spartans?

or

200,000 Aztecs vs 1000 Spartans?

Remember the Spanish with firearms ( which scared the Aztecs ), horse ( which scared them BAD ) and the fact they were believed to be Gods ( scared the . .. .. .. . out of them ) with thousands of indian allies barely won

 

[r_rolo1]

Spartans would win most of the possible battles, not only because of the weaponry but because of the modus operandi of both: Aztecs normally tried to not kill the enemy because they needed victims for the Sun sacrifices. ... Spartans had not that kind of handicaps.

 

[EnlightenmentHK]

The Aztecs are inferior in terms of weaponry, tactics, and organization.

This about covers it. Thread done.

 

[Elta]

This about covers it. Thread done.

Yes but you should remember that the Spartans last defeat before they stoped fighting was from unarmoured javelin throwers. With 2 to 1 odds the aztecs would win. I've seen those clay balls they throw from sings crack conquestdor helmets wide open at ren fair demonstrations. The armor is not really a factor here, the other stuff is though imo.

 

[North King]

The technology gap was not as large as some people here are trying to imply.

However, the discipline and cohesion of a Spartan hoplite unit would probably win the day. The Aztecs weren't undisciplined -- far from it -- but they wouldn't be the match of the Spartans in that particular field.

 

[EnlightenmentHK]

Yes but you should remember that the Spartans last defeat before they stoped fighting was from unarmoured javelin throwers. With 2 to 1 odds the aztecs would win. I've seen those clay balls they throw from sings crack conquestdor helmets wide open at ren fair demonstrations. The armor is not really a factor here, the other stuff is though imo.

The armor is absolutely a factor. As are the shields. The weapons. Tactics. Formations. etc. Just because a sling could crack a helmet doesn't mean they'll do that every time. When you're talking thousands of sling balls flying at thousands of men...those armored are gonna take ALOT less casualties than those unarmored.

The other thing to consider is the fact that these armies that eventually defeated the Spartans had been fighting with and against Phalanx formations for centuries. A wide range of tactics were developed to defeat or disadvantage them. The Aztecs had never seen a phalanx. They most certainly would not have the full weight of expertise on the formation's strengths and weaknesses.

 

[North King]

The other thing to consider is the fact that these armies that eventually defeated the Spartans had been fighting with and against Phalanx formations for centuries. A wide range of tactics were developed to defeat or disadvantage them. The Aztecs had never seen a phalanx. They most certainly would not have the full weight of expertise on the formation's strengths and weaknesses.

That goes both ways. Moreover, Central American warfare was based on rupturing and exploiting a gap in the enemy's line. I don't think they'd find the phalanx all that strange.

 

[EnlightenmentHK]

That goes both ways. Moreover, Central American warfare was based on rupturing and exploiting a gap in the enemy's line. I don't think they'd find the phalanx all that strange.

Eh...central American warfare was heavily ritualistic. Barely trained peasants made up BY FAR the largest share of the armies as well. (though to be fair, that charge could be levied at most historical armies) Its doubtful that any of them would have the strict discipline and training of those in the Spartan Phalanx. While they did show ingenuity and the ability to adapt when fighting the Spanish, their style of warfare is still geared towards proving individual bravery and building prestige. After the initial rounds of combat, they often devolved into alot of one on one, less than organized melee's, with an emphasis on securing prisoners and proving how much of a bada$$ you are. A disciplined Spartan formation would eat that kind of combat alive.

And I'm not saying they'd be shocked and awed by a phalanx formation, just that they wouldn't have the immediate tactical understanding on how to defeat it like an army that had been fighting phalanxes for centuries would. They'd improvise some tactics, sure, but alot of it would be a 'learn as you go' process, which could end up being quite costly.

And while the Spartan's didn't use them alot, they did have cavalry. Which history has shown is quite devastating against an army that has never seen a horse before.

In either case, I think the Spartan tendencies and tactics would be strengths. While too many of the Aztec (or whoever) tendencies would turn out to be weaknesses and liabilities.

 

[North King]

Eh...central American warfare was heavily ritualistic. Barely trained peasants made up BY FAR the largest share of the armies as well. (though to be fair, that charge could be levied at most historical armies) Its doubtful that any of them would have the strict discipline and training of those in the Spartan Phalanx. While they did show ingenuity and the ability to adapt when fighting the Spanish, their style of warfare is still geared towards proving individual bravery and building prestige. After the initial rounds of combat, they often devolved into alot of one on one, less than organized melee's, with an emphasis on securing prisoners and proving how much of a bada$$ you are. A disciplined Spartan formation would eat that kind of combat alive.

I mentioned that above.

And I'm not saying they'd be shocked and awed by a phalanx formation, just that they wouldn't have the immediate tactical understanding on how to defeat it like an army that had been fighting phalanxes for centuries would. They'd improvise some tactics, sure, but alot of it would be a 'learn as you go' process, which could end up being quite costly.

However, if we're comparing historical empires, they have a lot of men to spare, unlike Sparta.

 

[Sharwood]

I find it difficult to believe that three people actually voted for the Aztecs. In any, single battle, assuming the Aztecs didn't have a monstrous numerical superiority, the Spartans would win hands-down. so would any Greek army. The Greek style of warfare was as superior to the Aztec method as the Roman method was to the Gauls.

 

[Elta]

I find it difficult to believe that three people actually voted for the Aztecs. In any, single battle, assuming the Aztecs didn't have a monstrous numerical superiority, the Spartans would win hands-down. so would any Greek army. The Greek style of warfare was as superior to the Aztec method as the Roman method was to the Gauls.

I agree 100%, but there were so many more Aztecs, even compared to the whole of Greece.

That's why I voted for Aztecs.

 

[Sharwood]

I agree 100%, but there were so many more Aztecs, even compared to the whole of Greece.

That's why I voted for Aztecs.

But we're talking battle, not war. Obviously in a war, the Spartans would have little hope against a united Aztec empire - although the idea of an empire is a misnomer anyway, as the Aztecs were actually more like the Greeks in simply forcing defeated cities to pay tribute, in slaves for sacrifice, than actually incorporating them the way Rome and Macedon would - but in a single battle, which is what we're talking about, the Aztecs would be slaughtered like cattle.

 

[North King]

I find it difficult to believe that three people actually voted for the Aztecs. In any, single battle, assuming the Aztecs didn't have a monstrous numerical superiority, the Spartans would win hands-down. so would any Greek army. The Greek style of warfare was as superior to the Aztec method as the Roman method was to the Gauls.

Given that they never clashed, this is a faintly silly assertion to make.

 

[Sharwood]

Given that they never clashed, this is a faintly silly assertion to make.

Why? I consider the current American AirLand doctrine to be superior to Frederick the Great's geometric manoeuvring, but I can't say so because they never clashed?

 

[scy12]

Spartans where superior in technology , organization , tactics as said. But their is a weakness that Greek cities had and could be used by foreign powers and that was turning one Greek city state against another . The Persian empire superior to the Aztecs in every way tried this with success until finally failing their strategical plans . And when we have the likes of the Persian empire for comparison then the Aztecs become the most useless example.

 

[EnlightenmentHK]

Spartans where superior in technology , organization , tactics as said. But their is a weakness that Greek cities had and could be used by foreign powers and that was turning one Greek city state against another . The Persian empire superior to the Aztecs in every way tried this with success until finally failing their strategical plans . And when we have the likes of the Persian empire for comparison then the Aztecs become the most useless example.

Yeah...the Greek's weren't a united front. Two things. We're not talking Greeks, just Spartans, so presumably the rest of them would be out of the picture in this hypothetical. And, even if they weren't, the Aztecs were hardly united either. The Aztec's may have been the de facto rulers of their 'Empire', but half of the people in it hated and wanted to kill them. Why do you think Cortez faired so well? Their 'loyal subjects' weren't so loyal. And I suspect that if some large, formidable Spartan force popped up on the horizon, many of those 'subjects' would stop being loyal again.

 

[Humpty Dumpty]

Can the question itself be eqivalent to "Klingons vs. Mordor?"