Aztecs vs. Spartans

[blunt3d]

"You talk about that like it's some unique technology and not just some bloke lobbing a hornet's nest. If that really worked, then I'm sure one of the many forces to face the phalanx over the years would have come up with it.
After all, how far could you really throw a nest? Further than a Greek skirmisher could throw his javelin? And wouldn't the phalanx just trample on past the nest soon enough? Sure, you'd piss off a few guys, but you'd be unlikely to break the formation. If these things could advance through arrows and javelins, a few bugs won't make a great deal of difference."

If you read the rest of my post i said it probably would'nt make a difference.... i was just saying maybe if used in large quanity's they could disrupt formations(it's known that enough venom from hornet stings could kill people). I don't think they were thrown literally but i know they used sling shot's or something to launch them into enemy formations.

 

[Hitti-Litti]

If one hornet nest can have hundreds of hornets, imagine what for example 5 could do. Also they could be those hornets that can sting many times without dying.

 

[NapoleonBlownApart]

The Spartan's with their bronze-age weapons and their phalanx formations would destroy the Aztecs and their Neolithic Age technology. Like some have said, Aztecs would preffer prisoners over dead, but i highly doubt that the Aztec would recieve any prisoners, the Spartans wanted a glorious death. If it's wasn't handed to them by a worthy Aztec soldier, they'd rather force one than die by sacrifice to heathen gods.

 

[bender19]

A completely ridiculous scenario but still...

I think its more realistic that the Aztecs would invade Sparta than vice versa. Spartans weren't known for going to far afield.

If a Spartan army was somehow transported via time machine to Mexico I'd be backing them. They'd quickly gain the support of many tribes hostile to the Aztecs swelling there army. I'd imagine the Spartans would occupy the centre with Amercan allies on either side and cavalry on the flanks. I can't see hornets nests doing much more damage than other skirmishers, you'd need to get alot closer to hurl a hornets nest than a slinger, or javeliner or archer thus I'd say after initial some initial skirmishes and contact with tribes the Spartans would cotton on to this tactic and hornets nest throwers would be picked off by Spartan skirmishers leaving numerous broken hornets nests for Aztec forces to travel over. Once the Spartan phalanxs engaged the Aztecs itd be slaughter, stone age weaponry vs phalnx, I can't see weapons designed to maim working against an armored phalanx. The Cavalry meanwhile would quickly break the Aztec flank circle round and attack the Aztec leaders, once dead, its hard to see the Aztec army not breaking.

I think the Spartans would bring about the fall of the Aztec empire, I'm not convinced they could hold the empire though. Assuming they don't time machine back Í think the Spartans would carve out an empire to rule, they'd be the dominant force in the regoin due to superior technology.

 

[frekk]

Frankly, I'm going to have to go with the Aztecs here. They practiced an unrestrained form of warfare which included ambushes, guerrilla tactics, urban fighting, and so on.

The Greeks, including the Spartans, were really polite about warfare. They fought set-piece battles, which meant that the commanders got together and agreed about where they were going to fight and what time hostilities should commence, so they would have time to wait for everyone to arrive, to line up their formations all nice and neat, and to execute things according to plan. This form of warfare was highly maladapted to the way the Aztecs played the game. Even deployment would be extremely challenging, as the Aztecs would see no reason why they shouldn't attack forces before they arrived to the staging area, while they they were gearing up, while they were on the move, while they were in camp, and so on.

If they could deploy in formation succesfully, the Aztecs would have a tough time facing them head-on. But they'd probably just avoid direct engagement, and hit them on the move or in camp with a constant series of raids. The Greek system of warfare simply wasn't designed to cope with anything like this. It was a formalized affair that depended heavily on everyone following the rules. It worked well, when fighting the Persians or other Greeks, because they had similar ideas about how war should be conducted.

Cultural notions were just so different. For instance, if a Spartan commander stepped forward to parley, the Aztecs would probably assume he was a sacrificial offering and bundle him up and carry him off.

 

[bender19]

The Spartans weren't the nicest of people, they kept the Helots to be their slaves, they did this through force. Rebellions were frequent as were slaughters just to keep the population down. I highly doubt the Helots when they rebelled formed up lines and fought set piece battles, I'm fairly sure it would've been guerilla warfare. The Spartans were adept at fighting lighter armed more numerous guerilla foes.

 

[frekk]

The Spartans weren't the nicest of people, they kept the Helots to be their slaves, they did this through force. Rebellions were frequent as were slaughters just to keep the population down. I highly doubt the Helots when they rebelled formed up lines and fought set piece battles, I'm fairly sure it would've been guerilla warfare. The Spartans were adept at fighting lighter armed more numerous guerilla foes.

I imagine Helot rebellions were simply desperate mobs. Aztec armies were highly organized and motivated, capable of sustaining intense combat for extremely long periods of time (for instance, the borders with Tlaxcala and Tarasca, each of which was essentially a battle that lasted centuries, with combat and raids occurring in the contested zone without pause). The comparison doesn't ring true.

And of course, repressing underclasses doesn't preclude set piece battles at all - that's what riot police do, for instance. It's actually a very effective way of dealing with mobs.

The only Helot rebellion that seemed to be of any scale or was very organized followed an earthquake in 464 BC ... and the Spartans were forced to appeal to the Athenians for assistance, because they could not put the revolt down. The Athenians struck a deal with them and resettled them elsewhere ...

 

[Dachs]

Basically, my opinion on this subject can be summed up in an earlier post in this very thread, which (you would think) people haven't been reading.

What happens when the Aztecs attempt to storm a Spartan-controlled ridge? You can make any tactical scenario you want to fit the particular advantages of both sides.

The Greeks, including the Spartans, were really polite about warfare. They fought set-piece battles, which meant that the commanders got together and agreed about where they were going to fight and what time hostilities should commence, so they would have time to wait for everyone to arrive, to line up their formations all nice and neat, and to execute things according to plan.

lolwut

Okay, this wasn't even true back during the Golden Age when Athenians and Spartans still were the cock of the walk in terms of Hellenic warfare. Demosthenes in Aitolia is perhaps the best known example of highly unconventional warfare, but it was also employed (albeit by the same commander) at Pylos-Sphakteria and then by Iphikrates during the Korinthian War. Set-piece battle has nothing to do whatsoever with 'commanders [getting] together and [agreeing]', the concept of "mutual consent to battle" doesn't imply the same kind of kriegspiel that is usually attributed to, say, the condottieri. Given El Alamein's enshrined status as one of the last set-piece engagements, one might as well say that Monty and Rommel had tea beforehand and talked out how they wanted things to go. Interference with the enemy dispositions and launching surprise attacks was part and parcel of how warfare worked in classical Greece, too. Take a look at the Battle of Plataia (479 BC(E)), where the allied coalition was attacked while on the march, or the end of the siege of Syrakousai (413 BC(E)), when the Athenians launched a risky night attack on the Epipolai that only narrowly failed. The nice thing about the classical phalanx (as compared with the Makedonian syntagma) was that it was relatively flexible, and frequently was able to engage light forces with some success. (The introduction of more effective light infantry units into Hellenic warfare during the later fifth and early fourth centuries forced the phalangial formations to improve even further, and develop other ways of engaging the Thraikian peltastai or other psiloi units.)

If they could deploy in formation succesfully, the Aztecs would have a tough time facing them head-on. But they'd probably just avoid direct engagement, and hit them on the move or in camp with a constant series of raids. The Greek system of warfare simply wasn't designed to cope with anything like this. It was a formalized affair that depended heavily on everyone following the rules. It worked well, when fighting the Persians or other Greeks, because they had similar ideas about how war should be conducted.

Cultural notions were just so different. For instance, if a Spartan commander stepped forward to parley, the Aztecs would probably assume he was a sacrificial offering and bundle him up and carry him off.

This betrays a relative lack of understanding about the Hellenic system of warfare, or at the very least a massive generalization? (Also, I would be most interested in knowing if we are to talk about the Spartans of Leonidas, or those of Kleomenes III, following his extensive military reforms. Hell, even the army of Kleombrotos at Leuktra would be different, too.) Be interesting to see the Aztecs engage Spartan cavalry (which they did have), for example. Spartans fighting on difficult terrain, as terrible as the movie 300 showed it, did occur with frequency; the Hot Gates aren't just a plain, there, it's a bloody mountain pass. It's folly to assume that such mountainous terrain as Greece has, which lends itself brilliantly to asymmetric warfare, didn't condition the development of light units focused on ambushes. And, by gum, it sure did. And the Spartans still had the ability to engage them with reasonable success, with the notable exception of the destruction of a whole mora by light infantry outside Korinthos during that city's eponymous war. (Which occurred solely because the Athenian commander, the aforementioned Iphikrates, noted the lack of the usual Spartan march security of cavalry and peltastai, and thus took advantage of it. This Battle of Lechaion was the exception, not the rule.)

That's not even talking about the tech advantage that the Spartans had. While it's possible to generate tactical scenarios in which the Spartans lose (not that there's anything wrong with that), on balance I think that the Greeks win.

 

[Ninja Dude]

A completely ridiculous scenario but still...

I think its more realistic that the Aztecs would invade Sparta than vice versa. Spartans weren't known for going to far afield.

If a Spartan army was somehow transported via time machine to Mexico I'd be backing them. They'd quickly gain the support of many tribes hostile to the Aztecs swelling there army. I'd imagine the Spartans would occupy the centre with Amercan allies on either side and cavalry on the flanks. I can't see hornets nests doing much more damage than other skirmishers, you'd need to get alot closer to hurl a hornets nest than a slinger, or javeliner or archer thus I'd say after initial some initial skirmishes and contact with tribes the Spartans would cotton on to this tactic and hornets nest throwers would be picked off by Spartan skirmishers leaving numerous broken hornets nests for Aztec forces to travel over. Once the Spartan phalanxs engaged the Aztecs itd be slaughter, stone age weaponry vs phalnx, I can't see weapons designed to maim working against an armored phalanx. The Cavalry meanwhile would quickly break the Aztec flank circle round and attack the Aztec leaders, once dead, its hard to see the Aztec army not breaking.

I think the Spartans would bring about the fall of the Aztec empire, I'm not convinced they could hold the empire though. Assuming they don't time machine back Í think the Spartans would carve out an empire to rule, they'd be the dominant force in the regoin due to superior technology.

Of course if you're involving another force like the tribes around the Aztecs, why not have the helots start rebeling and messing with the Spartans. I don't see it being exactly realistic that the Spartans get these allies and go to war while the helots just kind of chill somewhere.

Personally, I think it would end up being either a stalemate or a costly Aztec victory in the case of a large battle or war. After a while the Aztecs are going to realise that running straight into the Spartans isn't going to work. They aren't robots. They'll learn to do something different. That "something different" would probably just be ambushes and slowly weakening the Spartans with hit-and-run tactics. But still, the Spartans would inflict serious damage if they can get into a good defendable position. But the spartans don't strike me as exactly the kind of force that could go on the offensive on the Aztecs.

 

[frekk]

Interference with the enemy dispositions and launching surprise attacks was part and parcel of how warfare worked in classical Greece, too.

Occasionally, yes, but it was hardly characteristic or sustained.

I'm not sure the Greeks would even be able to formulate a strategy to deal with the duration of Mesoamerican battles, which could last months at a time (not a war ... a battle). And while the Greeks may have occasionally fought in a different manner, were they really suited to it?

Be interesting to see the Aztecs engage Spartan cavalry (which they did have), for example.

Obviously this would be difficult, but certainly not insurmountable.

Spartans fighting on difficult terrain, as terrible as the movie 300 showed it, did occur with frequency; the Hot Gates aren't just a plain, there, it's a bloody mountain pass.

Exactly. What better terrain to suit a force that is highly vulnerable to flanking and has very poor mobility? Phalanxes were amazing, if they could box themselves in somewhere and have the 3 vulnerable sides totally protected.

That's not even talking about the tech advantage that the Spartans had. While it's possible to generate tactical scenarios in which the Spartans lose (not that there's anything wrong with that), on balance I think that the Greeks win.

Yes, there's a tech advantage, however, I find it difficult to imagine it could possibly outweigh the massive advantage in numbers the Aztecs had or the maneuverability of their forces. They'd always "git thar fustest with the mostest". The Spartans might easily hold a ridge or pass against the Aztecs, but what good would it do when the Aztec prosecution of war involved flooding a tract of land with upwards of 200 000 combatants? How could 6000 Spartiates possibly sleep or eat under those circumstances, let alone be everywhere at once to defend all their lands and fields? They would be besieged, everywhere and constantly, and the Aztecs had the manpower to keep this state of affairs up for ... well, decades, if they had to. Their problem was keeping the population down, not up.

Win a battle? Sure! Probably not a problem, at first. Win a war? Not a freaking chance! It would be one great, long Noche Triste for Sparta.

 

[bender19]

Of course if you're involving another force like the tribes around the Aztecs, why not have the helots start rebeling and messing with the Spartans. I don't see it being exactly realistic that the Spartans get these allies and go to war while the helots just kind of chill somewhere.

Personally, I think it would end up being either a stalemate or a costly Aztec victory in the case of a large battle or war. After a while the Aztecs are going to realise that running straight into the Spartans isn't going to work. They aren't robots. They'll learn to do something different. That "something different" would probably just be ambushes and slowly weakening the Spartans with hit-and-run tactics. But still, the Spartans would inflict serious damage if they can get into a good defendable position. But the spartans don't strike me as exactly the kind of force that could go on the offensive on the Aztecs.

The OP said what if the Spartans invaded the Aztecs not vice versa, the Spartans would've telleported out of their time, wether the Helots revolt or not doesn't matter because thats a couple of millenium and an ocean away. It'd have no bearing on the result. The scenario is only realistic (as realistic as pointless teleporting wars can get) if the Spartans can't return whenever they choose, otherwise they'd strait away return, invading would be completely pointless to them. Sure the helots might revolt and take over, but it doesn't matter the Spartans woul'n't have supply lines going back to Sparta through time across an ocean. Its likely much like when the Spaniards invaded some tribe would ally with the invaders. Assuming no tribes revolt makes the Aztec artificially stronger than they really were and is unrealstic.

 

[Dachs]

Occasionally, yes, but it was hardly characteristic or sustained.

O RLY?

I'm not sure the Greeks would even be able to formulate a strategy to deal with the duration of Mesoamerican battles, which could last months at a time (not a war ... a battle). And while the Greeks may have occasionally fought in a different manner, were they really suited to it?

Any thought given to why those 'battles' lasted so long?

Obviously this would be difficult, but certainly not insurmountable.

Because they did so well against Spanish horse.

Exactly. What better terrain to suit a force that is highly vulnerable to flanking and has very poor mobility? Phalanxes were amazing, if they could box themselves in somewhere and have the 3 vulnerable sides totally protected.

But the Spartans weren't just the phalanx. Not even the classical Greek armies were bereft of the cavalry and light infantry that most famously aided the Makedonian combined-arms syntagmai. Cavalry make dandy flank security against unarmored infantry that can't run faster than a horse and which have never seen one before.

Win a battle? Sure! Win a war? Not a freaking chance!

Dependent largely on what time period the Spartans are fighting in. Post-Kleomenes, their army was one hell of a lot larger and used the much superior syntagma. Before that they didn't have a snowball's chance in Tenochtitlan, yeah, at winning a whole war - never said that they did. After that, maybe.

The OP said what if the Spartans invaded the Aztecs not vice versa, the Spartans would've telleported out of their time, wether the Helots revolt or not doesn't matter because thats a couple of millenium and an ocean away.

The OP also mentioned the Aztecs on Greek territory. Reading comprehension FTW?

It'd have no bearing on the result. The scenario is only realistic (as realistic as pointless teleporting wars can get) if the Spartans can't return whenever they choose, otherwise they'd strait away return, invading would be completely pointless to them. Sure the helots might revolt and take over, but it doesn't matter the Spartans woul'n't have supply lines going back to Sparta through time across an ocean. Its likely much like when the Spaniards invaded some tribe would ally with the invaders. Assuming no tribes revolt makes the Aztec artificially stronger than they really were and is unrealstic.

This is why I haven't been talking about winning a war...it requires a lot more context than is given. Tactical engagements are far easier to manage.

 

[frekk]

Any thought given to why those 'battles' lasted so long?

Yes ... they were meatgrinders, with both sides sending streams of reinforcements and hoping the enemy ran out of men or motivation first. Decisive battles were avoided in these situations, the effort was on ambushes, raids, small engagements, cutting forces off from food and water, etc in order to inflict large losses through attrition, at minimal cost.

Decisive engagements were always avoided until the battle had already been won, so to speak. In a sense, they were usually just a formality, the coup de grace.

Because they did so well against Spanish horse.

Occasionally, yes. Well, the Tlaxcalans anyway.

Keep in mind that the Spanish were consistently defeated by the Maya, the Tlaxcalans, and then the Aztecs up until the Battle of Otumba. They couldn't land on the Yucatan coastline because every time they did, they got their butts kicked. They were spared by the Tlaxcalans. They were initially welcomed into Tenochtitlan, but then almost slaughtered in the Noche Triste, and then pursued halfway around the Valley fighting several losing engagements. Until the Battle of Otumba, that is.

Mind you, horses came in pretty handy there, but the only reason that they did was that the Spanish were in such rough shape by this time that the Aztecs figured it was time for a decisive engagement (which turned out to be a mistake!)

But, if the Spanish - with their steel armour, horses, cannon, crossbows, and muskets - could be so consistently defeated by Mesoamerican forces in the early part of the campaign, why would they have any trouble with ancient Greek forces? Provided they avoided decisive engagement and didn't get too hubristic (as at Otumba), I can't foresee too much trouble there.

 

[bender19]

The OP also mentioned the Aztecs on Greek territory. Reading comprehension FTW?

Didn't read it too well, given its a nutty alternate reality i don't care that much. The point still stands though, which ever sphere its in any insurrection in the other time period won't matter as presumably there's no way back (if there were neither would have any reason to stay in the alternate time).

 

[Dachs]

Yes ... they were meatgrinders, with both sides sending streams of reinforcements and hoping the enemy ran out of men or motivation first. Decisive battles were avoided in these situations, the effort was on ambushes, raids, small engagements, cutting forces off from food and water, etc in order to inflict large losses through attrition, at minimal cost.

Decisive engagements were always avoided until the battle had already been won, so to speak. In a sense, they were usually just a formality, the coup de grace.

It sounds like 'battle' is a misnomer and that 'campaign' would be more appropriate. The Greeks had some experience with that, but you're correct, that wasn't their usual modus operandi, or at least it wasn't for the Spartans. (The Aitolians would have given the Mesoamericans an interesting run for their money.) They didn't have the men to do it. Tactically, the Greeks were superior, no question; operationally and strategically, the Spartans would have prooobbbbaaaabbblllyyy lost out. It's a pretty inapt comparison, though, as has been stated many times in this thread before. (I really hate thread necros when they're stupid.)

Keep in mind that the Spanish were consistently defeated by the Maya, the Tlaxcalans, and then the Aztecs up until the Battle of Otumba. They couldn't land on the Yucatan coastline because every time they did, they got their butts kicked.

It's nice to have the advantage of defending a shoreline.

They were initially welcomed into Tenochtitlan, but then almost slaughtered in the Noche Triste, and then pursued halfway around the Valley fighting several losing engagements. Until the Battle of Otumba, that is.

Mind you, horses came in pretty handy there, but the only reason that they did was that the Spanish were in such rough shape by this time that the Aztecs figured it was time for a decisive engagement (which turned out to be a mistake!)

The series of events between la Noche Triste and Otumba were kind of one-sided, though, due to the way in which the Spanish operations were managed beforehand. I don't think that assuming the Spartans would have had to fight their way out of the center of the Aztec Empire through the urban environment of Tenochtitlan and across the causeways is particularly fair to them. That's giving the Aztecs quite a long list of major advantages there.

But, if the Spanish - with their steel armour, horses, cannon, crossbows, and muskets - could be so consistently defeated by Mesoamerican forces in the early part of the campaign, why would they have any trouble with ancient Greek forces? Provided they avoided decisive engagement and didn't get too hubristic (as at Otumba), I can't foresee too much trouble there.

Provided they're on home ground. Too, the Spartans would have had greater numbers than the Spanish did, ironically, which would have been a nice advantage. But yeah, I don't think the potential for Spartan victory is very great in a full blown campaign, if they're attacking the Aztecs.

 

[frekk]

It sounds like 'battle' is a misnomer and that 'campaign' would be more appropriate.

Hmmm ... difficult to say. The area I'm referring to would've been quite a bit smaller than some of the more famous WW2 battles (eg Kursk, the Bulge, etc). But, what's in a name? The basic point was that their method of fighting didn't involve control of a field or ridge or pass, but seizing control of an entire region for miles around the enemy, and then delivering a final devastating blow once they were isolated, exhausted, and starving.

It's nice to have the advantage of defending a shoreline.

The series of events between la Noche Triste and Otumba were kind of one-sided, though

I suppose ... but it doesn't explain the Tlaxcalans ... and the Spanish, despite the situations they were in, were probably still far more formidable than ancient Greeks.

As far as the shoreline ... I really don't understand why the Spanish had such difficulty with the Mayans. They disembarked without facing any resistance, so these were land battles not amphibious assaults. There's some thought that Guerrerro - a castaway from an earlier shipwreck who, according to his companion Aguilar, went native and became a Mayan lord - may have had some hand in Mayan tactics. Nobody will ever know - it cannot even be certain Aguilar didn't just invent Guerrerro out of thin air.

 

[Traitorfish]

The Spartan's with their bronze-age weapons and their phalanx formations would destroy the Aztecs and their Neolithic Age technology.

You're use of "Neolithic" there is kind of questionable. Yes, the Aztecs used stone tools, but the Old World label of "neolithic age" has limited relevence in a Mesoamerican context; as I understand it, academics use a different set of labels to describe the archaeological eras of Mesoamerica, reflecting the different technological development.
This may seem like pedantry, but I think it's important to establish a distinction between, say, the finely crafted, obsidian-spiked mace of an Aztec warrior and the bit-of-pointy-flint-tied-to-a-stick used by a Neolithic European, something which your loaded use of the word "neolithic" failed to do.
Also, while I'm being a pedant, the Classical Greeks were an iron-age culture, and their weapons- although not their armour- were made of iron. The bronze-age refers to an earlier period, which in Greece was dominated by the Mycenaean culture.

 

[kibbles]

I think the whole tech advantage is being blown out of proportion. The Aztec obsidian blade was more than capable of inflicting a serious wound, even to a heavily armored hoplite. And let's not forget the infamous Atl-Atl this missile weapon could also easily penetrate the armor of the Hoplite.

 

[Vertinari118]

I hate the constant talk about a tech disadvantage to the Aztecs as well. Obsidian is sharper than steel you know, a hell of a lot sharper. Why, also, do people think the Aztecs would use non-lethal weapons against the Spartans to take them captive? Captives were taken after the battle, if the enemy surrendered, or in raids or in the Flower War. No Aztec warrior would try to capture an enemy who was invading their land in battle. They are not stupid you know! The Flower War was a type of ritual warfare where warriors were trained and the Tlaxcallans bled dry for a later conquest. At least that is the current modern view. In these battles captives were taken in battle for sacrifce but the war was not the only source of sacrifces.

 

[EnlightenmentHK]

I hate the constant talk about a tech disadvantage to the Aztecs as well. Obsidian is sharper than steel you know, a hell of a lot sharper. Why, also, do people think the Aztecs would use non-lethal weapons against the Spartans to take them captive? Captives were taken after the battle, if the enemy surrendered, or in raids or in the Flower War. No Aztec warrior would try to capture an enemy who was invading their land in battle. They are not stupid you know! The Flower War was a type of ritual warfare where warriors were trained and the Tlaxcallans bled dry for a later conquest. At least that is the current modern view. In these battles captives were taken in battle for sacrifce but the war was not the only source of sacrifces.

I don't care how sharp obsidian is. Its brittle and its gonna shatter against metal armor before it pierces it. AtlAtl's aren't accurate at range and they're generally not gonna pierce shields. They're less effective weapons than a good bow. The Spartan's simply had them outclassed by orders of magnitude in every possible way. Numbers are the only real advantage the Aztecs could bring. And Greek's had dealt with much more competent, better equipped, better trained and organized 'large number' forces before.