cubsfan6506
Got u
Who would win if the two forces ever met?
Spanish Conquestadors Vs. Aztec Empire
- Thread starter cubsfan6506
- Start date
Annex
Tyranny and Mutation
The Ewoks
Moderator Action: Infraction for spam. Pls don't. Thanks. - KD
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Moderator Action: Infraction for spam. Pls don't. Thanks. - KD
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Maimonides
Emperor
They did meet... Surely, you must know who won.
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.
Bugfatty300
Buddha Squirrel
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.
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.
Moderator Action: 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.
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.
Bugfatty300
Buddha Squirrel
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).
Winner
Diverse in Unity
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.
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.
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.
Civman33
Gunship Pilot
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.
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,250
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.
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).
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?
Civman33
Gunship Pilot
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.
philippe
FYI, I chase trains.
to actual contribute to this topic:
1: The Castillian(see what I did there
) 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.
1: The Castillian(see what I did there
) 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.
Slaughter
Initiate
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.
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,250
Funny how they managed to destroy two such empires then, both times with just a small force...
MagisterCultuum
Great Sage
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.
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.
dannyshenanigan
Emperor
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.
Similar threads
