The text wrongly claims that the Spanish defeated the Aztecs because of their iron weapons. Actually, the Spanish were vastly outnumbered, so their weapons alone were irrelevant in the battle. The Spanish had alliances with Indigenous peoples who opposed the Aztec Empire, giving them a much larger army. That defeated the Aztecs.
Within five years as many as 15 million people – an estimated 80% of the population – were wiped out in an epidemic the locals named “cocoliztli”. The word means pestilence in the Aztec Nahuatl language.
This book came up so many times in school, always as some way to say Eurasians never had any inherent advantages. It's not that I think they do, it's just that I'm wary of people trying to reach a conclusion only because it's politically correct.
Eurasians had massive inherent advantages. Thats the entire point of the book. its just that the advantages werent "they are genetically superior."
unless you plan to read a dozen academic books about a variety of topics, i dont really think there is a better option for a popular audience that will answer the question
"why were Eurasians able to so easily take over the Americas" than this book.
It wasn't chance, it was fundamental to the starting conditions of the two continents and the nature of the exchange.
First there were just more old world diseases which could infect humans than new world diseases. Prior to contact, the old world had about 80 to 90% of the world's total population, so a priori if a disease was to emerge in humans it was overwhelmingly more likely to emerge there. On top of that the old world saw much more domestication of livestock (and particularly livestock animals that had evolved alongside great apes) which in turn created more opportunities per capita for diseases to jump to humans.
For the exchange itself, Europeans were building the ships and sailing them to the New World. It was primarily Europeans on those ships, and especially those passengers who would be most likely to be incubating diseases (the old, young, and infirm) were overwhelmingly more likely to be Europeans headed west. Europeans afflicted with diseases after they reached the Americas would generally not have been allowed on ships back to Europe, or if they were they would likely not survive the voyage. Syphilis likely came from the new world, and it's easy to see how, but if there had been some American equivalent to small-pox it would simply have not been able to make the journey before going extinct as the native populations harboring it were wiped out by Old World diseases.
For it to have been "the other way around" the Americas would have needed a vastly different ecology and the people living there would have needed to beat the Old World to the level of technological development necessary to make contact.
Cortez had around 500 men. Even if you get rid of 99% of the local population, which they didn't, they'd have been outnumbered in to an absurd degree.
In the battle of Frankenhausen, Germany, 1525, German peasants went up against armored soldiers and the casualties were 5000 peasants dead vs 6 armored soldiers. The technological advantage before modern firearms for formal armies was enormous, even in Europe, even without the help of imported European diseases.
Aztec warriors were not European peasants though . They were highly skilled and well equipped. They didn't have steel blades (except what they captured from the invaders), but their obsidian "swords" were not that much worse in the hands of a skilled fighter. Plus the European handguns were not that reliable and accurate yet to be all that useful except for showing off. If the first shot missed (assuming it didn't misfire) there was no time for another. And guns need a steady supply of powder and bullets, which Cortez didn't have most of the time since he was also at odds with the governor of Cuba.
There's also plenty of accounts from the early days of Cortez' invasion where the Spaniards had a very hard time against the indigenous warriors even when the Spaniards were not largely outnumbered.
The Aztecs lacked horses and attack dogs. The Spanish by contrast had perfected combat with both. Both proved decisive over and over again. You're correct in asserting that guns weren't decisive - although initially he noise and visual display of firearms were a significant factor in confusing and frightening the Aztecs (especially the common people and subjugated indigenous groups).
I think the horses proved useful in some situations (at least to scare the people who had never seen riders), but then the number of horses was somewhere between a dozen at the start and never more than a hundred. And from what I've been reading their use in battle was often hit and miss because the cavalery often didn't have enough room to be effective.
Numbers like that are almost always the same story. I wasn't familiar with that exact battle [1] but it also matches the pattern. It's not like the peasants actually took on the soldiers, but rather you had some peasants inexplicably leave a town, and organize themselves within a circling of wagons, a 'wagon fort'. That wagon fort was then fully encircled, and 'ambushed' starting with artillery.
The peasants immediately broke and fled, which is where you get the crazy ratios from - fleeing armies are extremely vulnerable and near harmless. Had they fought, they likely would have inflicted far greater casualties on the military forces. However given there were roughly comparable peasant and military forces, the outcome was not in question, so it would have been suicide. Of course so was fleeing.
Diseases were affecting both Aztecs and their enemies. Also, while USA did not had to fight "peaceful" and well developed farmer societies in Northern American plains, organized Comanche raiders that came from north and subjugated whatever was spared by plagues were a headache for colonists for couple of centuries.
What most of the comments along with article writer are missing - it was not just technology, that Spanish used, but organization structure and command of professional military forces - that is one of the reason why 1000s of peasants were incapable to fight against couple of men in armor, as they lacked coordination - that would be the same as pitting street kids against a swat team, even if they were given the same weapons.
The same applies to Aztecs that had different POV and mindset against battle-hardened professional European soldiers - when you read how Aztec demise unfolded, in some of it you have to question what they were thinking, but that is mostly because of our modern bias, that has not much knowledge of their beliefs on how they viewed world around them.
Also, not more important fact - now, just like then, not all people were interested to be involved in war, and a peace agreement for them was even better than being part of alliance(and the choices here are to die for foreign Aztecs as one of them) and join fight. And those who already hated Aztecs to the guts, also had plenty of motivation to see all of that empire burn.
PS. People who are mentioning bunch of foreigners are clueless about European history - whole European FEUDALISM political system was born out of bunch of foreign raiders, that we know today as vikings and their descendants, that carved up Europe and limited their in-fighting with rules and brought unified force against those that challenged them. Europeans had pretty much the same scenario before repeated on native Americans and many times.
One and the same. The Spanish were seen as gods, in part because of appearance and in part because of armaments. It's not like if a random cadre of people, with comparable levels of tech as the Aztecs, wandered down to South America that they'd have been able to form alliances willing to go thrust themselves into battle, on their behalf, against the establishment of the time.
On top of being what enabled them to form alliances, it also begs another question. If it was primarily these masses that overwhelmed the Aztecs (and I don't disagree) then what need did they have of outsiders, let alone letting them act as rulers? It was the perception of alien levels of weaponry and technology that both gave the locals the morale they needed, and justified the Spaniards being deemed leaders.
The idea that the Spaniards were gods didn't hold very long. The Aztecs even sent body parts of captured and killed Spanish soldiers (and their horses) to display in cities and villages for the propaganda effect (see: they are not gods they bleed and die like everybody else).
In the end the defeat of the Aztecs was decided just as much by politics as by violence.
Also it's not like Cortez won every battle, they were even catastrophically defeated in the "night of tears". Coming back from that defeat wouldn't have been possible without indigenous allies and their thousands of skilled and well-equipped warriors fighting on Cortez' side against the Aztecs even after Cortez was driven out of Tenochtitlan (and not to mention logistic support which was probably even more important).
People sometimes needs a push to get onboard an idea. When you have been inside a system for along time it is difficult to see to what extreme is not just and how very possible it is the change it. Looking at you USA.
The anecdote that the Aztecs viewed the Spanish as gods is ahistorical. <a href="https://daily.jstor.org/the-mexica-didnt-believe-the-conquistadors-were-gods/" rel="nofollow">https://daily.jstor.org/the-mexica-didnt-believe-the-conquis...
« It was the perception of alien levels of weaponry and technology that both gave the locals the morale they needed »
Now that really epitomizes the (horrible) Usanian mindset and way of “thinking” (regardless of whether or not that's where you're actually from).
What if the Indios were actually interested in listening to what the Spaniards had to say? They said there is no need for human sacrifice – because there is a god that doesn't require sacrifice, having settled that once and for all by sacrifying his own son.
The world would be in a much better state if there were any (or more) real Christians in the USA instead of the materialist sects that pose as such (or even as sth else) and bring the unfortunate “blessings” of their “culture” over the globe.
> On top of being what enabled them to form alliances, it also begs another question. If it was primarily these masses that overwhelmed the Aztecs (and I don't disagree) then what need did they have of outsiders
You presuppose they needed the outsiders. The Aztec empire was not some ancient, unwavering fact of life which the native mesoamericans could not conceive of changing. It only lasted 100 years. It is entirely possible that the rebellion was going to happen anyways in the next few years or decades and the arrival of the Spanish was just the butterfly flapping its wings that happened to trigger it at that moment.
> justified the Spaniards being deemed leaders.
The native allies of the conquistadors installed the Spanish to replace the Aztecs in exchange for a lower tax rate and increased independence. They did not accept spanish leadership, they just preferred empowering a neutral third party than any particular longstanding rival. Spanish domination came later after smallpox decimated the native population and intermarriages with the pre-existing elite meant there was no native power structure left to stand up to them.
The misinformation about the Spanish conquest of the Aztecs is one of the most depressing things imaginable.
The historical record is completely clear and we have first hand accounts, primary sources, from the people present. It's all readily available and anyone interest can easily verify it.
And yet, even in the comments responding to yours, people confidently state just blatantly untrue things.
- Gunpowder and steel had essentially nothing to do with Cortez's victory.
- The Aztecs did not see the Spaniards as Gods
- Smallpox played a role at the very end but had little to do with Cortez's victory.
- They leave out the primary reason Cortez won (his ability to build a coalition of native people who hated the Aztecs).
- They leave out the secondary reason Cortez won (superior European battle tactics).
- They ignore the fact that there were Europeans fighting on both sides (a delegation was sent from Cuba to stop Cortez; they were the ones that actually brought the smallpox not Cortez).
The post I'm replying to is correct: Spanish technology (steel, gunpowder) had very little to do with Cortez's conquest of the Aztecs.
The idea that the Aztecs took the Spanish for gods and specifically that Moctezuma mistook Cortez's for the returning god Quetzalcoatl is fiction. We actually know the exact book that it came from.
Smallpox did play a role but it was brought by the slaves of Europeans sent to _stop_ Cortez nearly two years after he started fighting the Aztecs. By the time smallpox killed Moctezuma's successor, Cortez's victory was already assured. The disease was not the key to his victory; it was more that it prevented insurgency after the conquest.
Also worth noting that if your theory was that Cortez won because of the gun powder or steel that is hard to square because by the time the two forces clashed the Aztecs had more of it then he did given the rival European forces trying to stop him.
Cortez won primarily because he had an army with a nucleus of veterans from the Italian wars that applied the lessons of the Reconquista.
The technology that let him win was European tactics and political manuevering not anything physical they brought with them.
Camilla Townsend's "Fifth Sun" was a really interesting read in that it brought together a lot of sources of the conquest to tell a more detailed story than I had probably heard before.
When the Spanish showed up, the Aztec's enemies didn't immediately line up to join the anti-Mexica alliance, as some people tend to think. The Spanish weren't seen as gods and worshipped. Pestilence would be a factor later on, but in early days the natives they met were quite healthy. The Spanish weren't seen as foreigners from across the sea or anything special because that wasn't really a concept for the natives. The Spanish were just another funny looking tribe from over the horizon that had showed up to fight for space, much like the Aztec's once had.
The Spanish initially had to fight hostile tribes on their own. There were battles where they had to fight through the night, while they were injured, and against incredible odds. The Spanish, especially the ones from Extremadura, were widely regarded by contemporary Europeans as some of the very best soldiers on the continent. Only after they'd done some hard fighting were they seen as having a chance against the Mexica and worth making alliances with.
So, yes, the Spanish won allies who helped them fight the Mexica, but they needed their guns, steel, and horses to win those allies.
Townsend includes those, but also draws upon Nahuatl accounts written shortly after the conquest. Those sources haven't been paid enough attention.
Including is not the same as reading the whole source. Authors love cherry pick. Better to read the whole thing from the actors who were there: Bernal Díaz del Castillo, Orellana, etc.
Bernal Diaz' account is definitely recommended reading. But you'll have to read between the lines when he's talking about Cortez (there's a bit of "good Czar, bad boyars" going on).
What's interesting is how highly he speaks of his indigenous allies and even opponents, there's not a hint of disrespect (well, minus the Aztec practice of human sacrifices of course), he praises the skill, courage and discipline of the warriors, the craftmanship of their weapons and armor, and he's full of awe and wonder when they first arrive in Tenochtitlan:
"Among us were soldiers who had been in many parts of the world, including Constantinople, all over Italy, and Rome, and they said that they had never seen a plaza so well laid out, so orderly, so large, and so full of people."
The good thing about the accounts, it's their biased views about Spain were clear. That's why I like them. There was no unified feeling, and they were enemies in many cases. That's why the accounts offer a better view.
There's no mystery here. The Aztecs ruled brutally over dozens of other indigenous groups, they practised slavery and human sacrifice. When the Spanish showed impressive military equipment and the implication (when reinforcements arrived, albeit in small numbers) that they represented a powerful external military force, ancestral opponents who'd been subjugated by the Aztec empire were quick to throw in their lot.
It wasn't just the captive slaves and human sacrifice either (though that was a big deal), the Aztecs imposed crushing economic tribute burdens on subjugated city-states, and when payments fell short, they'd go in and raid. Tribute wasn't just gold and tradeable goods, it was also food, and the Aztecs didn't care if they drove a place into famine.
There were also rival indigenous states (Tlaxcala, etc.) that were never conquered by the Aztecs but had been trapped in continuous low-intensity war with them for years.
Though it is worth saying the Aztecs weren't universally despised. Some regional dynasties were allies. Some of those were also unpopular.
Spanish granted citizenship and protection from the crown to everybody playing under their rules. Spanish crown and Christianity promises should look shocking and also as 'best deal in my life' compared to the previous situation.
And as most military based societies, Aztecs had also a big problem with management of ecology and natural resources, caused with their own development, big cities with a less than optimum management of fecal waters, and never ending wars.
Deforestation came with dry spells and agriculture suffered while they were trying to negotiate a solution with the stars. All the social structure was supported by a lot of drugs abuse, probably.
You have to make the evil claim: that the Spanish invaders were seen as a better alternative to the indigenous Aztecs by at least a decent majority of the population (and then, later, the Inca) (maybe this even explains the final end of the Maya)
Which is both likely true and morally against what we currently seem to believe.
Was there a concept of "ingenuousness" for the natives? Even the Aztecs were relative newcomers to the area. They came from the north and enslaved the area. Why prefer their terror to the unknown future with the new people that appeared?
Maybe I should not have used the word foreigner, but my comment/question is not why did they prefer ally with the spanish on a moral point of view but why did they believe the spanish were strong enough to be followed against the aztecs if not for their military superiority.
I don't think there's a single and simple answer. One thing that Cortez managed to do was "demystify" the mighty Aztecs in the eyes of the people conquered and supressed by the Aztecs.
There was unrest and violence in the region long before Cortez arrived on the scene, when he did he was the external catalyst to ignite the powder keg. When reading accounts of the conquest, information gathering, political scheming and negotiations were often more "decisive" than the actual fighting.
Divide and conquer is as old as time. Any major power usually got there by unsavoury means, making a lot of enemies along the way. The same thing happened in the US and Canada, where tribes that had fought for centuries -- quite contrary to the noble tropes, it wasn't some big love-in, and the continent was littered with raping, pillaging, slavery, and so on -- so they were more than happy to faction off to opposing sides if it gave them more of an ability to exterminate their nemesis.
I just found out this [1] book review today about the Aztec society today and my takeway is that the Aztecs were a highly militaristic death cult. Almost all men were warriors educated for war at young age and competing with each other to get as most captives as possibles because this is what gives you status.
It doesn't mention the spanish conquest but I wouldn't be surprised if all those tribes living under Aztec rule needed a little morale boost and seeing a bunch of guys with iron weapons and armor who wanted to do away with the aztecs surely helped with that
I second this recommendation, with the caveat that it contains a much higher degree of horror than almost anything I've ever read, including accounts of Nazi death camps.
I read that same review a couple of weeks ago and it made a deep impression. It's one thing to know "the Aztecs practiced human sacrifice", and another to be confronted with the scale, sadism and calculation with which it was practiced.
You are right. I should have made that warning. This is not for the faint of heart.
"If anything, the Spaniards lacked the conceptual framework to fully comprehend the industrial-scale, ever-so-civilized and bureaucratic evil of the Mexica, and so they inadvertently downplayed it
[...]
No, the mass-butchery of wailing, pleading captives of both sexes and all ages was the core activity around which their entire civilization and society revolved. Their art, their music, their poetry, their approach to warfare, their entire economic system, their kaleidoscopic array of holidays and festivals, all were singularly dedicated to the killing (often preceded by inventive torture) of helpless human beings"
Their weapons were certainly not irrelevant. They had other capabilities to their weapons - much did the aztecs. And they also took down the empire with a decapitation strike while being hosted as a guest, with their weapons.
I think the opium war were also won due to weapon advantages. The British cannons could be fired from further away, they could handle larger charges of gunpowder than the Chinese. Another advantage of metallurgy. Today's jet engines are largely the same thing. Maybe the troops were also more battle hardened.
Also, the introduction of foreign pathogens which killed of many of the native population.
Usually a single explanation isn’t sufficient, but and it’s likely a combination of disease, better weapons, cultural differences (attitudes towards war and one another), alliances as you mentioned, etc.
Small Spanish forces could defeat much larger Aztec forces, particularly in open terrain where cavalry, steel weapons, and armor were effective. Alliances played a role, but better weaponry and warfare isn't just an anecdote. Spanish military strength helped make those alliances attractive.
I think it's hard to overstate just how categorical a difference in organizational and social doctrine the Spanish were away from the Aztecs. Everything from tactics to logistics train to how the soldiers are motivated. Look at the European wars of colonizing Africa in the 19th century if you want to see how that plays out when they meet in the field.
Like put the Black Prince up against Alexander and even Alexander has a uphill battle. Now take away Alexander's cavalry and give the Black Prince primitive firearms. Unless Alexander gets the jump on him or finds a way to make the meeting of forces otherwise highly unequal, that battle is probably only going one way, and that's for forces of comparable motivation levels.
The numbers disparity only gets you so far ancient empires generally lack the social sophistication to motivate soldiers (especially when recruited from their possessions/allies) to the degree that more modern societies do. Those Aztec conscripts who have been "voluntold" into service by their communities at best are not going to fight to the bloody end. They do not consider themselves citizens of "The Aztec Empire". They are not going to march to their near certain deaths for the benefit of the empire like they're some Red Army machine gun squad piling into a rowboat to cross the Volga in 1941. They can not even have the mental framework for that because a pre-industrial society does not run enough surplus for the state to do the things it must to create that in more than a "kings guard" sized force.
Edit:
For a comparison point, the Romans are "a level up" from a lot (but not all) of the societies match up with and they just mop the floor with them. And consequently, anyone who doesn't get subjugated right off the bat winds up looking a lot like the Romans socially and militarily because that's what it takes to compete with them. The Aztecs are competing with borderline stone age societies. They are essentially a bronze age society that's mastered the art of subjugating stone age societies. Spain is half a dozen or so levels up from that. So while the outcome wasn't guaranteed it shouldn't really surprise anyone that the kind of force that Spain can project across an ocean and beat what the Aztecs can field in their own back yard.
Exaggerating a bit, but I'm fairly sure the Spanish speech was: "if you kill the other guys with your much better weapons, you will reach El Dorado".
> Exaggerating a bit, but I'm fairly sure the Spanish speech was: "if you kill the other guys with your much better weapons, you will reach El Dorado"
And they basically did. Not a singular city of gold, perhaps, but the Spanish looted tens of billions of $$ worth silver and gold from Central/South America between 1492 and 1550. Which is all the more impressive given how little European manpower it took and how low their relative incomes would've been at the time.
... where gold is "gold and cochineal". The red dye brought back to Spain was much higher in value than the gold!
Ironically, Europe already had cochineal, but they foraged the source (parasitic beetles), while the bronze-age Aztecs had the brilliant idea to farm them on planted oak forests.
It was probably more like "I have committed treason and burned the ships we arrived on, the only way any of us are getting out of here alive is if we bring back so much gold they can't be angry"
The dude was beyond in over his head but somehow pulled it off.
I am not sure I am entirely convinced by how you make your point but I think I agree. Here is how I would make the case for it:
The Spaniards had armor and combat formation. Having basic protection and having men march next to you closely must make you quite confident.
On the other hand Aztec fighting style seems to be "Go berserk and attract enemies to you so you can harm them to take them as captive so you can sacrifice them later for prestige". You are actually competing with your fellow warriors to show how brave you are". It seems the culture has optimized for not taking into account fear of death.
That might be a big advantage against other tribes that have the same level of tech than you but haven't bet the farm on militaristic culture but it probably breaks down pretty quickly on armies who rely on "confidence in the collective" rather than individual prestige and have somewhat of a tech edge
Where are you getting the "go berserk" part? All of what I've read about the Aztec military is that it was highly hierarchical and organized, having special noble (pipiltin) officer schools (the calmecacs[1] where they learned of war and ruling, and the commoner (macehuali) class also having mandatory military training in the telpochcalli[2]. Also, from what I've read in the True History Of The Conquest of New Spain by conquistador Bernal
Diaz del Castillo, who participated in it, is that they generally ditched their metal armors rather quickly due to the heat, and instead adopting the indigenous cotton armors, they also mostly adopted indigenous ranged weapons, keeping only their swords and horses by the end of the Conquest. Bernal emphasizes the scale of the armies a lot in his book, and the indigenous allied city-states are incredibly important, specially the siege of Tenochtitlan.
[1] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calmecac" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calmecac
[2] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C4%93lpochcalli" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C4%93lpochcalli
I am definitely not an expert. This is from [this book review](<a href="https://www.thepsmiths.com/p/review-aztecs-by-inga-clendinnen" rel="nofollow">https://www.thepsmiths.com/p/review-aztecs-by-inga-clendinne...):
"This same zero-sum competition extended to the Mexica army, which as soon as battle was joined became not an army but a swirling melee of individual glory-seekers. The purpose of the Mexica warrior was not the victory of the group, but competition with his peers, and the way to win the competition was to secure captives for sacrifice to Huitzilopochtli. This singular fact drove almost everything about Mexica combat strategy, or the lack thereof. Great warriors wore towering feather headdresses to attract opponents so that they could be disabled and sacrificed. The Mexica had projectile weapons, but specifically designed them to be non-lethal and only employed them for demoralization. The Mexica wielded long, shallow obsidian blades and flint-studded clubs that were designed to incapacitate by cutting a hamstring or crushing a knee, rather than to kill. The only way to advance as a Mexica warrior was to sacrifice more captives than your peers,8 and the incentives of the system shaped everything else."
After some more reading, it seems indeed that this Inda Clendinnen book from 1991 may be lackluster on how the aztecs actually behaved on the field
Also notable is how much Spain's military strength was built up during the
Reconquista, where Spain's militaries expelled the Arab occupation of the Iberian Peninsula over hundreds of years. (The Arabs themselves having been incredibly successful conquerors since the 7th century.) Columbus sailed to the new world under the Spanish flag the same year the Spanish recaptured Grenada, the last Arab outpost in Spain.
Steel armor was definitely a huge advantage and the Indians soon learned that the only two reliable ways to defeat armored soldiers were to drown them or to throw large stones at them if they ventured into a narrow valley. Neither was usually available.
"the Spanish were vastly outnumbered, so their weapons alone were irrelevant in the battle"
Irrelevant? Tell this to Atahualpa Inca, who, during the second big Spanish conquest, was taken alive by a group of mere 168 Spanish soldiers, unsupported by any local warriors, while having at least several thousand guards with him. Force ratio of 40 or 50 to 1 ultimately made no difference.
I highly recommend this (long) book review discussing the conquistadors: <a href="https://mattlakeman.org/2025/03/24/conquest-of-the-incas/" rel="nofollow">https://mattlakeman.org/2025/03/24/conquest-of-the-incas/
TL;DR - native alliances were important, but Spanish armor made them nearly invincible against native weapons, their military tactics were superior, and cavalry were extremely overpowered against armies made up only of footsoldiers. Weaponry and tech were certainly not irrelevant.
I read Bernal Diaz's book about the conquest of Mexico and in it he says that formations of Aztec warriors would break when a conquistador would charge into formations on an armored horse. They thought the horse and rider was one sort of monster. It was also a combination of a bunch of things they had never seen before: steel weapons, armor, the power and mobility of a trained war horse.
I don't think they could have taken control of the Aztec empire without allies and a lot of political intrigue. I think a good modern analogy was how the US quickly took over Afghanistan after 911. You could say we did it with a small group of special forces and a lot of air power. But really it is more like there were already (warlord) factions ready to strike at the Taliban who knew they could win with air support and everything that would come after. For the Aztecs, the role of the cavalry was like those B52 strikes.
bugake · · focus · HN ↗
bythreads · · focus · HN ↗
justinator · · focus · HN ↗
justinator · · focus · HN ↗
<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/16/mexico-500-years-later-scientists-discover-what-killed-the-aztecs" rel="nofollow">https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/16/mexico-500-yea...
Within five years as many as 15 million people – an estimated 80% of the population – were wiped out in an epidemic the locals named “cocoliztli”. The word means pestilence in the Aztec Nahuatl language.
shaky-carrousel · · focus · HN ↗
red75prime · · focus · HN ↗
anthonypasq · · focus · HN ↗
im not exactly sure what this means, but if you are interested you should read Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond.
the reason it happened this way is because the Americas had very few domesticated animals and we get most of our diseases from animals.
justinator · · focus · HN ↗
That book has some many errors in it I actually suggest you don't read it.
mahboi · · focus · HN ↗
anthonypasq · · focus · HN ↗
anthonypasq · · focus · HN ↗
"why were Eurasians able to so easily take over the Americas" than this book.
jjk166 · · focus · HN ↗
First there were just more old world diseases which could infect humans than new world diseases. Prior to contact, the old world had about 80 to 90% of the world's total population, so a priori if a disease was to emerge in humans it was overwhelmingly more likely to emerge there. On top of that the old world saw much more domestication of livestock (and particularly livestock animals that had evolved alongside great apes) which in turn created more opportunities per capita for diseases to jump to humans.
For the exchange itself, Europeans were building the ships and sailing them to the New World. It was primarily Europeans on those ships, and especially those passengers who would be most likely to be incubating diseases (the old, young, and infirm) were overwhelmingly more likely to be Europeans headed west. Europeans afflicted with diseases after they reached the Americas would generally not have been allowed on ships back to Europe, or if they were they would likely not survive the voyage. Syphilis likely came from the new world, and it's easy to see how, but if there had been some American equivalent to small-pox it would simply have not been able to make the journey before going extinct as the native populations harboring it were wiped out by Old World diseases.
For it to have been "the other way around" the Americas would have needed a vastly different ecology and the people living there would have needed to beat the Old World to the level of technological development necessary to make contact.
red75prime · · focus · HN ↗
dainank · · focus · HN ↗
- European diseases
- superior weaponry
- alliances with local Aztec enemies
The first wave of smallpox killed 5-8 million and is by far one of the greatest factors.
somenameforme · · focus · HN ↗
narrator · · focus · HN ↗
flohofwoe · · focus · HN ↗
There's also plenty of accounts from the early days of Cortez' invasion where the Spaniards had a very hard time against the indigenous warriors even when the Spaniards were not largely outnumbered.
dbspin · · focus · HN ↗
flohofwoe · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted] · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted]
mahboi · · focus · HN ↗
jacquesm · · focus · HN ↗
somenameforme · · focus · HN ↗
The peasants immediately broke and fled, which is where you get the crazy ratios from - fleeing armies are extremely vulnerable and near harmless. Had they fought, they likely would have inflicted far greater casualties on the military forces. However given there were roughly comparable peasant and military forces, the outcome was not in question, so it would have been suicide. Of course so was fleeing.
[1] - <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Frankenhausen" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Frankenhausen
jrimbault · · focus · HN ↗
poulpy123 · · focus · HN ↗
453yuh46 · · focus · HN ↗
What most of the comments along with article writer are missing - it was not just technology, that Spanish used, but organization structure and command of professional military forces - that is one of the reason why 1000s of peasants were incapable to fight against couple of men in armor, as they lacked coordination - that would be the same as pitting street kids against a swat team, even if they were given the same weapons.
The same applies to Aztecs that had different POV and mindset against battle-hardened professional European soldiers - when you read how Aztec demise unfolded, in some of it you have to question what they were thinking, but that is mostly because of our modern bias, that has not much knowledge of their beliefs on how they viewed world around them.
Also, not more important fact - now, just like then, not all people were interested to be involved in war, and a peace agreement for them was even better than being part of alliance(and the choices here are to die for foreign Aztecs as one of them) and join fight. And those who already hated Aztecs to the guts, also had plenty of motivation to see all of that empire burn.
PS. People who are mentioning bunch of foreigners are clueless about European history - whole European FEUDALISM political system was born out of bunch of foreign raiders, that we know today as vikings and their descendants, that carved up Europe and limited their in-fighting with rules and brought unified force against those that challenged them. Europeans had pretty much the same scenario before repeated on native Americans and many times.
somenameforme · · focus · HN ↗
On top of being what enabled them to form alliances, it also begs another question. If it was primarily these masses that overwhelmed the Aztecs (and I don't disagree) then what need did they have of outsiders, let alone letting them act as rulers? It was the perception of alien levels of weaponry and technology that both gave the locals the morale they needed, and justified the Spaniards being deemed leaders.
flohofwoe · · focus · HN ↗
In the end the defeat of the Aztecs was decided just as much by politics as by violence.
Also it's not like Cortez won every battle, they were even catastrophically defeated in the "night of tears". Coming back from that defeat wouldn't have been possible without indigenous allies and their thousands of skilled and well-equipped warriors fighting on Cortez' side against the Aztecs even after Cortez was driven out of Tenochtitlan (and not to mention logistic support which was probably even more important).
Frieren · · focus · HN ↗
People sometimes needs a push to get onboard an idea. When you have been inside a system for along time it is difficult to see to what extreme is not just and how very possible it is the change it. Looking at you USA.
Cutalana · · focus · HN ↗
Lumich · · focus · HN ↗
Now that really epitomizes the (horrible) Usanian mindset and way of “thinking” (regardless of whether or not that's where you're actually from).
What if the Indios were actually interested in listening to what the Spaniards had to say? They said there is no need for human sacrifice – because there is a god that doesn't require sacrifice, having settled that once and for all by sacrifying his own son.
The world would be in a much better state if there were any (or more) real Christians in the USA instead of the materialist sects that pose as such (or even as sth else) and bring the unfortunate “blessings” of their “culture” over the globe.
StableAlkyne · · focus · HN ↗
What is a usanian?
pizzafeelsright · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted] · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted]
owebmaster · · focus · HN ↗
IAmBroom · · focus · HN ↗
Sometimes people simply use words because of a generally accepted dictionary meaning. Like you are doing to read this.
moate · · focus · HN ↗
It's the equivalent of calling a white guy a honkey in 2026 - cringe and not going to get the reaction you hope for unless doing it comedically.
jjk166 · · focus · HN ↗
You presuppose they needed the outsiders. The Aztec empire was not some ancient, unwavering fact of life which the native mesoamericans could not conceive of changing. It only lasted 100 years. It is entirely possible that the rebellion was going to happen anyways in the next few years or decades and the arrival of the Spanish was just the butterfly flapping its wings that happened to trigger it at that moment.
> justified the Spaniards being deemed leaders.
The native allies of the conquistadors installed the Spanish to replace the Aztecs in exchange for a lower tax rate and increased independence. They did not accept spanish leadership, they just preferred empowering a neutral third party than any particular longstanding rival. Spanish domination came later after smallpox decimated the native population and intermarriages with the pre-existing elite meant there was no native power structure left to stand up to them.
CSMastermind · · focus · HN ↗
The historical record is completely clear and we have first hand accounts, primary sources, from the people present. It's all readily available and anyone interest can easily verify it.
And yet, even in the comments responding to yours, people confidently state just blatantly untrue things.
[deleted] · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted]
amelius · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted] · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted]
mahboi · · focus · HN ↗
Viliam1234 · · focus · HN ↗
cassepipe · · focus · HN ↗
CSMastermind · · focus · HN ↗
- Gunpowder and steel had essentially nothing to do with Cortez's victory.
- The Aztecs did not see the Spaniards as Gods
- Smallpox played a role at the very end but had little to do with Cortez's victory.
- They leave out the primary reason Cortez won (his ability to build a coalition of native people who hated the Aztecs).
- They leave out the secondary reason Cortez won (superior European battle tactics).
- They ignore the fact that there were Europeans fighting on both sides (a delegation was sent from Cuba to stop Cortez; they were the ones that actually brought the smallpox not Cortez).
weberer · · focus · HN ↗
CSMastermind · · focus · HN ↗
The idea that the Aztecs took the Spanish for gods and specifically that Moctezuma mistook Cortez's for the returning god Quetzalcoatl is fiction. We actually know the exact book that it came from.
Smallpox did play a role but it was brought by the slaves of Europeans sent to _stop_ Cortez nearly two years after he started fighting the Aztecs. By the time smallpox killed Moctezuma's successor, Cortez's victory was already assured. The disease was not the key to his victory; it was more that it prevented insurgency after the conquest.
Also worth noting that if your theory was that Cortez won because of the gun powder or steel that is hard to square because by the time the two forces clashed the Aztecs had more of it then he did given the rival European forces trying to stop him.
Cortez won primarily because he had an army with a nucleus of veterans from the Italian wars that applied the lessons of the Reconquista.
The technology that let him win was European tactics and political manuevering not anything physical they brought with them.
[deleted] · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted]
beloch · · focus · HN ↗
When the Spanish showed up, the Aztec's enemies didn't immediately line up to join the anti-Mexica alliance, as some people tend to think. The Spanish weren't seen as gods and worshipped. Pestilence would be a factor later on, but in early days the natives they met were quite healthy. The Spanish weren't seen as foreigners from across the sea or anything special because that wasn't really a concept for the natives. The Spanish were just another funny looking tribe from over the horizon that had showed up to fight for space, much like the Aztec's once had.
The Spanish initially had to fight hostile tribes on their own. There were battles where they had to fight through the night, while they were injured, and against incredible odds. The Spanish, especially the ones from Extremadura, were widely regarded by contemporary Europeans as some of the very best soldiers on the continent. Only after they'd done some hard fighting were they seen as having a chance against the Mexica and worth making alliances with.
So, yes, the Spanish won allies who helped them fight the Mexica, but they needed their guns, steel, and horses to win those allies.
meerita · · focus · HN ↗
beloch · · focus · HN ↗
meerita · · focus · HN ↗
flohofwoe · · focus · HN ↗
What's interesting is how highly he speaks of his indigenous allies and even opponents, there's not a hint of disrespect (well, minus the Aztec practice of human sacrifices of course), he praises the skill, courage and discipline of the warriors, the craftmanship of their weapons and armor, and he's full of awe and wonder when they first arrive in Tenochtitlan:
"Among us were soldiers who had been in many parts of the world, including Constantinople, all over Italy, and Rome, and they said that they had never seen a plaza so well laid out, so orderly, so large, and so full of people."
meerita · · focus · HN ↗
andrewcl · · focus · HN ↗
poulpy123 · · focus · HN ↗
dbspin · · focus · HN ↗
AlanYx · · focus · HN ↗
There were also rival indigenous states (Tlaxcala, etc.) that were never conquered by the Aztecs but had been trapped in continuous low-intensity war with them for years.
Though it is worth saying the Aztecs weren't universally despised. Some regional dynasties were allies. Some of those were also unpopular.
pvaldes · · focus · HN ↗
And as most military based societies, Aztecs had also a big problem with management of ecology and natural resources, caused with their own development, big cities with a less than optimum management of fecal waters, and never ending wars.
Deforestation came with dry spells and agriculture suffered while they were trying to negotiate a solution with the stars. All the social structure was supported by a lot of drugs abuse, probably.
spwa4 · · focus · HN ↗
Which is both likely true and morally against what we currently seem to believe.
dragandj · · focus · HN ↗
poulpy123 · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted] · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted]
flohofwoe · · focus · HN ↗
There was unrest and violence in the region long before Cortez arrived on the scene, when he did he was the external catalyst to ignite the powder keg. When reading accounts of the conquest, information gathering, political scheming and negotiations were often more "decisive" than the actual fighting.
dragandj · · focus · HN ↗
llm_nerd · · focus · HN ↗
cassepipe · · focus · HN ↗
It doesn't mention the spanish conquest but I wouldn't be surprised if all those tribes living under Aztec rule needed a little morale boost and seeing a bunch of guys with iron weapons and armor who wanted to do away with the aztecs surely helped with that
[1](<a href="https://www.thepsmiths.com/p/review-aztecs-by-inga-clendinnen" rel="nofollow">https://www.thepsmiths.com/p/review-aztecs-by-inga-clendinne...)
jaredhansen · · focus · HN ↗
I read that same review a couple of weeks ago and it made a deep impression. It's one thing to know "the Aztecs practiced human sacrifice", and another to be confronted with the scale, sadism and calculation with which it was practiced.
cassepipe · · focus · HN ↗
"If anything, the Spaniards lacked the conceptual framework to fully comprehend the industrial-scale, ever-so-civilized and bureaucratic evil of the Mexica, and so they inadvertently downplayed it
[...]
No, the mass-butchery of wailing, pleading captives of both sexes and all ages was the core activity around which their entire civilization and society revolved. Their art, their music, their poetry, their approach to warfare, their entire economic system, their kaleidoscopic array of holidays and festivals, all were singularly dedicated to the killing (often preceded by inventive torture) of helpless human beings"
Lumich · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
cucumber3732842 · · focus · HN ↗
"Starbucks-and-airport-lounges class" is a good phrase. I'm gonna use that one.
psychoslave · · focus · HN ↗
ionwake · · focus · HN ↗
ionwake · · focus · HN ↗
general_reveal · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
cindyllm · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
boringg · · focus · HN ↗
thijson · · focus · HN ↗
Insanity · · focus · HN ↗
Usually a single explanation isn’t sufficient, but and it’s likely a combination of disease, better weapons, cultural differences (attitudes towards war and one another), alliances as you mentioned, etc.
[deleted] · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted]
shin_lao · · focus · HN ↗
sorbusherra · · focus · HN ↗
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Malinche" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Malinche
seki285 · · focus · HN ↗
cucumber3732842 · · focus · HN ↗
Like put the Black Prince up against Alexander and even Alexander has a uphill battle. Now take away Alexander's cavalry and give the Black Prince primitive firearms. Unless Alexander gets the jump on him or finds a way to make the meeting of forces otherwise highly unequal, that battle is probably only going one way, and that's for forces of comparable motivation levels.
The numbers disparity only gets you so far ancient empires generally lack the social sophistication to motivate soldiers (especially when recruited from their possessions/allies) to the degree that more modern societies do. Those Aztec conscripts who have been "voluntold" into service by their communities at best are not going to fight to the bloody end. They do not consider themselves citizens of "The Aztec Empire". They are not going to march to their near certain deaths for the benefit of the empire like they're some Red Army machine gun squad piling into a rowboat to cross the Volga in 1941. They can not even have the mental framework for that because a pre-industrial society does not run enough surplus for the state to do the things it must to create that in more than a "kings guard" sized force.
Edit: For a comparison point, the Romans are "a level up" from a lot (but not all) of the societies match up with and they just mop the floor with them. And consequently, anyone who doesn't get subjugated right off the bat winds up looking a lot like the Romans socially and militarily because that's what it takes to compete with them. The Aztecs are competing with borderline stone age societies. They are essentially a bronze age society that's mastered the art of subjugating stone age societies. Spain is half a dozen or so levels up from that. So while the outcome wasn't guaranteed it shouldn't really surprise anyone that the kind of force that Spain can project across an ocean and beat what the Aztecs can field in their own back yard.
oblio · · focus · HN ↗
Exaggerating a bit, but I'm fairly sure the Spanish speech was: "if you kill the other guys with your much better weapons, you will reach El Dorado".
Windchaser · · focus · HN ↗
And they basically did. Not a singular city of gold, perhaps, but the Spanish looted tens of billions of $$ worth silver and gold from Central/South America between 1492 and 1550. Which is all the more impressive given how little European manpower it took and how low their relative incomes would've been at the time.
IAmBroom · · focus · HN ↗
Ironically, Europe already had cochineal, but they foraged the source (parasitic beetles), while the bronze-age Aztecs had the brilliant idea to farm them on planted oak forests.
aerodexis · · focus · HN ↗
riodoro · · focus · HN ↗
cucumber3732842 · · focus · HN ↗
The dude was beyond in over his head but somehow pulled it off.
cassepipe · · focus · HN ↗
The Spaniards had armor and combat formation. Having basic protection and having men march next to you closely must make you quite confident.
On the other hand Aztec fighting style seems to be "Go berserk and attract enemies to you so you can harm them to take them as captive so you can sacrifice them later for prestige". You are actually competing with your fellow warriors to show how brave you are". It seems the culture has optimized for not taking into account fear of death.
That might be a big advantage against other tribes that have the same level of tech than you but haven't bet the farm on militaristic culture but it probably breaks down pretty quickly on armies who rely on "confidence in the collective" rather than individual prestige and have somewhat of a tech edge
babilal · · focus · HN ↗
infinite8s · · focus · HN ↗
cassepipe · · focus · HN ↗
"This same zero-sum competition extended to the Mexica army, which as soon as battle was joined became not an army but a swirling melee of individual glory-seekers. The purpose of the Mexica warrior was not the victory of the group, but competition with his peers, and the way to win the competition was to secure captives for sacrifice to Huitzilopochtli. This singular fact drove almost everything about Mexica combat strategy, or the lack thereof. Great warriors wore towering feather headdresses to attract opponents so that they could be disabled and sacrificed. The Mexica had projectile weapons, but specifically designed them to be non-lethal and only employed them for demoralization. The Mexica wielded long, shallow obsidian blades and flint-studded clubs that were designed to incapacitate by cutting a hamstring or crushing a knee, rather than to kill. The only way to advance as a Mexica warrior was to sacrifice more captives than your peers,8 and the incentives of the system shaped everything else."
After some more reading, it seems indeed that this Inda Clendinnen book from 1991 may be lackluster on how the aztecs actually behaved on the field
[deleted] · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted]
mahboi · · focus · HN ↗
rayiner · · focus · HN ↗
inglor_cz · · focus · HN ↗
"the Spanish were vastly outnumbered, so their weapons alone were irrelevant in the battle"
Irrelevant? Tell this to Atahualpa Inca, who, during the second big Spanish conquest, was taken alive by a group of mere 168 Spanish soldiers, unsupported by any local warriors, while having at least several thousand guards with him. Force ratio of 40 or 50 to 1 ultimately made no difference.
npilk · · focus · HN ↗
TL;DR - native alliances were important, but Spanish armor made them nearly invincible against native weapons, their military tactics were superior, and cavalry were extremely overpowered against armies made up only of footsoldiers. Weaponry and tech were certainly not irrelevant.
UncleOxidant · · focus · HN ↗
mahboi · · focus · HN ↗
YeGoblynQueenne · · focus · HN ↗
georgeecollins · · focus · HN ↗
I don't think they could have taken control of the Aztec empire without allies and a lot of political intrigue. I think a good modern analogy was how the US quickly took over Afghanistan after 911. You could say we did it with a small group of special forces and a lot of air power. But really it is more like there were already (warlord) factions ready to strike at the Taliban who knew they could win with air support and everything that would come after. For the Aztecs, the role of the cavalry was like those B52 strikes.
IAmBroom · · focus · HN ↗
Oh, those foolish savages! They're so dumb!
Good thing we know what they thought as they died, so we don't have to guess with self-congratulatory scorn as our guiding self-check.
mahboi · · focus · HN ↗