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.
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.
bugake · · focus · HN ↗
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.