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.
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.
bugake · · focus · HN ↗
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 ↗